PDA

View Full Version : Zygote: He intuited that scientific methods weren't for him


zygote
30th April 2012, 02:26 PM
Maybe take a look at the things science does know about pre-determination instead of exploiting the things that it doesn't?

I genuinely mean this in the nicest way possible, apologies if I seem condescending.
No offence taken.

I don't think its up to me to prove or disprove my opinion, its just an opinion. I'm putting it forward, pretty much as a layperson, without a background in physics, math or science, if more knowledgeable people are floating around the forum tank I'm sure they'll pipe up show how this established law or that principle or whatever makes my theory completely bogus :)

4lan
30th April 2012, 02:42 PM
I don't think its up to me to prove or disprove my opinion, its just an opinion. I'm putting it forward, pretty much as a layperson, without a background in physics, math or science, if more knowledgeable people are floating around the forum tank I'm sure they'll pipe up show how this established law or that principle or whatever makes my theory completely bogus :)

Actually it is up to you provide evidence/reasoning.


2. Burden of proof lies with you.



If you make a claim, that claim should have a basis, and we're asking you to show that basis.
If you have a peer-reviewed academic paper, other publication, or article which supports your claim, please show us your evidence.
Prior to entering into a discussion, please ensure that you are willing to concede that the source of any claim you make is unreliable if your claim is shown to be incorrect.
The burden of proof has been accepted as a fundamental part of philosophical debate for thousands of years. We don't care if you can't or won't accept this.



Simply put if you have make an argument are expected to have reasonable understanding of the concepts involved a thus be able to provide support for it with evidence, articles and/or reasons. Expecting someone to check your off handed musings could be considered lazy and kinda rude.

4lan

zygote
30th April 2012, 03:33 PM
Actually it is up to you provide evidence/reasoning.



Simply put if you have make an argument are expected to have reasonable understanding of the concepts involved a thus be able to provide support for it with evidence, articles and/or reasons. Expecting someone to check your off handed musings could be considered lazy and kinda rude.

4lan
Nobody knows what existed before the big bang, I can't provide evidence of what existed. My basic understanding of the moments after the big bang are sufficient to explain my reasoning for predetermination (only one big bang, discrete finite elements, mass, velocity, position).

I think that is sufficient for a forum post on the topic - 'why are we here'. A topic which not even the most eminent scientist or philosopher can answer definitively.

Meissner
30th April 2012, 03:35 PM
@4lan. burden of proof in this sort of situation is tricky since the default position isn't clear, not like when somebody proposes a god and therefore has made a positive assertion that requires backing up.

I would say that the default position is on the side of non-determination BUT, there is no supernatural element to his version of the pre-determination claim, it doesn't defy physics in any way and it is almost wholly philosophical.

Tricky topic.

zygote
30th April 2012, 04:34 PM
Okay I did a bit of research, apparently and predictably I'm not the first to think about this, here is an entire conversation on what I was trying to describe but a lot better explained:

Physics Forum (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=10783)

I'm really skeptical of the Uncertainty Principle. From what I understand it basically goes like this:

A particle travelling at x speed, with y mass and z trajectory cannot have its exact trajectory, mass and speed measured since measuring one after establishing the other would affect the first measurement.

While that's true, to me that doesn't mean that every particle doesn't have a x, y, z and every particles path and interactions is not predetermined. To me it seems like it means I can't read the future, not that there is no future.

Meissner
30th April 2012, 04:43 PM
Who is arguing that there is no future? The future is determined by present actions/occurrences but that doesn't make it pre-determined since every action can be altered without any sort of notice.

At the moment of the big-bang, do you think that it was pre-determined that my parents would decide to not have me circumcised?

Darwinsbulldog
30th April 2012, 04:54 PM
Okay I did a bit of research, apparently and predictably I'm not the first to think about this, here is an entire conversation on what I was trying to describe but a lot better explained:

Physics Forum (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=10783)

I'm really skeptical of the Uncertainty Principle. From what I understand it basically goes like this:

A particle travelling at x speed, with y mass and z trajectory cannot have its exact trajectory, mass and speed measured since measuring one after establishing the other would affect the first measurement.

While that's true, to me that doesn't mean that every particle doesn't have a x, y, z and every particles path and interactions is not predetermined. To me it seems like it means I can't read the future, not that there is no future.
Its not that a particle cannot a specific mass/velocity, but rather the process of detection and measurement changes things. Besides, we are not really sure that particles are particles-they behave more like smears...it depends on what stuff you do to them. This is why science is not about reality, but about getting working models. We think it is more or less like reality, but there is no way to be sure. :D

zygote
30th April 2012, 05:00 PM
Who is arguing that there is no future? The future is determined by present actions/occurrences but that doesn't make it pre-determined since every action can be altered without any sort of notice.

At the moment of the big-bang, do you think that it was pre-determined that my parents would decide to not have me circumcised?
Sorry what I mean to say was I can't measure and know all the variables to predict the future because of the uncertainty principle but that doesn't mean the future is not set, only that it can't be read by me.

I believe that's the case, your non-circumcision was predetermined by the big bang :)



Its not that a particle cannot a specific mass/velocity, but rather the process of detection and measurement changes things. Besides, we are not really sure that particles are particles-they behave more like smears...it depends on what stuff you do to them. This is why science is not about reality, but about getting working models. We think it is more or less like reality, but there is no way to be sure. :D
Yeah I had to take a break from reading that thread, gave me a headache :)

Meissner
30th April 2012, 05:02 PM
Sorry what I mean to say was I can't measure and know all the variables to predict the future because of the uncertainty principle but that doesn't mean the future is not set, only that it can't be read by me.

I believe that's the case, your circumcision was predetermined by the big bang :)

A belief is the result of being convinced, what convinces you that something as trivial and "choice determined" as my lack of circumcision could be pre-determined?

zygote
30th April 2012, 05:19 PM
A belief is the result of being convinced, what convinces you that something as trivial and "choice determined" as my lack of circumcision could be pre-determined?
Well I believe it because I have thought about it for a long time, and thought about other possibilities and it seems to be the most likely and simple answer.

I first thought about it when I was a kid, I was watching some movie about a book that could tell the future and allowed the reader to change the future and it struck me as impossible since any possible change you made to the future because of the book wouldn't have been in the book to begin with.

A few years later I was writing a computer program which tried to simulate basic evolution, dots growing legs, eating each other etc and the importance of randomness cannot be understated. Without a random generator you always end up with the exact same creatures if you start with the same soup.

To me it just makes more sense then anything else that without randomness in the universe and the inability to change the future along with set amount of energy and particles (non randomness) that everything is predetermined.

Meissner
30th April 2012, 05:30 PM
ahh but the universe isnt without chaos, like i said earlier, chaos is an emergent property of undetermination, your program would have been just that, a program, programmed to operate within a certain number of parameters, all pre-determined, you might say.

Meissner
30th April 2012, 05:33 PM
Well I believe it because I have thought about it for a long time, and thought about other possibilities and it seems to be the most likely and simple answer.



Zygote, this Isn't a pathway to finding rational beliefs, you need to follow evidence to a belief, not start with a belief a philosophize to a reason.

4lan
30th April 2012, 05:34 PM
Apologies; it was not my intent instigate a potential derail but I did wish to make the point given I am following the thread.


I think that is sufficient for a forum post on the topic - 'why are we here'. A topic which not even the most eminent scientist or philosopher can answer definitively.
Whether not a scientist or philosopher can answer something definitely or not it does not follow they cannot or should not provide a reasoned argument for one they may suggest (or indeed anyone).

