Science/christianity/intelligent design

[REASON]

"Today there is a wide measure of agreement…that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine [Capra, p.86, 1982]."

 

But who or what is doing the thinking?

 

The conundrum remains. If a physical reality requires a conscious observer, and consciousness requires a physical brain, one cannot generate the other simultaneously. If a physical brain is not required for consciousness, then there would be no need to create a physical reality. Also, there would be no individual consciousness as you and I have suggested. What makes our consciousness individual is the physical structure that contains it, and the unique knowledge and perspective we possess. But now we're back to a physical container that can't exist without our consciousness.

 

Back to the drawing board. :applause:

[InfiniteNow]

Haven't we been through this already in like 3 other threads? :applause::applause:

[Moontanman]

Haven't we been through this already in like 3 other threads? :applause::applause:

 

It is a persistent idea, you have to give them that:doh:

[REASON]

Haven't we been through this already in like 3 other threads? :applause::applause:

 

Yes. Sorry. Wrong thread.

 

 

So anyway -

 

Science - Good!

 

Christianity - To each his own.

 

Intelligent Design - Bad idea.

[Thunderbird]

Yes. Sorry. Wrong thread.

 

 

So anyway -

 

Science - Good!

 

Christianity - To each his own.

 

Intelligent Design - Bad idea.

I'll go along with that. :applause: if anyone wants to continue with the "reality" debate we still have another thread "Where does reality Reside" I feel we still haven't got to the heart of the "matter" :applause:, yet.

[InfiniteNow]

You guys are too funny. :applause:

[jedaisoul]

Not on the quantum level.

Prescisely! The quantum level is not the be-all-and-end-all. It does not describe the whole of reality. How simple is that???

 

People who have a philosophical viewpoint that there is no physical universe external to our experience of it have seized on the claims that QM defines the universe, like a religious experience. The science is too new, and largely unproven. And, as been pointed out, simply does not match observations of the macro universe. That does not make it bad science, but it does not make it authoritative either.

[jedaisoul]

As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to support the claim that the archetype for dragons appeared simultaneously, or even independently, in multiple cultures. It is quite possible that it spread from a more ancient culture.

The dragon is a "Mythical_creature" typically depicted as a gigantic and powerful Serpent symbolism or other "Reptile" with "Magical" or "Spirituality" qualities. Most dragons are either European_dragon derived from various European folk traditions, or unrelated Oriental_dragon", derived from the "/wiki/Chinese_dragon" (lóng).

I stand corrected. Thank you. However, that simply indicates there are two separate archetypes, the european dragon and the chinese one.

 

No observer, no sound, no tree, no reality, We are having a lively discusion on this here,Philosophy and Humanities, "Where does reality reside" if you care to prove there is a "realty" out side of our perseption...

This sounds like a reasonable comment, until you put it in context. What I said was:

For example, would you agree that a tree that falls in the forest makes no sound if there is no one there to hear it? Indeed, that tree simply does not exist unless someone experiences it at that time. Of course, I can't prove this is not true, but there are very good reasons to suggest this is so. If everything blinked in and out of existence depending on when it was being observed, then the physical laws of conservation of matter and energy would fail, big time. They don't. Now that does not prove that the physical reality exists outside our perception of it, nor that tomorrow the laws of physics won't fail, but there is an aweful lot of scientific evidence behind that view. What evidence do you have to support your view?

So:

• I'd already said you cannot prove that the physical universe exsts outside our perception of it.
  
• I gave the physical laws of conservation of matter and energy as evidence that reality is not perception based.
  
• I asked for any evidence to support your view.

Simply repeating your view is not evidence.

[jedaisoul]

The challenge associated with twentieth century quantum physics is monumental. Theories and interpretations for explaining quantum events appear mystical, if not whimsical to the outside observer. Theories such as infinite universes, pilot waves and the need for a conscious observer to create physical reality are indicators that our present worldview is falling apart.

True. We need to hold on to what is proven, in a scientific sense, as opposed to what is fashionable.

 

"Today there is a wide measure of agreement…that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine [Capra, p.86, 1982]."

This is Capra's opinion. There is no "wide measure of agreement", and there won't be until someone comes up with some evidence to support these claims. Mathematical models are not enough.

 

However, I acknowledge the comment made elsewhere that this, perhaps, is not the thread to discuss this issue in...

[pigeon_soup]

good men will always do good things. evil men will always do evil thing. but for a good man to do somthing evil, that takes religion

 

I can't remember where I heard this quote but I do belive it to be one of the truest things anyone has ever said. I personally do not beleive in any god or gods and agree with uncle al as far as if there is a god how did god come about?

