The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: God does not play dice  (Read 15889 times)

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
God does not play dice
« Reply #25 on: 13/10/2008 16:48:10 »
Quote
I still think that you haven't really thought through what dimensions are all about.
Funnily enough, I think I've spent far too much time thinking through what dimensions are all about.  Doesn't mean I'm right, of course:)

Well, as a last attempt at trying to illustrate the point, consider a tangent to a point on a helix, where the helix represents a course, implying direction.  At any point along the course the tangent will point in just one direction, through three-dimensional space, so while the space is three-dimensional the movement is not.

..or another last attempt (or two): Get a length of string and wrap it around any 3D object to represent a course around that object.  Although the course, represented by the string, moves through three dimensions it only has length but no width or height.  Alternatively, and as it doesn't make any difference if the lines are straight or not, get two sheets of A4 paper and draw a straight line parallel to one side on one sheet, representing a course through one dimension, then draw a straight line diagonally across the other sheet, representing a course through two dimensions.  Finally, lay one of the sheets on top of the other and align the two lines - the only possible difference between the the two lines is their length.
 

lyner

  • Guest
God does not play dice
« Reply #26 on: 13/10/2008 23:49:12 »
I hear (read) what you are saying but, irrespective of the coordinate system you use, there are more options for where you can move to than exist on one dimension.

You cannot give another person instructions about how to get from point A to point B without using three dimensions. If you just tell them to fly 20m, they can end up anywhere inside a sphere of 20m radius. That is why we have to use 'dimensions' and coordinates and why you can't ignore them.

On the other hand, you can only tell someone that you will meet them in 6hours' time. Both your clocks will be going at the same rate - in one dimension.

I have a feeling that I have lost your thread. What are you actually trying to say that goes against my two statements above?
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
God does not play dice
« Reply #27 on: 14/10/2008 03:31:19 »
Although the course, represented by the string, moves through three dimensions it only has length but no width or height.

Thanks LeeE, made me think of the nature of gravity waves!

Sorry, unconnected it may seem, but..
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
God does not play dice
« Reply #28 on: 14/10/2008 20:38:49 »
I hear (read) what you are saying but, irrespective of the coordinate system you use, there are more options for where you can move to than exist on one dimension.

You cannot give another person instructions about how to get from point A to point B without using three dimensions. If you just tell them to fly 20m, they can end up anywhere inside a sphere of 20m radius. That is why we have to use 'dimensions' and coordinates and why you can't ignore them.

On the other hand, you can only tell someone that you will meet them in 6hours' time. Both your clocks will be going at the same rate - in one dimension.

I have a feeling that I have lost your thread. What are you actually trying to say that goes against my two statements above?

Lol - that's going back a bit.  Umm...  I think it is that I'm arguing that movement, regardless of how many dimensions it goes through, or in what direction it is, is one dimensional.  That is, the movement can be in any direction but the nature of the movement is one dimensional - the course, or path, followed has only length, but no width or height.  Movement that was two dimensional, for example, would mean moving both forward and sideways, not as the resulting sum of the two vectors but as two separate discrete movements, which would result in ending up in two different places and the course having width as well as length.  It would be like moving your hand to be both in front of you and to the side at the same time - the best we can actually do is to move it diagonally in just one direction.
« Last Edit: 14/10/2008 20:40:21 by LeeE »
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
God does not play dice
« Reply #29 on: 15/10/2008 11:35:00 »
Does God play dice or big bang ?
About dice I know nothing, but about big bang something.

Big bang; Science and Religion.
===========
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
 (all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of
 waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,  muons…
gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
And after there was a “Big Bang”.
The scientists wrote very thick books about this theory.
But nobody wrote the reason of the “Big Bang” because
nobody knows it. I know the reason.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm,  we have named " a  singular point".
And action, when  the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
============ ==============.
The Catholic Church adopted the theory of  Big Bang
as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII
declared  this in 1951.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/
Now we have unity between Religion and Science.
Alleluia !!!  Alleluia !!!  Alleluia !!!
But it is strange,…… why cannot we hear the happy
sounds of Scenic’s /Church’s bells?
=============.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
=========.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
God does not play dice
« Reply #30 on: 15/10/2008 14:31:20 »
The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing.
Now we have unity between Religion and Science.

Socratus,

Your belief in a higher power, in some ways, must be a great support to you (it isn't one I can share though).  One thing I would ask though is don't confuse belief with scientific evidence - even if the church chooses to muddy the waters when they make such claims about 'proof'.