@4lan. burden of proof in this sort of situation is tricky since the default position isn't clear, not like when somebody proposes a god and therefore has made a positive assertion that requires backing up.

Tricky or not any declared position should also have a supporting argument.

In discussions that include 'wooly' areas I think it is extremely important to be clear and provide the 'why'.

May I point your attention to the last 'bullet' of the number two in 'The Big List' quoted above.

Lastly if you you can't think of a good reason to do it for yourself the think of those following; how is someone not familiar with all the off hand reading you have done (including, books, magazine, news articles, forum threads etc.) on the subject supposed to pick through your posts and glean your position sufficiently?

If required I'm sure my point will be corrected. /endofderail

4lan

zygote
30th April 2012, 06:15 PM
Zygote, this Isn't a pathway to finding rational beliefs, you need to follow evidence to a belief, not start with a belief a philosophize to a reason.
To be honest I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought people thought up things and then found evidence to prove them. I got kicked out of school when I was 14 and I missed probably 80% of it prior to that. I think I probably should have left the determinism thing alone, in my original reply I just wanted to say that no one knows if we're doing things for a reason or just because, since we don't know why and how we come into existence, only that we did ie big bang.

Meissner
30th April 2012, 07:04 PM
To be honest I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought people thought up things and then found evidence to prove them. I got kicked out of school when I was 14 and I missed probably 80% of it prior to that. I think I probably should have left the determinism thing alone, in my original reply I just wanted to say that no one knows if we're doing things for a reason or just because, since we don't know why and how we come into existence, only that we did ie big bang.

But what part of "we seem to exist, the universe seems to exist, cause seems to lead to effect" points to it all being pre-determined?

I'm really not following the logic, maybe I'm missing some vital point.

I thought people thought up things and then found evidence to prove them.

That is not the scientific method.

Proper application of science would be.

1. Observation. The universe exists (for this discussion I'm going to forget epistemology)

2. Events occur, causing other events and states of being.

3. Cause and Effect is hypothesized

4. Cause and Effect is tested and verified

Then we try to determine WHY the law of Cause and Effect is the way it is.

Logic please
30th April 2012, 07:56 PM
I thought people thought up things and then found evidence to prove them.
Well, creationists and various "godidit" cheerleaders have been trying that sort of approach for a *long* time, and it certainly hasn't worked for them, to date. ;):rolleyes:

That way lies the potential for confirmation bias, methinks. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

zygote
30th April 2012, 10:07 PM
Scientific method seems a little boring to me. I would rather be free to think. Im sure the scientific method is more productive but not for me :)

Meissner
30th April 2012, 10:11 PM
Scientific method seems a little boring to me. I would rather be free to think. Im sure the scientific method is more productive but not for me :)

Your position is solely philosophical then, you have no basis in fact or reality on the topic.

You need large helpings of science to get truth truth from philosophy, unfortunately.

Reality cannot be "thought" into existence. ;)

Logic please
30th April 2012, 10:21 PM
LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):
The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-3) i. e., falsifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).
Scientific method seems a little boring to me. I would rather be free to think. Im sure the scientific method is more productive but not for me :)
Uhh uhh. So, do you eschew the "scientific method" when deciding on your approach to crossing the road, because it's boring to minimise the likelihood of being taken out by a passing bus?

DanDare
30th April 2012, 10:25 PM
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

The Uncertainty Principle

The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmod2/unc1.gif
This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things.
If you could reset the universe completely it may repeat but you cannot know if that is so. Indeterminacy could also produce a new universe each time. We cannot answer the question knowledgeably even in principle.

Some people find knowledge boring. I find it thrilling.

Meissner
30th April 2012, 10:35 PM
I am glad that you acknowledge that the scientific method gets results, although I think you are underestimating just how much you use it in day to day life without even knowing it.

Science is not boring, it is the single most reliable method we have for discerning fact from fiction, without the scientific method, science becomes almost as useless as here-say.

zygote
30th April 2012, 10:43 PM
Your position is solely philosophical then, you have no basis in fact or reality on the topic.

You need large helpings of science to get truth truth from philosophy, unfortunately.

Reality cannot be "thought" into existence. ;)
I wouldnt go that far. My idea of determination is based on some accepted (as far as i understand) science.

The universe is finite. Matter and energy is finite. Matter and energy and time existed after the big bang but not beforehand. For matter and energy and time to spontaneously appear they must have initially existed in a single specific configuration. There is only one timeline in our universe. All objects which exist are made up of energy and elements created at the time of and by the big bang. Thought is a byproduct of energy and physical matter interacting.

zygote
1st May 2012, 01:36 PM
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

If you could reset the universe completely it may repeat but you cannot know if that is so. Indeterminacy could also produce a new universe each time. We cannot answer the question knowledgeably even in principle.

Some people find knowledge boring. I find it thrilling.
I wasn't inferring knowledge was boring I was inferring that the scientific method seems boring. If we had applied the scientific method to every discovery we ever made we'd be still halfway through the great leap forward.

I never suggested that the universe could be reset, or that it does reset. I think people became confused with my analogy of throwing marbles. What I meant with that analogy was if you could go back in time to the moment you threw the marbles, the result would never change, the variables (energy / matter) would equal the same result no matter how many times you threw the marbles. This is the reasoning that led me to believe in the non randomness of the universe along with finite static (non spontaneity of existence / non existence) matter.

riddlemethis
1st May 2012, 02:06 PM
Zygote, you are clearly trolling! Every non-trivial discovery we've ever made IS the product of the scientific method. Please stop this ridiculous line of disingenuous piffle & on the off chance you are serious, google 'scientific method' before posting again.

Meissner
1st May 2012, 02:18 PM
If we had applied the scientific method to every discovery we ever made we'd be still halfway through the great leap forward.


The scientific method HAS been applied to literally every single scientific discovery ever made, it's what makes science reliable, peer review and rigorous testing is the key to truth (or at least the closest thing to truth we have).

zygote
1st May 2012, 02:32 PM
Zygote, you are clearly trolling! Every non-trivial discovery we've ever made IS the product of the scientific method. Please stop this ridiculous line of disingenuous piffle & on the off chance you are serious, google 'scientific method' before posting again.

I am not trolling. In post 61 Meisnerr outlined the scientific method. I think its a boring way to look at science. How do make big leaps forward with that method? It seems anti innovative and safe vs developing a theory and then trying to prove it. Im not saying its wrong. Im saying I dont like it.

Logic please
1st May 2012, 02:33 PM
@RMT: zygote doesn't even have to google it, I provided a linked reference here: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=297172

Which reminds me...

@zygote: how's your reply going, to the question about buses that I posed to you in that post? ;)

riddlemethis
1st May 2012, 03:21 PM
I am not trolling. In post 61 Meisnerr outlined the scientific method. I think its a boring way to look at science. How do make big leaps forward with that method? It seems anti innovative and safe vs developing a theory and then trying to prove it. Im not saying its wrong. Im saying I dont like it.

Oh FFS, you can think it's as boring as you like, but it gave you the gadget via which you're spewing this inanity. If you aren't trolling then stop anyway. You've clearly made no effort to understand & whilst you're entitled to your (ridiculous) opinion, you can't have your own facts about how we discover the useful things we do. Feel free to hand back the products of the labour that is the scientific method (start with your computer). Thank fuck the world doesn't work the way you think it does.

