0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In his play Copenhagen, which brings quantum mechanics to a wider audience,Michael Frayn gives these word to Niels Bohr: “we discover that... the Universe exists... only through the understanding lodged inside the human head.”
Fair enough Don; I've been reasonably patient, but you clearly have no intention of making any reasoned argument or discussion, and your posts are becoming increasingly puerile - as in previous threads - so I'll leave you to it.
Funny Straw man arguments again,and red herrings as well , to mention just that .
You still don't get what naturalism means , sis , (odd) despite your misplaced sarcasm , derision, or irony : the latter can't help you hide your obvious ignorance about the former .( Naturalism ,as it clearly implies , means , in short : within nature : there is nothing beyond, or other than nature as the nature of reality,so, all naturalistic forms of science ,and all naturalistic forms of the scientific methodology and epistemology , be it the materialist , dualist , idealist or even theistic ones must deliver naturalistic explanations of the universe : see my post regarding that ,from Encyclopedia Britannica .)
The mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , or 'consensus ", rejects a -priori any non-materialist scientific world view , research, experiments , approaches , let alone evidence on the subject .
Worse : many scientists who dare to think outside of the materialist key hole box , by challenging 1 or more of its entrenched dogmas like that of Darwinism , have been persecuted , their careers and reputations ruined ,and much more : This is no conspiracy theory , but hard facts : Not to mention how the work of biologist Sheldrake and the man behind it have been treated by mainstream materialist science , scientific journals , the media ....to mention just that poor lad .
Theistic science is no synonymous thus of involving God in science , let alone of trying either to prove or disprove the existence of God , needless to add .
But ,the again , there is nothing intrinsic in science or in its methodology , let alone in its evolving epistemology, that prevents it from going beyond nature itself...
alancalverd : Why do you have to take everything so literally,and so seriously ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2014 20:05:24alancalverd : Why do you have to take everything so literally,and so seriously ?Because I am a scientist who can smell bullshit a mile away, I loathe it, and I get paid to rid the world of it (when I'm not playing jazz).
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg443931#msg443931 date=1415479562]Quote from: DonQuichotteFunny Straw man arguments again,and red herrings as well , to mention just that . Why is that a straw man argument? You are free to conduct all of those those experiments, and apply naturalistic methodology. To say otherwise is a contradiction of your own definition of naturalism. I'm agreeing with you, which is probably what has you confused.
QuoteYou still don't get what naturalism means , sis , (odd) despite your misplaced sarcasm , derision, or irony : the latter can't help you hide your obvious ignorance about the former .( Naturalism ,as it clearly implies , means , in short : within nature : there is nothing beyond, or other than nature as the nature of reality,so, all naturalistic forms of science ,and all naturalistic forms of the scientific methodology and epistemology , be it the materialist , dualist , idealist or even theistic ones must deliver naturalistic explanations of the universe : see my post regarding that ,from Encyclopedia Britannica .)I do understand the idea. What you still don't understand is relevancy. It doesn't matter whether God exists or doesn't exists if it's irrelevant either way to the particular question I am trying to answer. But once you claim, for example that a demon causes a particular disease, or angels make photosynthesis work, then it's incumbent on you to provide the natural evidence that it does. Once you designate any material or non material thing as the specific mechanism for a natural phenomenon, proof of its existence is now relevant and fair game. It has nothing to do with "world views" or a priori beliefs, and it's utterly compatible with everything you and Encyclopedia Britannica say about naturalism.
QuoteThe mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , or 'consensus ", rejects a -priori any non-materialist scientific world view , research, experiments , approaches , let alone evidence on the subject .So what?
QuoteWorse : many scientists who dare to think outside of the materialist key hole box , by challenging 1 or more of its entrenched dogmas like that of Darwinism , have been persecuted , their careers and reputations ruined ,and much more : This is no conspiracy theory , but hard facts : Not to mention how the work of biologist Sheldrake and the man behind it have been treated by mainstream materialist science , scientific journals , the media ....to mention just that poor lad .No, his career was ruined because he couldn't deliver the natural evidence to substantiate his natural claims, and he wouldn't let go of his failed natural theory. But psuedoscience sometimes pays the bills anyway, if you can publish a book and get some speaking gigs.
QuoteTheistic science is no synonymous thus of involving God in science , let alone of trying either to prove or disprove the existence of God , needless to add .Really? Because pretty much every definition of theism in every dictionary involves God. The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god", which might be a bit of a clue. "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." - Oxford English Dictionary"Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In popular parlance, the term theism often describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism." - wikipedia "Belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" - Merriam-Webster
QuoteBut ,the again , there is nothing intrinsic in science or in its methodology , let alone in its evolving epistemology, that prevents it from going beyond nature itself...Yeah, I had a feeling you'd start to realize the "naturalism" thing wasn't going to play in your favour. Which is why I think ultimately your argument is religious or mystical in nature, and it's pointless to even try to discuss it terms of the scientific method.
All of physics is based on quantum theory.
I was talking just about naturalistic theism : see what that means .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/11/2014 21:00:56All of physics is based on quantum theory. No. All physics is based on observation. Quantum mechanics is one (very successful) way of explaining what we see and predicting what we will see next.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/11/2014 17:50:52I was talking just about naturalistic theism : see what that means .Well, that's the problem. Theistic naturalism or naturalistic thesim doesn't actually exist, because it's contradiction of how naturalism is defined. If naturalism is defined as having "no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it" you can't invent a special category of naturalism that does have a preference. That is exactly the same error you are claiming materialist naturalism makes. But since you have now decided that naturalism isn't much help to you either and have abandoned it as well, I suppose it's neither here nor there.
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/11/2014 01:14:32Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/11/2014 21:00:56All of physics is based on quantum theory. No. All physics is based on observation. Quantum mechanics is one (very successful) way of explaining what we see and predicting what we will see next.No, modern physics is quantum physics .
Albert Einstein: “I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because. . . physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.”
John Bell: “It is likely that the new way of seeing things will astonish us.”
... Every advance in science has been astonishing, because it replaced some mysterious immaterial cause* with a simple material explanation.
Quote from: alancalverd on 11/11/2014 00:04:08... Every advance in science has been astonishing, because it replaced some mysterious immaterial cause* with a simple material explanation. A very good point. In fact, you could probably make a passable definition of 'understanding' around that point [8D]