Maybe when mankind has found a way to find common ground between all the differing religions, we can move onto science & religion...
« Last Edit: 15/10/2008 14:45:33 by peppercorn »
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
God does not play dice
« Reply #31 on: 16/10/2008 06:56:25 »
The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing.
Now we have unity between Religion and Science.

Socratus,

Your belief in a higher power, in some ways, must be a great support to you (it isn't one I can share though).  One thing I would ask though is don't confuse belief with scientific evidence - even if the church chooses to muddy the waters when they make such claims about 'proof'.

Maybe when mankind has found a way to find common ground between all the differing religions, we can move onto science & religion...
===========
There are more things in heaven
and earth, Horatio, Than are
dreamt of in your philosophy.
/ William Shakespeare /
 

lyner

  • Guest
God does not play dice
« Reply #32 on: 20/10/2008 11:53:04 »
LeeE
I think that we could agree that one's personal experience of movement may only be one dimensional, in some ways. But our brains can make us aware of the fact that we are moving in more than one dimension - particularly when we are relating ourselves to the motions of other objects.
When going in a curve, however, one can be aware of direction of motion AND acceleration in another direction. Chew on that one!!
I'm not sure how relevant this is . .. . ?
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
God does not play dice
« Reply #33 on: 20/10/2008 18:43:36 »
Sophie
That's an interesting point about acceleration - I'll need to let that idea ferment for a bit.  There's also rotation to consider, and I'm not sure how that'll work out either - simply summing the static rotation axis produces a static result, which obviously isn't right.  Summing dynamic rotation axis is a bit trickier and makes me dizzy.

When thinking about space and time it can be interesting to look at things in the form of a graph where space and time are the axis.  With just a single spatial dimension + time the graph area is two dimensional, so a line on that graph would represent movement through two-dimensional space-time.  It's easy to visualise extending this to using two spatial dimensions, buy adding another axis and making the graph area three-dimensional, producing a volume.  Now any movement through that environment will still come out as a line, but if you view the graph so that the two spatial dimensions are in plan i.e. with the time axis pointing towards you, so that you can't see any changes in that axis, you'll still see a line.  The interesting thing is though, when you remember that there's effectively no time axis in this view, the line represents an occupancy, not a movement, and implies that whatever is being plotted occurs simultaneously all along that line.  Heh - not sure of the significance of that, but it shows that we need to view the graph from a sum of all three axis to see it in all it's entirety, and also shows why it's difficult, if not impossible, to do so for our four-dimensional space-time.

Nevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.
 

lyner

  • Guest
God does not play dice
« Reply #34 on: 20/10/2008 19:10:27 »
Quote
Nevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.
That's not a valid conclusion at all. You could only insist that is the case in an infinitesimal time scale. If you are going in a curve you are definitely exploring two cartesian dimensions at the very least.
I still think that, when you refer to a dimension, you mean something different from what I understand it to mean.
 
The graphs you refer to simply show how one variable changes with another. They don't refer to how someone would 'experience' a journey. The slopes and curvatures tell you about displacements, velocities and accelerations so they give you an idea of what the journey would have been like - that's all.
Two independent travellers would only bump into each other if ALL the coordinates were the same, at some point  in the four dimensional graph  - i.e. the lines / curves intersect somewhere /somewhen. You and I have probably walked past Piccadilly Tube station but on different days - so we didn't see each other.(I even wore a carnation, specially, so you would recognise me!) I certainly didn't travel in a straight line to get there and neither did you.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2008 19:22:59 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
God does not play dice
« Reply #35 on: 20/10/2008 20:42:27 »
Quote
Nevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.
That's not a valid conclusion at all. You could only insist that is the case in an infinitesimal time scale. If you are going in a curve you are definitely exploring two cartesian dimensions at the very least.
I still think that, when you refer to a dimension, you mean something different from what I understand it to mean.
 
The graphs you refer to simply show how one variable changes with another. They don't refer to how someone would 'experience' a journey. The slopes and curvatures tell you about displacements, velocities and accelerations so they give you an idea of what the journey would have been like - that's all.
Two independent travellers would only bump into each other if ALL the coordinates were the same, at some point  in the four dimensional graph  - i.e. the lines / curves intersect somewhere /somewhen. You and I have probably walked past Piccadilly Tube station but on different days - so we didn't see each other.(I even wore a carnation, specially, so you would recognise me!) I certainly didn't travel in a straight line to get there and neither did you.

I can't see how you can claim that it's not a valid conclusion that a course through n-dimensions, with just one time dimension, will not be a line.  For it to be an area would require being in two separate locations simultaneously i.e. being in two places at the same time.