Meissner
1st May 2012, 03:52 PM
Oh FFS, you can think it's as boring as you like, but it gave you the gadget via which you're spewing this inanity. If you aren't trolling then stop anyway. You've clearly made no effort to understand & whilst you're entitled to your (ridiculous) opinion, you can't have your own facts about how we discover the useful things we do. Feel free to hand back the products of the labour that is the scientific method (start with your computer). Thank fuck the world doesn't work the way you think it does.


Woah, chill out Riddle.

It seems this conversation is causing you un-due stress, maybe don't listen anymore.;)

Meissner
1st May 2012, 03:56 PM
I am not trolling. In post 61 Meisnerr outlined the scientific method. I think its a boring way to look at science. How do make big leaps forward with that method? It seems anti innovative and safe vs developing a theory and then trying to prove it. Im not saying its wrong. Im saying I dont like it.


You don't have to like it, it wont change the fact that it works 99.9% of the time. If you don't subscribe to the idea of peer review or the scientific method, I beg of you, don't start reading Nexus or any other alt-science magazine because they don't either and your mind will become stained with woo

zygote
1st May 2012, 05:13 PM
You don't have to like it, it wont change the fact that it works 99.9% of the time. If you don't subscribe to the idea of peer review or the scientific method, I beg of you, don't start reading Nexus or any other alt-science magazine because they don't either and your mind will become stained with woo
Maybe Im misunderstanding. Thank you for being level headed and patient with me regardless. I think Ill bail out of this thread now :)

Meissner
1st May 2012, 05:19 PM
Maybe Im misunderstanding. Thank you for being level headed and patient with me regardless. I think Ill bail out of this thread now :)

no worries

AndyP
1st May 2012, 06:34 PM
zygote, are you secretly a net rider. I am sure I had this very same conversation just recently.

riddlemethis
1st May 2012, 07:48 PM
zygote, are you secretly a net rider. I am sure I had this very same conversation just recently.

Yeah, net rider, that's a nice code word for it.

riddlemethis
1st May 2012, 07:52 PM
Woah, chill out Riddle.

It seems this conversation is causing you un-due stress, maybe don't listen anymore.;)

Umm, no thanks. If there is a specific violation of the rules, please feel free to report the post, otherwise I'll conduct my own behaviour accordingly thanks all the same. I'll let you know when I'm stressed. This isn't stress, it's speaking plainly to bullshit.

DanDare
1st May 2012, 07:53 PM
I wasn't inferring knowledge was boring I was inferring that the scientific method seems boring. If we had applied the scientific method to every discovery we ever made we'd be still halfway through the great leap forward.

I never suggested that the universe could be reset, or that it does reset. I think people became confused with my analogy of throwing marbles. What I meant with that analogy was if you could go back in time to the moment you threw the marbles, the result would never change, the variables (energy / matter) would equal the same result no matter how many times you threw the marbles. This is the reasoning that led me to believe in the non randomness of the universe along with finite static (non spontaneity of existence / non existence) matter.
What is the difference between "universe reset" and "go back in time to re-run"? The science suggests that if you go back and throw the marbles again you cannot, even in principle, predict whether it will repeat or do something different.

AndyP
1st May 2012, 08:12 PM
Yeah, net rider, that's a nice code word for it.

Not really. net rider is a motorcycle forum. I already posted up here the thread I am referring too, it was the going solo to athcon thread.

I put this thread up, because I am not overly familiar with Darwin thanks to being brought up as a catholic. We did not get taught evolution in private catholic schools. However, I am not stupid, hence the reason I am here. I understand the question is redundant, I was just seeking information on what I have since discovered is co-evolution.

Meissner
1st May 2012, 09:09 PM
Umm, no thanks. If there is a specific violation of the rules, please feel free to report the post, otherwise I'll conduct my own behaviour accordingly thanks all the same. I'll let you know when I'm stressed. This isn't stress, it's speaking plainly to bullshit.

sorry, guess i was self projecting then, carry on

zygote
1st May 2012, 09:10 PM
What is the difference between "universe reset" and "go back in time to re-run"? The science suggests that if you go back and throw the marbles again you cannot, even in principle, predict whether it will repeat or do something different.
Ahh I was going to bail but Ill reply to this. What science are you referring too? In a computer simulation I can run a scenario repeatedly and get the same results, this is because I can set up the environment to be identical for each run. In mathematics, something Im quite horrible at, one can solve an equation trillions of times and always get the same result if one uses the same variables. The universe is made of particles and energy and those particles and energy is in only one state of configuration for any point in time. I believe if one was to go to any point in time, one would find the same particles, energy in the same state each time and because of this for each increment of time the same the same things would have to occur. I dont believe there is any room for randomness without a magic diety and I dont believe in magic.

Andy I am not a member of netrider although I do ride a little rs 125, soon to be a ktm rc8 if im good to my wife

Meissner
1st May 2012, 09:28 PM
Ahh I was going to bail but Ill reply to this. What science are you referring too? In a computer simulation I can run a scenario repeatedly and get the same results, this is because I can set up the environment to be identical for each run. In mathematics, something Im quite horrible at, one can solve an equation trillions of times and always get the same result if one uses the same variables. The universe is made of particles and energy and those particles and energy is in only one state of configuration for any point in time. I believe if one was to go to any point in time, one would find the same particles, energy in the same state each time and because of this for each increment of time the same the same things would have to occur. I dont believe there is any room for randomness without a magic diety and I dont believe in magic.

there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, I don't think I can explain it any more clear than it already has been.

The particles and states of energy you are referring to do not always behave in the same manner as explained by the uncertainty principal, mathematics operates ONLY within set rules, as does your computer program.

The same event never happens twice, the same particle won't necessarily behave the same way if the tape was theoretically rewound and played again.

Logic please
1st May 2012, 09:33 PM
Maybe Im misunderstanding. Thank you for being level headed and patient with me regardless. I think Ill bail out of this thread now :)
Oh. Righto, then. :rolleyes: I'm sure that my question in this post (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=297172&postcount=65) wasn't deserving of your consideration or reply for some reason, having been ignored twice by you now, AFAIK. Ah well, no worries.

A shame though, because I thought it was a simple enough question. And I actually had another question for you, too:
In post 61 Meisnerr outlined the scientific method. I think its a boring way to look at science. How do make big leaps forward with that method? It seems anti innovative and safe vs developing a theory and then trying to prove it. Im not saying its wrong. Im saying I dont like it.
I wasn't inferring knowledge was boring I was inferring that the scientific method seems boring. If we had applied the scientific method to every discovery we ever made we'd be still halfway through the great leap forward.
You've clearly indicated in those these quotes that you consider that there is at least one "better" method of "looking at science". What are these better methods, please? Can you give any real-world applications of those better methods?

I think I'll just leave those ones there, for the crickets to chirp at, and for future readers of the thread to ponder.

zygote
1st May 2012, 10:15 PM
there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, I don't think I can explain it any more clear than it already has been.

The particles and states of energy you are referring to do not always behave in the same manner as explained by the uncertainty principal, mathematics operates ONLY within set rules, as does your computer program.

The same event never happens twice, the same particle won't necessarily behave the same way if the tape was theoretically rewound and played again.
Well having only become aware of the uncertainty principle this week I may be wrong about this but it seems the uncertainty only comes about when trying to measure the objects in question? By interacting with a particle to measure it you change it. Thinking about it doesn't change it.

@ Logic Please

Sorry I wasn't deliberately ignoring you, the device I post from is not very useful for multiple quoting.

