Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edtharan

  1. The real difference when we make measurements of quantum systems is that they don't behave as systems we have had a lifetime of experience with. There is a roughtly equal amount of "indirect" measurment between them observed effect and us in both quantum and macroscopic. Typically there is a machine that sits between us and the phenomina that takes the measurments. In the macroscopic scale this could be a video camera, a microscope, a piece of string, an electronic switch, etc. In the quantum scale we have machines that sit between us and the thing we are trying to observe. It is the same
  2. This doesn't work with observed phenomena like tunnelling, the Casimir effect, electrons (there are specific effects that can not occur if electrons had a definite location, protons (again, properties of the proton require that it have a non specific location/momentum or we would observe the behaviours of them to be different), quarks and a whole host of other observed phenomena that would be different if quantum systems had defined position/momentum attributes. Basically the last 50 Or more years of observations and measurements disproves your claim here. Actually it does. You claim
  3. I have always though of philosophy as sorting out the good ideas (as in: thoughts) from the bad ones. It does mean discussing the bad ideas, and that can end up in a lot of fussiness and to a casual listener it might appear pedantic, but the end goal is to work out useful concepts from the dross of random human thought.
  4. Yes, God would be able to do that and if I had magic powers, I could do it (I'd use my magic to make the man grow hair and then pull him by it - or there is hair on other places, you could pull him by a beard). Notice I use the term "Unnecessary" evil/suffering. If a suffering is necessary, then it is not unnecessary. If God created necessary suffering then that is right (that is it has nothing to do with good or evil). If God causes unnecesary suffering, then He is evil. As God is all powerful, then He could have created a universe with free will and no suffering or sin. The fact th
  5. But with an infinitely powerful God, this was unnecessary. Being infinitely powerful, God would have had an infinite number of ways to do achieve this. Not only that, He would have had an infinite number of ways to do this that required no suffering at all, is 100% effective (that is every single soul is saved and punishment and Hell are unnecessary), occurred instantly (and continuously - which didn't require it to occur at a certain point in time so we would have already been saved from the start) and still allowed for everything to have occurred as is has with free will and everything.
  6. Yes, if you analyse it as an algorithm, then yes you end up with recursitivty and circular reasoning. But, if you take a step back, then the fact that you are experiencing that means that there must be something real to experience that. Thus, if you are capable of experiencing "thinking" then you can conclude that you are real (of course, this does not prove you are real to anyone else. It only proves that you are real to you).
  7. Actually what you said is not logical. It is in fact a logical fallacy (that is false logic). Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division Therefore it is not logical to say that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then the quantum would has to be as well. But, as your arguments rely on logical fallacies, and there is a lot of data that show the quantum world is less deterministic than the macroscopic world, then your arguments seem to lack much in the way of support. But, that residual force would be the product of a non-classical effect (specific
  8. I only skimmed the bulk of the thread, so if I am repeating something I apologies in advance. The problem is with the word "Chance" or "Randomness". With evolution there is no dispute that there is some kind of randomness involved, but evolution itself is not a random process. It is only the variation in biological evolution that has anything really to do with chance (sure there is still a little bit of chance as a stray meteor might just fall and wipe out a whole group of species - like what happened with the dinosaurs). The est of it (selection, reproduction, etc) has almost no randomnes
  9. The concept of infinity is actually quite well studied. There are even quite well established properties that infinity must have. Of course, most people when they say God is all powerful just mean that they haven't actually given much thought as to what God could do, but will just say that if anything occurs, then God could have done that. An interesting problem of infinity is that God should have the power to make a rock that He could not lift. However, when you actually apply infinity to it, God can make that rock, but then He has the power to lift it. Infinite power must contain the pow
  10. Just because we think (or fell) that something should be a certain way does not mean that is has to be that way, or is that way. Just because it would make more sense to you that quantum reality is deterministic, does not mean that it has to be (or is) deterministic. Remember, we are product of reality, reality is not a product of us. The reason I was using that assumption is that you had use the assumption that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then that means that the quantum world must be too. Actually, if you look at the macroscopic world, it is not completely d
  11. But, if God is perfect, and infinity powerful, then why would He have had to create an imperfect system? So, if you believe this, then you have to explain why God deliberately and unnecessarily created suffering and evil. And, reconcile this with a God that is absolutely good and wishes us to not have to suffer or be subject to evil. Because God is supposed to be all powerful and infinitely good and knowledgeable, then He could have made the universe otherwise. Because God is supposed to be infinitely powerful and merciful He could forgive without the need of sacrifice (and the bi
  12. Why should this be true? There are known phenomena called "Emergent Phenomena". These are behaviours that are not part of the basic "rules" of a system, but derive from them in a way that is difficult (or impossible) to predict without letting the system operate (whether it is probability based or deterministic, these things occur). One example is something called a cellular automata, specifically the one Called "Conway's game of Life" (you can get probabilistic ones, this one just happens to be deterministic). Conway's Game of Life uses a grid of "Cells" (hence: cellular automata). Ea
  13. What about axioms that are true because they must be? Such as: I want a hot chocolate. If I want a hot chocolate, then it is true I want a hot chocolate. If I am using this as the basis of an argument (such as why I need to go buy some milk), then the axiom is true because it must be true (If I don't want a hot chocolate, then I don't desire a hot chocolate). The most famous of these is: I think therefore I am. To be able to think you must exist. Something that does not exist can not have thoughts.