Perhaps that's why we didn't meet up outside Piccadilly tube - you weren't there when I was because you can only be in one place at a time.  If your course was two-dimensional though, and had area as well as length, you could have been there when I was, even though you were somewhere else at the time.  Mind you, I didn't know you the last time I was at Piccadilly tube, so I wouldn't have recognised you anyway, even if I had noted the carnation.  Actually, I almost certainly would have noticed you because not many people walk around with a can of condensed milk pinned to their lapel, or behind their ear for that matter.
 

lyner

  • Guest
God does not play dice
« Reply #36 on: 20/10/2008 21:59:06 »
Har Har.

I think I misunderstood your last post. Yes your path is a line - just not a straight one - and the line can involve variations in three spatial dimensions and a steady rate of progress in the t dimension / axis.
The three spatial dimensions are necessary in order that you, I and everyone does not turn up at the same place all the time.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
God does not play dice
« Reply #37 on: 21/10/2008 13:40:39 »
Har Har.

I think I misunderstood your last post. Yes your path is a line - just not a straight one - and the line can involve variations in three spatial dimensions and a steady rate of progress in the t dimension / axis.
The three spatial dimensions are necessary in order that you, I and everyone does not turn up at the same place all the time.

Heh - without the spatial dimensions there wouldn't be anywhere else for us to turn up from - we'd already be there and would always have been there.  Just imagine - you'd never be late for anything ;D

Just one point though - from Relativity, the rate of progress along the time axis isn't steady but depends upon the rate of progress along the spatial axis.  At least, the dependency seems to be that way around.
 

lyner

  • Guest
God does not play dice
« Reply #38 on: 21/10/2008 14:26:53 »
Yes; we're smeared out along the time axis by acceleration etc..
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
God does not play dice
« Reply #39 on: 22/10/2008 17:49:03 »
Yes; we're smeared out along the time axis by acceleration etc..

I used to put that feeling down to advancing age ;D
 

lyner

  • Guest
God does not play dice
« Reply #40 on: 27/10/2008 14:51:38 »
"Advancing age"?
You want to get some time in, Son!
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
God does not play dice
« Reply #41 on: 11/11/2008 02:15:10 »
Truthfulness, as to the existence of other parallel universes is unknowable, as judged from scientific deduction. The possibility of other universes is the product of intellectual speculation, not concrete fact. We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information; which is subject to new knowledge. In fact, all of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to changing opinions. Theories, grounded upon established science is fine, as far as that goes, yet to suggest that such theories correspond to verifiable facts, or reality departs from any notion of valid science. This discussion should be framed in the context of speculative science, no less, no more. This discussion qualifies as philosophy; a point of view, grounded in a broad scientific understanding, but not concrete science. This distinction must be made clear, if we hope to differentiate between that which is knowable, in any realistic sense, and that which is not. Knowledge about the properties of the universe are, as all science, provisional, therefore theories as to other universes are, at best speculative, and operate within the domain of philosophical and scientific speculation. I do not question the validity of this effort. What I do question is the framing, or lack of, regarding such issues. 
 

lyner

  • Guest
God does not play dice
« Reply #42 on: 11/11/2008 11:23:22 »
Quote
We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information
On what authority do you say that?
You sound like an accountant advising his company to invest in mainstream technology because it's safe.
If you can't think outside the box where will the revolutionary ideas come from?
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
God does not play dice
« Reply #43 on: 11/11/2008 18:40:34 »
Quote
Truthfulness, as to the existence of other parallel universes is unknowable, as judged from scientific deduction. The possibility of other universes is the product of intellectual speculation, not concrete fact.

Are you just saying that we can only prove the existence of the n-dimensional set that we occupy, but no others, or are you saying that the possibility of other sets is purely speculative?  The rules and relationships that hold for our set do not preclude the existence of other sets, so their possibility is not speculative.  It is only the proof of their existence that is in doubt.

Quote
We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information; which is subject to new knowledge.

First of all, why?  And secondly, where does the new knowledge, which qualifies the preceding statement, come from if everyone is only looking at what is already known?

Quote
In fact, all of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to changing opinions.

All of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to new knowledge, not opinion, but then I suppose that if everyone is only thinking about already known knowledge there will be no new knowledge and opinion will have to suffice.

Quote
Theories, grounded upon established science is[are] fine, as far as that[they] goes[go], yet to suggest that such theories correspond to verifiable facts[,] or reality departs from any notion of valid science.

Sorry - I had trouble parsing that and I may have mis-corrected what you wrote, changing it's meaning.  However, the hypothesis discussed here does conform to scientific knowledge, where scientific knowledge includes the understanding of something and does not just mean it's measurement.

Quote
This discussion should be framed in the context of speculative science, no less, no more.