As far as the bus question goes I don't use the scientific method to cross the road, that would ensure total safety but it'd be hell annoying and take forever. I use the looks pretty safe, walk / run and as long as you don't look at the bus it doesn't exist approach. Probably sounds absurd but it seems to work okay.

A better method to the scientific principle, maybe not, but an alternate method which I think most humans use to an extent and one which I use quite often is intuition. I got horribly bullied at school and had a miserable education, I'm mathematically dyslexic effectively although I suspect had I had a good education I would be excellent. The one thing I can do and do extremely well is program computers, I can use intuition and write complex computer programs in C freestyle and they just tend to work with maybe a couple of spell syntax errors. Despite my lack of education and inability to really operate on a social level I went to university and achieved a 97% overall mark and a high distinction. I didn't sit down and write gant / pert / flow la la la charts. I'm not bragging about that, I'm a security guard now and hardly a success for other reasons but intuition can create and achieve things a lot faster then slow patient testing, its just imo a lot less useful for commercial applications and not as reliable.

DanDare
1st May 2012, 10:24 PM
What science are you referring too?
Quantum Physics.
In a computer simulation I can run a scenario repeatedly and get the same results, this is because I can set up the environment to be identical for each run.Computers are very carefully controlled to make sure they do not suffer from unpredictable fluctuations. The clock pulse mechanism is used to keep the gate signals clear of the fluctuations during state changes. They are built to be predictable.
In mathematics, something Im quite horrible at, one can solve an equation trillions of times and always get the same result if one uses the same variables.Because we define deterministic rules for mathematic equations and entities.
The universe is made of particles and energy and those particles and energy is in only one state of configuration for any point in time. That is, unfortunately, not correct. Even worse, the change of state of a particle at the subatomic level is intrinsically unpredictable. The mathematics for understanding behaviour at that scale absolutely has to use probability rather than Newtonian style formulas. Chaos theory suggests how quantum level effects can cause some large scale events to follow an unpredictable course.
I believe if one was to go to any point in time, one would find the same particles, energy in the same state each time and because of this for each increment of time the same the same things would have to occur. I dont believe there is any room for randomness without a magic diety and I dont believe in magic.The physics suggests otherwise. It is because of this that there are several interpretations that call for alternate universes and/or alternate pasts and futures.

zygote
1st May 2012, 10:31 PM
Quantum Physics.
Computers are very carefully controlled to make sure they do not suffer from unpredictable fluctuations. The clock pulse mechanism is used to keep the gate signals clear of the fluctuations during state changes. They are built to be predictable.
Because we define deterministic rules for mathematic equations and entities.
That is, unfortunately, not correct. Even worse, the change of state of a particle at the subatomic level is intrinsically unpredictable. The mathematics for understanding behaviour at that scale absolutely has to use probability rather than Newtonian style formulas. Chaos theory suggests how quantum level effects can cause some large scale events to follow an unpredictable course.
The physics suggests otherwise. It is because of this that there are several interpretations that call for alternate universes and/or alternate pasts and futures.
Are you saying that the state of matter and energy could be changing independent of time. What I mean is if you took a slice of stopped time, the particles and energy frozen in that slice would change independent of time?

DanDare
1st May 2012, 10:55 PM
Are you saying that the state of matter and energy could be changing independent of time. What I mean is if you took a slice of stopped time, the particles and energy frozen in that slice would change independent of time?
Time and matter are not the clearly independent things they appear to be to us. You cannot pin down a "moment in time" any more than you can pin down a definite "particle of matter". Things get, um, very strange when you start to deal with quantum foam or strings. At the very small the dimensional axes become so weird we can designate "timelike" material properties.

Anyway, instead of thinking of time and particles think of these things as a "potential" that "sort of" has a mass and "sort of" has a position in time and "sort of" has energy and/or motion. Worse, there is not a clear cut "now" as many large scale objects are in different time frames depending on local gravitational states and relationships.

So say, for the sake of argument, you could take a snapshot of a "moment" in time. Each thing in that moment has multiple futures, an infinite number of them. (Bounded but infinite).

A lot of argument in the physics world is about why we experience only a slice of the potential futures. Some scientist argue that we actually experience a fuzzy set of "nows" but that still leaves a question as to why we don't experience all the possibilities at once.

Logic please
1st May 2012, 10:58 PM
@ Logic Please

Sorry I wasn't deliberately ignoring you, the device I post from is not very useful for multiple quoting.
No worries. Thank you for your reply, and apologies for my misunderstanding, then. :)
As far as the bus question goes I don't use the scientific method to cross the road, that would ensure total safety but it'd be hell annoying and take forever. I use the looks pretty safe, walk / run and as long as you don't look at the bus it doesn't exist approach. Probably sounds absurd but it seems to work okay.
No, I don't think that sounds absurd, TBH. In fact, the elements of empirical observations of reality ("looks pretty safe") and amendments to working models based on these ("walk/run"), are pretty reminiscent of the scientific method, methinks. ;)

By my question, I was obliquely coming to the point, similar to riddlemethis, that the scientific method is actually foundational to so much of our day-to-day lives and activities, sometimes in quite subtle ways.
A better method to the scientific principle, maybe not, but an alternate method which I think most humans use to an extent and one which I use quite often is intuition. I got horribly bullied at school and had a miserable education, I'm mathematically dyslexic effectively although I suspect had I had a good education I would be excellent. The one thing I can do and do extremely well is program computers, I can use intuition and write complex computer programs in C freestyle and they just tend to work with maybe a couple of spell syntax errors. Despite my lack of education and inability to really operate on a social level I went to university and achieved a 97% overall mark and a high distinction. I didn't sit down and write gant / pert / flow la la la charts. I'm not bragging about that, I'm a security guard now and hardly a success for other reasons but intuition can create and achieve things a lot faster then slow patient testing, its just imo a lot less useful for commercial applications and not as reliable.
Thanks for this explanation. :) A discussion about intuition could certainly be had in its own right, but I'll leave that aside for the moment, if that's OK.

From your description, I'd infer that you perceive the scientific method as being somehow constraining? That it works against "flashes of inspiration", "creativity", "imagination" or "quantum leaps"? If my inferences are inaccurate, please let me know.

Y'see, I'd suggest that by "letting reality speak for itself", the scientific method actually serves to bring "quantum leaps" to realisation. Due to continuous advancement, investigation and updating of theories and models, the "reality" we understand today via the scientific method, will change tomorrow, and the day after. And those advancements in understanding the nature of reality will be crucial to turning "flashes of inspriation" into future viable projects.

I also add the following wiki quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) in respect of this:
The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-44) In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow, but is rather an ongoing cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Evaluation_and_improvement), constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods.

zygote
1st May 2012, 11:33 PM
@Dandare, thanks for the explanation. I guess I'll have to throw my idea out the window then if that is the case. That kind of sucks because I liked that idea.

@Logic Please, yeah I think the scientific method is restrictive and controlled, political and group centric. I hate teams, groups etc :D

Anyways.

riddlemethis
2nd May 2012, 07:18 AM
Ah, good ol' intuition.

Demonstrate how your intuition isn't linked to your accumulated knowledge & improve with deeper knowledge & applied experience in any given area. Oh & how often is your intuition wrong? What do you do when it is?

Just because decision making occurs quickly doesn't mean it isn't the result of applying what you've already observed, basing a hypothesis upon it & testing to see if it works. To claim otherwise is to suggest some kind of 'inspiration' inspired, what: randomly, divinely? (all questions above posed literally, not rhetorically, btw).