  14. Actually the rate needed for placing of the blocks could be done, as long as you realise that blocks don't have to be places sequentially, but can be placed in different parts of a site at the same time. There is quite good documentary evidence that exists of how the ancient peoples managed to place blocks so accurately. One technique is to cover the lower stone with chalk (or other material) and then lower the top block onto it. Then you lift the top block and where there is chalk on it, you have to chip off part of the block. Using this technique it is possible (and has been demonst
  15. The reason that the quantum world seems so strange is that we didn't evolve in it. We evolved in a macroscopic world where the effects of the quantum weirdness is smeared out and not noticeable. Also, because we have evolved in a world where their are macroscopic changes to overcome, we have evolved to perceive and deal with these. Think of it like this: When using your computer you don't need to know how all the transistors are switching inside the CPU. However, all these get bundled together (sort of smeared together if you will) into larger scale effects, ultimately resulting in
  16. The interesting thing about Ezekiel 18 20 is that it sort of nullifies the original sin. If the Son won't take on the fathers sin, then why did God not let Cain and Able back into the garden of Eden? They didn't eat from the tree of knowledge, that was their father and mother that did that and "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father". So, maybe the son shall bear the iniquity of the mother then, that would explain it I guess .
  17. Well, as a social species, if we harmed people just because we felt like it, and if everyone did that, the trust that is needed for the society to remain together would disintegrate. So, the reason it is wrong to harm people is that we are a social species and we want the society we are in to continue. Actually, in ethics, it can generally be brought down to that. Interestingly these axioms can be taken to be true because they are necessary to be social. If you don't agree with the axioms, then you are antisocial (and the question is really in terms of ethics in a society). Another way
  18. IF (and that is a big if) aliens are visiting us, then I think we will have to have certain traits in common. For them to come to us, they must be a technological species. That is: They must have developed the ability to build machines and tools that would enable them to cross interstellar distances. This means that they have to be a social species. No non-social species could build such devices. Even our modern (that is: non-hyper technology) takes millions of hours to go from raw materials to finished product (it is just that much of it can be done in parallel, but that requires a so
  19. There is an example in game theory that helps explain generosity (and altruism too). This is the example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game In the ultimatum game, one player is given a sum of money and is then required to split it with another player. However, the second player has the power to reject, or accept the deal. If the deal is accepted, then both players get the amount specified by the first player. However, if the second player rejects the deal, then neither player gets any money. Now, on a first look, it seems that, as any money is better than none, as the sec
  20. Have a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 It starts to talk about it at around 2:40. Basically, there are natural systems that can reproduce. Crystals are one example. But the video talks about how lipid bi-layers can grow (by absorbing other lipids) and reproduce (due to mechanical forces - like from waves against rocks). It also talks about how nucleotide monomers can join together into nucleotide polymer chains and then form pair bonded chains. And, when environmental changes (typically temperature) occur, it can cause the pair boned chains to separate into the c
  21. To support a statement along the lines of “scence has demonstrated that...”, I expect a standard of proof appropriate to science. But that standard is not appropriate for every investigation. Why? Practical constraints aside, why should we not strive for the best evidence and proof we can get and use the most reliable methodologies we have available? Why wouldn't you hold evidence up to the most rigorous standards we have? The only reason I can think you wouldn't: is if you are afraid that you might be found to be wrong. I am willing to change my mind given proof. This is why
  22. Not so. I just asked you to apply the same criteria you require for science and apply it to belief in God. It is not begging the question, or rejecting evidence. I did neither (so in fact you are just presenting a strawman here). You required that Science have: Thus to believe in God you must have equally strong evidence FOR it. This is because you requier evidence FOR the scientific view point. Thus, if you are not "rejecting the evidence you don't like", then you have to requier the same level of evidence for either position. If you don't this is a logical fallacy called "Bias".
  23. Algorithms are a branch of mathematics. If you look at the history of mathematics, it started with simple statements like 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 2 = 3. Now, these simple statements can be generalise to statements like a + a = 2a and so on. This first step of generalisation is called Algebra. Interestingly algebraic statements can also be generalised into functions. And when you combine these functions together they are called Algorithms. An example is trying to find the area left over from a square with a circle cut out of it that has the same diameter as the length of a side of the squ
  24. Aid has to be given in an effective manner. For instance, just sending food to a country can cause the price of food produced locally in that country to drop (in accordance with supply and demand). Now, as the farmers in that country are dependent on the food they produce to earn them money, giving food aid causes those farmers to not be able to earn a living selling the food they produce, they have to sell more of it and make less money altogether. This causes a vicious cycle where by the farmers become dependent on the food aid. The other problem with these situations is that the
  25. I think this is the important point: How is an observer supposed to differentiate this, and how could we, looking back thousands of years by reading what someone we have never met though it was?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.