This is fair enough.  All science is speculative until proved.  The theories of Relativity are good examples of this - do you consider the theories of Relativity to be science?  Would you have considered them to be science before they were proved?

Quote
This discussion qualifies as philosophy; a point of view, grounded in a broad scientific understanding, but not concrete science.

I would agree that this discussion qualifies as philosophy but that doesn't preclude it from being science - the two are not mutually exclusive.  Purely a point of view it is not.  The discussion conforms to the observed characteristics and laws of acknowledged geometries.  Concrete science - is this just already known knowledge again?

Quote
This distinction must be made clear, if we hope to differentiate between that which is knowable, in any realistic sense, and that which is not.

The number of examples which prove this statement to be wrong are innumerable - just one at random - Televisions cannot exist because the ancient Egyptians could not conceive the mechanism by which they work.

Quote
Knowledge about the properties of the universe are, as all science, provisional, therefore theories as to other universes are, at best speculative, and operate within the domain of philosophical and scientific speculation.

I agree with this - without proof everything is speculation.  That is not the same as impossible though.

Quote
I do not question the validity of this effort. What I do question is the framing, or lack of, regarding such issues.

As we were obviously discussing something about which we have no proof, a disclaimer seemed unnecessary.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2008 18:42:29 by LeeE »
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
God does not play dice
« Reply #44 on: 13/11/2008 00:55:04 »
Re: Sophiecentaur, "On what authority do you say that?". I do not speak from a position of authority. I would suggest there is no absolute authority relating to these issues. Theories grounded upon fact are one thing, theories generated from other theories are the very definition of speculative thought, and therefore qualify as mental exercises; speculative science, befitting philosophical thought. I do not question that kind of exercise, if it is properly framed as such. 
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
God does not play dice
« Reply #45 on: 13/11/2008 03:48:26 »
Re: LeeE, The so-call rules you reference are far from complete, or well-defined. Until we discover a primary rule that unifies and logical integrates all of the other rules, we cannot proceed to meaningfully speculate as to their potential theoretical ramifications.

You ask, why should we focus upon the known? Clearly, knowledge that is consistent and verifiable is the starting point from which any meaningful theory can be generated. Surely, you are not suggesting we should focus; utilize, as the bases of our theories or reasonable and logical speculations, information from pure speculation and imagination. Any theory, or reasonable speculation, must relate back, in valid scientific understanding, to established and verifiable knowledge, to take on meaning, in any scientific sense.

You stated, "All of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to new knowledge, not opinion, but then I suppose that if everyone is only thinking about already known knowledge there will be no new knowledge and opinion will have to suffice." My point is that our knowledge about the known universe is constantly changing, as well as the so called rules of the universe. New information is being routinely introduced. Therefore theories or reasonable speculation based on present information, are or necessity, limited, and do not, cannot reflect a complete or accurate picture.

You said, "Sorry - I had trouble parsing that and I may have mis-corrected what you wrote, changing it's meaning.  However, the hypothesis discussed here does conform to scientific knowledge, where scientific knowledge includes the understanding of something and does not just mean it's measurement". Scientific "opinion" relating to this topic is scientific only to the degree that the theories referenced have a foundation in established scientific understanding and knowledge; consistent and verifiable. Until such theories relate to established science, they remain in the realm of philosophical and scientific speculation, and must be framed thusly.

You stated, "This is fair enough.  All science is speculative until proved.  The theories of Relativity are good examples of this - do you consider the theories of Relativity to be science?  Would you have considered them to be science before they were proved?". This is an excellent question, in my opinion. In the first place, as to whether a particular theory is science depends upon the ability of the "reviewer" to fully comprehend that which is offered. If the theory is grounded upon sound principles, and is internally consistent, the theory may well qualify as science, but only in a theoretical sense. Elements of the theory of relativity have been established, through observation. What distinguishes Einstein's theory or relativity from theories, as to the existence of parallel universes, is that his theories are bases upon real world observations, not other theories. I would have considered the theory of relative as science, but framed as a reasonable and logical theory, no less, no more.

You stated, "I would agree that this discussion qualifies as philosophy but that doesn't preclude it from being science - the two are not mutually exclusive.  Purely a point of view it is not.  The discussion conforms to the observed characteristics and laws of acknowledged geometries.  Concrete science - is this just already known knowledge again?". Science and philosophy are mutually exclusive. Why? Philosophy is not grounded upon established and verifiable knowledge. That is precisely why it is philosophy, not science. Science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive when the relevant philosophy rises, through scientific verification, to scientific certainty. The philosophy of science denotes a particular view, or interpretation of established science, or reasonable speculation as to what such science may mean or lead to. They are, clearly, distinct categories of cognition. This fact is surely obvious.