No I suggest again, you simply don't understand the scientific method well enough. Or you're refusing to budge from a philosophical position that you hold somewhat religiously.

riddlemethis
2nd May 2012, 07:21 AM
Oh & this for your consideration. http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/thinking-scientifically/

Worldslaziestbusker
2nd May 2012, 07:52 AM
Woah, chill out Riddle.

It seems this conversation is causing you un-due stress, maybe don't listen anymore.;)

I don't think anyone, in the history of anything, has calmed down when told to do so in such a patronising manner. Either avoid letting others' distress freak you out to such an extent or keep your council regarding their emotional state. Getting angry about something is not an automatically invalid response. Anger has wound up the clockwork of some inspiring people who went on to achieve huge things in the history of human enfranchisement. You flippantly dismiss anger at the risk of making me angry.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. Because I back my rage up with documented facts and peer reviewed references - The Credible Hulk.

Meissner
2nd May 2012, 10:43 AM
I don't think anyone, in the history of anything, has calmed down when told to do so in such a patronising manner. Either avoid letting others' distress freak you out to such an extent or keep your council regarding their emotional state. Getting angry about something is not an automatically invalid response. Anger has wound up the clockwork of some inspiring people who went on to achieve huge things in the history of human enfranchisement. You flippantly dismiss anger at the risk of making me angry.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. Because I back my rage up with documented facts and peer reviewed references - The Credible Hulk.

Where did I mention anger?

There was not patronizing or condescension in my comment except that which you have perceived yourself, a patronizing comment may have looked something like this "hey buddy, you seem a little stressed, maybe pm me when your ready and we can talk about your anger issues ok?"

I don't think anyone, in the history of anything, has calmed down when told to do so in such a patronising manner.

Fairly bold statement.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. Because I back my rage up with documented facts and peer reviewed references - The Credible Hulk

Sounds like you and I would be on the same page in this regard.


Not sure if you read this post either

Originally Posted by riddlemethis
Umm, no thanks. If there is a specific violation of the rules, please feel free to report the post, otherwise I'll conduct my own behaviour accordingly thanks all the same. I'll let you know when I'm stressed. This isn't stress, it's speaking plainly to bullshit.
sorry, guess i was self projecting then, carry on

The "self projecting" I mentioned may be something you need to look into, It's when you see someone behave in a particular manner and you apply yourself to their behavior, as in "I wouldn't act this way unless I was angry/stressed/condescending/patronizing etc so therefore THIS person must be angry/stressed/condescending/patronizing etc" sort of like misplaced empathy, it was the mistake I made and I promptly corrected myself.

Worldslaziestbusker
2nd May 2012, 11:04 AM
Where did I mention anger?



Hey, chill out. I was just sayin' you really need to deal better with your rabid emotions when you receive heartfelt criticism support.

If I was reading more into your comment then I apologise, but I get exactly the same statements as you made to RMT from Christians at Christian forums and it always comes across as a weak attempt to discredit my arguments by straw manning my emotional state. I look forward to watching how you deal with such antics in your adventures in Christian Internetland.

Fearless
2nd May 2012, 11:53 AM
Ok, can we jump back on topic now.

Whose first?

Centauri
2nd May 2012, 12:36 PM
Woah, chill out Riddle.


I don't think anyone, in the history of anything, has calmed down when told to do so in such a patronising manner.

Hey, chill out.
I'm pretty sure I'm not quote mining here, but there seems to be a major contradiction here.

Meissner
2nd May 2012, 12:40 PM
@Centauri

I'm pretty sure it was satire

zygote
2nd May 2012, 01:27 PM
The original question is impossible to answer without knowing how we got here.

Meissner
2nd May 2012, 01:56 PM
The original question is impossible to answer without knowing how we got here.

How do you know that?

dilbadoon
2nd May 2012, 01:56 PM
The original question is impossible to answer without knowing how we got here.

That would be if you assume an intelligent origin. If not then it's really easy to answer, and has been answered in this thread many times already, I'll pick the closest one:
Why are we here? - No reason. We just are.

zygote
2nd May 2012, 02:36 PM
How could you have a definitive answer to why we are here if you have no idea what existed prior?

@dilbadoon, thats not an answer, its an assumption.

Meissner
2nd May 2012, 02:39 PM
How could you have a definitive answer to why we are here if you have no idea what existed prior?

How do you know what a brick is for unless you know where the mud to make it came from?

riddlemethis
2nd May 2012, 02:42 PM
If you understood the predictive part of the scientific method you could answer that question. Heck you could even use it to help answer the 'what came before' question to such a high degree of probability that the 'why' question is rendered absurd.

dilbadoon
2nd May 2012, 02:43 PM
How could you have a definitive answer to why we are here if you have no idea what existed prior?

@dilbadoon, thats not an answer, its an assumption.

How is it an assumption?

riddlemethis
2nd May 2012, 02:46 PM
Ah, good ol' intuition.

Demonstrate how your intuition isn't linked to your accumulated knowledge & improve with deeper knowledge & applied experience in any given area. Oh & how often is your intuition wrong? What do you do when it is?

Just because decision making occurs quickly doesn't mean it isn't the result of applying what you've already observed, basing a hypothesis upon it & testing to see if it works. To claim otherwise is to suggest some kind of 'inspiration' inspired, what: randomly, divinely? (all questions above posed literally, not rhetorically, btw).

No I suggest again, you simply don't understand the scientific method well enough. Or you're refusing to budge from a philosophical position that you hold somewhat religiously.

@zygote I draw your attention to this post & the questions therein, which as I said were not rhetorical.

Darwinsbulldog
2nd May 2012, 03:28 PM
Did someone mention the scientific method? :)

1. Don Lab coat
2. Make sure pocket protector is full of pencils, and a slide rule.
3. Have your scientific calculator in another pocket.
4. Put on glasses and look geeky.
5. Pray to Einstein and Darwin.
6. Write any nonsense, so long as it pisses off the devout.
7. Publish nonsense.

Meissner
2nd May 2012, 04:15 PM
Did someone mention the scientific method? :)

1. Don Lab coat
2. Make sure pocket protector is full of pencils, and a slide rule.
3. Have your scientific calculator in another pocket.
4. Put on glasses and look geeky.
5. Pray to Einstein and Darwin.
6. Write any nonsense, so long as it pisses off the devout.
7. Publish nonsense.

lol, sadly enough thats how alot of theists sum it up

Mjt
2nd May 2012, 04:55 PM
Did someone mention the scientific method? :)

1. Don Lab coat
2. Make sure pocket protector is full of pencils, and a slide rule.
3. Have your scientific calculator in another pocket.
4. Put on glasses and look geeky.
5. Pray to Einstein and Darwin.
6. Write any nonsense, so long as it pisses off the devout.
7. Publish nonsense.

Puppy, you have again inspired me and I shall now become a sciencemathific person. I will write reams of nonsense and become a person of HIGH RENOUN, and be much admired.

If I can borrow a slide rule, some one nicked mine. Damn things are worse than iPhones, crooks will slit your throat for em.
We are here because we got lucky and the egg took, the pregnancy lasted and bang us. We will go on to have more little people who will ask "why are we here?" hoping for proof of some deep purpose.
And on it goes

zygote
2nd May 2012, 08:03 PM
How do you know what a brick is for unless you know where the mud to make it came from?
A brick has a known purpose, it was made by some person, we dont need to know who usually but that doesnt matter because we know it has a purpose and what that purpose is for.