 

pigeon.

[Thunderbird]

Prescisely! The quantum level is not the be-all-and-end-all. It does not describe the whole of reality. How simple is that???

.

This is not logical.... its the very simply Fact that the building blocks of reality or not really blocks at all. there are no things at quantum level, therefore no things at macro level, there are only connections. If you want to continue this As I have pointed out a thread open for this discussion, Where does reality reside: philosophy and humanity.

 

 

 

5

. Conclusion

 

 

 

Because quantum mechanics always gives an accurate description of what we perceive, I do not believe there is an objective reality. In addition the two problems—explaining why only the branch associated with the objective reality is perceived, and overcoming the technical difficulties—present formidable barriers to the construction of a satisfactory objective reality theory. I would not like to hang my view of reality on the slim possibility that these problems will be solved.

 

 

 

6. The Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

The Copenhagen interpretation says, in essence, that the physical world divides into two aspects, a macroscopic, large-scale aspect and a microscopic, atomic-scale aspect. It is only the macroscopic aspect—meters, cats, and so on—that we directly perceive. So, says this interpretation, because we cannot directly perceive on the atomic scale, it is useless to speculate on the nature of matter on that scale. (And by implication, it is useless to search for an explanation of the mysteries of quantum mechanics.)

 

Because of the following points, I simply don’t agree with this point of view.

 

• We perceive something.

 

• What we perceive agrees in every checkable instance with the characteristics of the wave function.

 

• We have argued that it is very difficult to defend the existence of an objective (microscopic or macroscopic) reality separate from the wave function.

 

So, even though we cannot verify the nature of matter by "direct perception," it still seems valid to conclude that matter, on every scale, consists of the wave function and the wave function alone.

 

We might consider an analogy here. Imagine a picture of a beautiful snow-capped mountain, digitally printed. The various pixels correspond in the analogy to the facts of science while the whole picture corresponds to the implications, or the meaning of the facts of science. To me, the Copenhagen interpretation is like saying we are only allowed to pay attention to the pixels. We have no business inferring what the mountain actually looks like from the picture. Casey Blood PH.D.

[InfiniteNow]

I can't remember where I heard this quote but I do belive it to be one of the truest things anyone has ever said.

 

Hi Pigeon,

 

It was a pretty smart guy named Steven Weinberg. :phones:

 

 

Here it is how he actually said it:

 

"With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."

[Thunderbird]

Hi Pigeon,

 

It was a pretty smart guy named Steven Weinberg. :)

 

 

Here it is how he actually said it:

 

"With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."

...or nationalism. Is there a real moral difference between an individual's act of killing a family in order to gain their property, and an individual acting in behalf of a government or agent of a government that bombs a family in the name of freedom, when the real objective is to gain power for an elite few that have predetermined innocent lives lost are expendable in order to gain their countries assets.

[pigeon_soup]

hey InfiniteNow

 

I was close(ish) to the origonal quote and having reread it i can not beleive how bad my spelling was, truly shameful. still I honestly do not beleive that releigon in any form is linked to science atall, I'd go as far as to say they where polar opisits.

[InfiniteNow]

I was close(ish) to the origonal quote

 

Good word. :( Don't worry too much about the spelling. As long as you try and we know what you mean, you'll be alright.

[InfiniteNow]

...or nationalism. Is there a real moral difference between an individual's act of killing a family in order to gain their property, and an individual acting in behalf of a government or agent of a government that bombs a family in the name of freedom, when the real objective is to gain power for an elite few that have predetermined innocent lives lost are expendable in order to gain their countries assets.

 

I guess we're getting into a gray area on how evil is defined. Either way, it wasn't my quote, so I'm not too inclined to defend it. ;)

 

 

Hey, let's go burn some homos. The bible says they're abominable. Then, we can throw rocks at some Muslims for practicing a false religion. Yay! I'm going to heaven because I lived by the tenets of a book written 2,000 years ago. :(

[Thunderbird]

I guess we're getting into a gray area on how evil is defined. Either way, it wasn't my quote, so I'm not too inclined to defend it.

 

 

No reason to defend it, your quote is true. I was just pointing out that it's not the only source of fanaticism. The uninformed are manipulated in many ways. The example of the Iraq war was waged by manipulating both the sense of a threat to our country, and as a threat from a fanatical religious state. Both of these were lies in that there were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was not a terrorist state, was not a religious state. Fear and ignorance are not just the burden of the religious, it can also be the down fall of the secular, if I wanted to manipulate a staunch atheist, with strong anti religious views, and subsequently has little knowledge of various religions in a region, I could as a politician or preacher play on those fears to rally support for war.