You stated, "The number of examples which prove this statement to be wrong are innumerable - just one at random - Televisions cannot exist because the ancient Egyptians could not conceive the mechanism by which they work". You example does not speak to what I stated, "This distinction must be made clear, if we hope to differentiate between that which is knowable, in any realistic sense, and that which is not". I indicated this discussion qualifies as philosophy; scientific speculation, not concrete science. You example, as to what the Egyptians could not conceive, is not relevant. The inability to conceive a parallel universe, is not the result of limited scientific understanding, as one could apply to the ancient Egyptians. Again, theories based upon other theories, are not reliable, and fail to relate to established knowledge, and are therefore speculative, in the extreme.


You stated, "I agree with this - without proof everything is speculation.  That is not the same as impossible though". Sure, the thought may not be impossible, that is not at issue. What is at issue is the probability, bases upon sound science, not speculation, no matter how cognitively reasonable. The mere fact that a thing can be conceived, even in scientific terms, does not accord validity to it's possibility.


You stated, "As we were obviously discussing something about which we have no proof, a disclaimer seemed unnecessary". I am pleased you admit to the fact that "we have no proof". Does this statement not accord with my position? Lack of proof is consistent with my position that, "Truthfulness, as to the existence of other parallel universes is unknowable, as judged from scientific deduction". In summery, until the "rules" that govern the operation of the universe are well established and verifiable, theories and, reasonable and logical speculation, which are internally consistent, cannot be scientifically generated, and adjudged as valid.

     
« Last Edit: 13/11/2008 04:05:55 by johnbrandy »
 

lyner

  • Guest
God does not play dice
« Reply #46 on: 13/11/2008 12:29:22 »
I have attention span problems with posts as long as that one.
Can you clarify, please?
Are you saying that there are limits beyond which we should not speculate?
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
God does not play dice
« Reply #47 on: 14/11/2008 01:17:03 »
My first reaction to your reply was that you want to win an argument.  The reason for this is that you've extrapolated my answers to suit this aim...

Quote
The so-call[ed] rules you reference are far from complete, or well-defined.

Well, I didn't reference or identify any specific rules - your objection thus only fits your agenda.  If you had queried what those rules were, before claiming they were "far from complete, or well[ill]-defined" then we would have something I might be interested in discussing.  As it is though, I think you've given away your position and attitude, which is something I have no interest in disputing.

Reading further, my first impression was reinforced...

Quote
Surely, you are not suggesting we should focus; utilize, as the bases of our theories or reasonable and logical speculations, information from pure speculation and imagination.

Once again, you've extrapolated a response beyond it's literal meaning to fit your point of view.  The technique you've tried to get away with using here is the argument that if something is not black then it must be white.  The things discussed in this thread were neither pure speculation or imagination and neither were they black or white.  Trying to represent them as such may work some sometimes, with some folk, but not this time and not here.

I will not spend time refuting the arguments you offer to support your point of view because I don't need to.  This is not because I think they are wrong, which doesn't mean that I think they are right, but because the point you want to make seems to be that I shouldn't be thinking about the things that I've been thinking about.  While I acknowledge the fact that you think this to be the case, you haven't come anywhere near convincing me that I should stop doing what I am doing.

What, exactly, were you trying to achieve that you thought that your reply would bring it about?  Is it really just that you believe that what we were discussing is not, or should not qualify as, science?
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
God does not play dice
« Reply #48 on: 06/12/2008 06:49:18 »
"Does God play dice with the universe?" Must we not firstly define certain terms, in order to attempt to answer this question? What is God; in terms of direct understanding, and what is the universe; in terms of our obviously limited understanding? When Einstein firstly asked this question, his understanding of the universe, based upon observation and theory, is significantly different than the current understanding; based upon observation and theory. More to the point, Einstein's question, as I understand it, is fundamentally rhetorical; indicating, in fact, as judged from observation, and sound, verifiable theory, that "God" does not, can not, play dice with the universe. If God played dice with the universe, implying complete randomness, Einstein, or no one else could have discovered, or derive theories, sufficient to characterize "Laws," or principles that govern physical events; locally or celestially. God is a convenient religious explanation for the primary element that started the whole process. Yet God is, for most of us, illusive, and unknowable. As well, the universe is a vast mystery, subject to continuous reinterpretation, as judged from new information. As such, the adherence to theories, as to unknowable, and purely speculative dimensions, fall well into the imaginary realm of fiction, or wishful thinking. 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

God does not play dice
« Reply #48 on: 06/12/2008 06:49:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length