We, matter and energy exist, unlike the brick we dont know why or even if we have a purpose. We think we spontaneously 'appeared' after something we term the big bang.

Were bricks unknown, and one spontaneously appeared, without apparant purpose, without clues to who or what created it I believe the scientific community would have as its primary questions, what is it, where did it come from and what is it for. Rather the opposite of the answers here, "we just are". Seems like more of a religious avoidant answer to me.

Fearless
2nd May 2012, 08:15 PM
We think we spontaneously 'appeared' after something we term the big bang.
Interesting choice of words... you aren't discounting evolution I assume, you are just skipping over it rather brutally?

Were bricks unknown, and one spontaneously appeared, without apparant purpose, without clues to who or what created it I believe the scientific community would have as its primary questions, what is it, where did it come from and what is it for. Rather the opposite of the answers here, "we just are". Seems like more of a religious avoidant answer to me.
What was your reasoning again (in a nutshell) as to why we were here?

I can only really say that we are just another stage in the evolutionary process, we procreate, our offspring live to survive and thrive and then we die leaving our offspring to continue the cycle. I can't see how we serve any other significant purpose.

zygote
2nd May 2012, 08:15 PM
A brick is an artifact, Zyg.

Is a universe an artifact?
I cant answer that without knowing what existed or didnt exist before it came into existance. I could only assume, predict, guess, theorize, imagine, think, believe. . .

zygote
2nd May 2012, 08:21 PM
Interesting choice of words... you aren't discounting evolution I assume, you are just skipping over it rather brutally?


What was your reasoning again (in a nutshell) as to why we were here?

I can only really say that we are just another stage in the evolutionary process, we procreate, our offspring live to survive and thrive and then we die leaving our offspring to continue the cycle. I can't see how we serve any other significant purpose.
I was using We in the sense we are made of energy and particals.

My reasoning in my very first post was we cant say until we know where we came from(prior to big bang) whether we were designed, 'we' again in cosmic sense, or not. And then went on to say probably not designed due to predestiny and lack of randomness.

DanDare
2nd May 2012, 09:10 PM
If I can borrow a slide rule, some one nicked mine. Damn things are worse than iPhones, crooks will slit your throat for em.
I gots one but its mine. :o

Mjt
2nd May 2012, 09:13 PM
I think I have slide rule envy.

Is that wrong?

Meissner
2nd May 2012, 09:33 PM
A brick has a known purpose, it was made by some person, we dint need to know who usually but that doesnt matter because we know it has a purpose and what that purpose is for.

We, matter and energy exist, unlike the brick we dont know why or even if we have a purpose. We think we spontaneously 'appeared' after something we term the big bang.

Were bricks unknown, and one spontaneously appeared, without apparant purpose, without clues to who or what created it I believe the scientific community would have as its primary questions, what is it, where did it come from and what is it for. Rather the opposite of the answers here, "we just are". Seems like more of a religious avoidant answer to me.


You've missed the point entirely, my point is that we don't have to know where it came from to know it's purpose or lack thereof.

How about an apple? Do we know what an apple's purpose is without knowing where the matter came from?

Your logic is flawed in this regard, you have little basis to say the things you are saying and even less to back it up.

Based on what we know about Biology/Evolution we can say that there is no real purpose for our existence.
We are a product of procreation and the replication of D.N.A, and that is fine.

zygote
2nd May 2012, 09:51 PM
You've missed the point entirely, my point is that we don't have to know where it came from to know it's purpose or lack thereof.

How about an apple? Do we know what an apple's purpose is without knowing where the matter came from?

Your logic is flawed in this regard, you have little basis to say the things you are saying and even less to back it up.

Based on what we know about Biology/Evolution we can say that there is no real purpose for our existence.
We are a product of procreation and the replication of D.N.A, and that is fine.
No I did get your point I disagree with it in its entirety. We already know its (bricks) purpose therefore we dont need to know anything else about it since it has a function which requires us only to know its purpose to make it useful.

In comparison, all we know is we exist and what we're made of but not what made or how and where we came from. To find out our purpose or lack thereof we need more information. Until then we are guessing.

Edit: I have a question for you, what do you think the apples purpose is?

On what basis and how do you back up your claim (biological evolution without other meaning) without all the necessary information?

Martin_Madej
2nd May 2012, 09:55 PM
Why dos it matter.

I think the question of why are we here? Belongs to the area of mental masterbation ( ps the iPad doesn't have masterbation in its dictionary... funny that >_<).


The FACT is that we are here,

and some of us have the mental capacity to Realise this. (BTW evolution has a big role to play in us being here that is why we are here but that's not here nor there)

We have the mental capacity to understand this world, the natural causes for events and create a society in which natural selection dosent have a major role to play, but what I say Socioal selection dose ( IE social selection; the selection of traits that is dreamed by a group of people to be beneficial for that group of propel to survive and propagate the lineage, it's a combination of sexual selection and then selection on beneficial memes ( ideas) within a sentient group of people.

This is my interpretation of things.

Meissner
2nd May 2012, 10:13 PM
No I did get your point I disagree with it in its entirety. We already know its (bricks) purpose therefore we dont need to know anything else about it since it has a function which requires us only to know its purpose to make it useful.

In comparison, all we know is we exist and what we're made of but not what made or how and where we came from. To find out our purpose or lack thereof we need more information. Until then we are guessing.

Edit: I have a question for you, what do you think the apples purpose is?

On what basis and how do you back up your claim (biological evolution without other meaning) without all the necessary information?

An apples purpose to the apple tree is the same as the purpose that my seminal fluid is to me, to carry the seed.

I can say we don't have an external purpose by knowing that we ARE the product of evolution, a process that doesn't require an external purpose for organisms to exist.

From there we can deduce that since there is no evidence for such a purpose, coupled with that purpose not being required, that we almost certainly do not have any sort of purpose in the sense that the religious believe.

And no, you don't seem to get my point about the brick, you said that since we don't "know" where absolutely everything came from, then we can't say anything about it's purpose. This logic is FLAWED as I have shown you and you have proven my point, you basically say we can know it's purpose because we know it's purpose.

Martin_Madej
2nd May 2012, 10:42 PM
Try spelling it "masturbation"...

Remember, you can't have masturbation without "u"! :p

But masturbation is the master of me!

What will I ever do >_<


Ps thanks

I an really drunk ATM



The funny thing is that this is the time I get my best ideas, now I kip now what the philosophers of old were on about..... You know Aristotle was a booze beggar or something like that lolz

zygote
2nd May 2012, 10:42 PM
An apples purpose to the apple tree is the same as the purpose that my seminal fluid is to me, to carry the seed.

I can say we don't have an external purpose by knowing that we ARE the product of evolution, a process that doesn't require an external purpose for organisms to exist.

From there we can deduce that since there is no evidence for such a purpose, coupled with that purpose not being required, that we almost certainly do not have any sort of purpose in the sense that the religious believe.

And no, you don't seem to get my point about the brick, you said that since we don't "know" where absolutely everything came from, then we can't say anything about it's purpose. This logic is FLAWED as I have shown you and you have proven my point, you basically say we can know it's purpose because we know it's purpose.
Respectfully I think your logic is flawed. Reproduction does not require purpose but purpose might require reproduction or it might not. Reproduction might be unrelated to a purpose.

You are jumping to some pretty enormous assumptions based on a possibly unrelated biological function.

riddlemethis
2nd May 2012, 10:45 PM
Did you intuit that or are you standing on the back of the scientific method?

Questions still outstanding. You've read the great big list right?

Martin_Madej
2nd May 2012, 10:49 PM
Respectfully I think your logic is flawed. Reproduction does not require purpose but purpose might require reproduction or it might not. Reproduction might be unrelated to a purpose.

You are jumping to some pretty enormous assumptions based on a possibly unrelated biological function.

Why can't reproduction be the purpose of life?




Every living thing on this earth reproduces, even some things that we consider non living like viruses.

I'll even go as far to say as the evolutionary theory is solely based on the reproduction of a line for the best survival of that line.

zygote
2nd May 2012, 11:07 PM
Why can't reproduction be the purpose of life?




Every living thing on this earth reproduces, even some things that we consider non living like viruses.

I'll even go as far to say as the evolutionary theory is solely based on the reproduction of a line for the best survival of that line.
Well it can be the primary purpose, that doesnt mean it is.

Martin_Madej
2nd May 2012, 11:27 PM
Well it can be the primary purpose, that doesnt mean it is.

Explain.


If its the primary it is the main.

There is no getting around that, everything else comes as a secondary, a coincidental accident combination of survival skills produced unexpected results and behaviours that benefited survival of the organism as to reproduce and also gave it the ability to improve itself thus adding to the adaptivity to various enviromental conditions (ie clothes) thus providing a evolutionary advantage through ah unique mechanism called "intelligence" which gathers "information" to be able to spread and survive through and in a wide range of environments allowing the propagation of the spices.


This mechanism allows for survival in the most hostile environments for example SPACE a completely alien environment to the one in which this organism ( Humanity) originally evolved to inhabit ( which was the savannah)

Inedifix
3rd May 2012, 09:48 AM
My reasoning in my very first post was we cant say until we know where we came from(prior to big bang) whether we were designed, 'we' again in cosmic sense, or not. And then went on to say probably not designed due to predestiny and lack of randomness.
It's actually quite important to bear in mind that 'not knowing' what pre-existed the big bang/inflation, is a very good reason to presuppose nothing either way. What I mean is, one's reasoning should go as follows.

1. Due to the nature of a big bang/inflationary event, there does not exist enough information to develop a theory of what existence looked like prior to the event.
2. Therefore we cannot draw any conclusions about it at all.

And then stop right there.

An absence of knowledge/information, is just that. Inference from a lack of knowledge/information is just guessing/wishful thinking.

It's then important to remember the fact that it is impossible to prove a universal negative, e.g. "There are no cosmic supernatural creators, nor have there ever been."

The only way to prove this premise is to be everywhere, permanently, eternally (both within our universe and without prior to its inception) to observe said absences and to provide measurable, testable evidence to prove them. Clearly, this is impossible. Hence, proving a universal negative is impossible. Which is why the burden of proof rests firmly and solely with those who advocate for anything unobserved, like an intelligent creator. Because all one has to do is find evidence for one once, and it is proven.

Just a final word on pre-destiny/pre-determinism. Scientific Determinism is not the same thing as pre-determinism. Determinism says that every event has a cause - therefore you could (theoretically) trace your own individual existence back through a multitude of events to the big bang/inflation. But that is not the same thing as saying that in the instance of the big bang, who and what you are today was in any way predetermined.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is real. The quantum uncertainty of particles and the potential for random events they cause are real. Pre-destiny is therefore impossible, whereas the deterministic chain of cause and effect is rock solid.

Particles really can be in more than one place at a time. If they weren't, there would be no sunlight. Check out this explainer on quantum tunneling - it's a layman's language film that really opened my eyes (like you, I'm no physicist). This phenomenon also has very real applications in the real world. In fact, one day soon, you may even own a mobile phone that depends on the HUP to work: http://www.smartertechnology.com/c/a/Optimized-Systems/Quantum-Tunneling-Enables-3D-Touch/

Inedifix
3rd May 2012, 10:06 AM
I know after 14 pages this might be a bit late to mention, but I think the reason some people are disagreeing here is because of the nature of the OP's question. I'm reading Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" and he makes the important point that within scientific/rationalistic circles, most big "Why" questions are actually "How" questions, and that there's a fundamental difference between them, e.g.

Q: Why are we here? This question is about purpose, which is best dealt with by philosophers and theologians, and generally results in zero actual knowledge.

Q: How are we here/How did we get here? This is a question about process, which is best dealt with by rationalists and scientists and generally results in actual data.

However, it's very easy to conflate these two issues, which I think might be going on above.

Procreation is not actually a purpose, it's part of a process.

You cannot say, a rabbit exists to pass on its genes. It doesn't. It exists because the process of evolution endowed its ancestors with a drive that optimized their chances of passing on their genes. And today's rabbit will therefore do the same thing. Not because its genes have 'purpose' but because they are part of a successful biological process.

zygote
3rd May 2012, 12:52 PM
It's actually quite important to bear in mind that 'not knowing' what pre-existed the big bang/inflation, is a very good reason to presuppose nothing either way. What I mean is, one's reasoning should go as follows.

1. Due to the nature of a big bang/inflationary event, there does not exist enough information to develop a theory of what existence looked like prior to the event.
2. Therefore we cannot draw any conclusions about it at all.

And then stop right there.

An absence of knowledge/information, is just that. Inference from a lack of knowledge/information is just guessing/wishful thinking.
:
It's then important to remember the fact that it is impossible to prove a universal negative, e.g. "There are no cosmic supernatural creators, nor have there ever been."

The only way to prove this premise is to be everywhere, permanently, eternally (both within our universe and without prior to its inception) to observe said absences and to provide measurable, testable evidence to prove them. Clearly, this is impossible. Hence, proving a universal negative is impossible. Which is why the burden of proof rests firmly and solely with those who advocate for anything unobserved, like an intelligent creator. Because all one has to do is find evidence for one once, and it is proven.

Just a final word on pre-destiny/pre-determinism. Scientific Determinism is not the same thing as pre-determinism. Determinism says that every event has a cause - therefore you could (theoretically) trace your own individual existence back through a multitude of events to the big bang/inflation. But that is not the same thing as saying that in the instance of the big bang, who and what you are today was in any way predetermined.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is real. The quantum uncertainty of particles and the potential for random events they cause are real. Pre-destiny is therefore impossible, whereas the deterministic chain of cause and effect is rock solid.

Particles really can be in more than one place at a time. If they weren't, there would be no sunlight. Check out this explainer on quantum tunneling - it's a layman's language film that really opened my eyes (like you, I'm no physicist). This phenomenon also has very real applications in the real world. In fact, one day soon, you may even own a mobile phone that depends on the HUP to work: http://www.smartertechnology.com/c/a/Optimized-Systems/Quantum-Tunneling-Enables-3D-Touch/
I dont believe the HUP is as important to this question as everyone thinks. I would also point out as a theory Quantum Mechanics is still quite controversial (tunnelling can occur from a universe of size zero using physical laws that cant somehow exist in a universe of size nothing.

HUP seems to rely on deliberate attempts to measure particles. It is not possible to know every variable in the universe without measuring those variables thereby changing the values but the does not mean that thoe variables have no values, just that they cannot be measured.

riddlemethis
3rd May 2012, 02:13 PM
Zygote there are outstanding questions to you from a stream of this conversation that you conveniently ducked (I suspect I know why). I'm asking you to address them please. Next step will be to make them red as per the GBL rules. It isn't acceptable to keep wibbling your way into corners & then popping off to another nonsense tangent.

zygote
3rd May 2012, 02:24 PM
Zygote there are outstanding questions to you from a stream of this conversation that you conveniently ducked (I suspect I know why). I'm asking you to address them please. Next step will be to make them red as per the GBL rules. It isn't acceptable to keep wibbling your way into corners & then popping off to another nonsense tangent.
I have a long standing rule that says if a poster acts disrespectfully toward me, out of proportion to something I have said, I ignore that poster for the remainder of the thread. Being a respectful person even when disagreeing is important in my opinion.

Edit: btw based on your last post, my decision to ignore stands. Be respectful or be ignored.

riddlemethis
3rd May 2012, 02:42 PM
The problem with that is this forum doesn't run by your rules. You signed a user agreement which has consequences when ignored. I haven't broken any community rules here & whilst I understand it might be convenient for you to ignore questions about claims you've made by taking self imposed offense based upon self implied tone, that doesn't exempt you from the rules of the forum. You've not been ad homed & I've asked politely 3 times now for you to address the questions posed to you.

Inedifix
3rd May 2012, 03:08 PM
I dont believe the HUP is as important to this question as everyone thinks.
Hmm... perhaps look a little closer and I think you'll find it is (did you watch the quantum tunneling vid?). Or at least it is fundamental to your objection to randomness. The HUP lies at the very heart of 'randomness' in our world. You could say it permits randomness.

I would also point out as a theory Quantum Mechanics is still quite controversial
I really don't think it is. It's hard to grasp because it only works at tiny scales and therefore doesn't govern much that you and I can see in life. But it does govern things that result in things we can see. Take the automatic sliding doors you get at supermarkets - they only slide open and closed because of a QM effect. You could say, they prove QM theory. If it was wrong, they wouldn't open and close. Your CD player wouldn't work either.

tunnelling can occur from a universe of size zero using physical laws that cant somehow exist in a universe of size nothing.
Quantum tunneling works for real . . . in our world.

HUP seems to rely on deliberate attempts to measure particles.
It may seem to stem from that, but it doesn't rely on it. One way of thinking of it is like this. To know where a particle is, you have to put a pin in it and hold it still. As soon as you do that, you don't know it's velocity, because it's not moving. On the flip side, if you time a particle moving from sensor A to sensor B, the instant it passes sensor B you know it's velocity, but you don't know where it is anymore. This doesn't go just for the particles you try to measure - it goes for every single subatomic particle in the universe. All the time. Including the ones you're made of. You don't have to try to measure them to know this.

It is not possible to know every variable in the universe without measuring those variables thereby changing the values but the does not mean that thoe variables have no values, just that they cannot be measured.
I think that will work fine above the plank level. But below that the truth is actually deeper, because the values in question don't look like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Point_A.PNG

They look something like this:

http://www.phys.ens.fr/~troost/beyondstringtheory/l4m0.jpg.

zygote
3rd May 2012, 04:09 PM
Hmm... perhaps look a little closer and I think you'll find it is (did you watch the quantum tunneling vid?). Or at least it is fundamental to your objection to randomness. The HUP lies at the very heart of 'randomness' in our world. You could say it permits randomness.


I really don't think it is. It's hard to grasp because it only works at tiny scales and therefore doesn't govern much that you and I can see in life. But it does govern things that result in things we can see. Take the automatic sliding doors you get at supermarkets - they only slide open and closed because of a QM effect. You could say, they prove QM theory. If it was wrong, they wouldn't open and close. Your CD player wouldn't work either.


Quantum tunneling works for real . . . in our world.


It may seem to stem from that, but it doesn't rely on it. One way of thinking of it is like this. To know where a particle is, you have to put a pin in it and hold it still. As soon as you do that, you don't know it's velocity, because it's not moving. On the flip side, if you time a particle moving from sensor A to sensor B, the instant it passes sensor B you know it's velocity, but you don't know where it is anymore. This doesn't go just for the particles you try to measure - it goes for every single subatomic particle in the universe. All the time. Including the ones you're made of. You don't have to try to measure them to know this.


I think that will work fine above the plank level. But below that the truth is actually deeper, because the values in question don't look like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Point_A.PNG

They look something like this:

http://www.phys.ens.fr/~troost/beyondstringtheory/l4m0.jpg.
QM is a theory not a law. I agree with Albert Einstein, we just don't have all the answers and that's the basis for why I say you cannot answer the question of this thread definitively.

You cannot say definitively that randomness exists based on a principle which props up a theory. You need proof and QM isn't proof. You can say based on experience its probable or likely but not proves.

riddlemethis
3rd May 2012, 04:19 PM
It's a scientific http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#_theory, based on evidence (or proof as you prefer to call it). It's not the musings of a bunch of folks who have an intuitive hunch about stuff. It's predictive and netts us real life, working technologies.

Pleaaaase, work on your understanding of the method against which you're arguing, or you'll run aground on the GBL & be sent a nice set of orange pj's to wear on an island holiday.

zygote
3rd May 2012, 04:57 PM
It's a scientific http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#_theory, based on evidence (or proof as you prefer to call it). It's not the musings of a bunch of folks who have an intuitive hunch about stuff. It's predictive and netts us real life, working technologies.

Pleaaaase, work on your understanding of the method against which you're arguing, or you'll run aground on the GBL & be sent a nice set of orange pj's to wear on an island holiday.
I'm not arguing that evidence doesn't exist suggesting QM agrees with the physical universe. I'm arguing that that evidence is not proof and because of that you cannot definitely say everything is random and there is no purpose.

You have to remember not long ago there was very strong evidence to suggest predictability.

Everyone likes to imagine they're the final link in the chain to understanding but the probability is that they're just another link in the chain.

As for the GBL, leave that to the moderators, I'm sure if I'm doing something wrong they'll call me for it. Thank You.

zygote
3rd May 2012, 05:51 PM
Oh FFS, you can think it's as boring as you like, but it gave you the gadget via which you're spewing this inanity. If you aren't trolling then stop anyway. You've clearly made no effort to understand & whilst you're entitled to your (ridiculous) opinion, you can't have your own facts about how we discover the useful things we do. Feel free to hand back the products of the labour that is the scientific method (start with your computer). Thank fuck the world doesn't work the way you think it does.
I dont think I should HAVE to communicate with this person, I find their posts offensive and vitriolic. However I will go back if and when I have time and try to find the question or questions they`re insisting I answer and answer them to the best of my ability.

Inedifix
3rd May 2012, 06:46 PM
QM is a theory not a law.
And evolution is a theory not a law. However, both describe certain aspects of the world we live to an exceptional degree of accuracy. At the planck length and below, QM is an operational model that has resulted in numerous real world applications, e.g. transistors, diodes, semi-conductors, MRI scans, CD players, lasers, flash drives, electron microscopes and microchips. QM works. Simple as.

You cannot say definitively that randomness exists based on a principle which props up a theory. You need proof and QM isn't proof.
The uncertainty principle doesn't prop up a theory. It's a principle in its own right. It states something fundamentally important about quantum behavior. It states that a particle can be potentially in many different locations, even a location that allows it to pass through a supposedly unpassable barrier. Quantum tunneling has been observed. It is proof of the HUP. Modern technology has exploited this to develop real life applications. The proof is in the pudding.

Like Einstein, you might not like the un-deterministic feel of all this, and neither did I. As a self avowed incompatiblist determinist it just felt too messy, where scientific determinism is nice and neat. However, I found the real-life applications of quantum tunneling so convincing I had to think again.

But here's the get out clause: QM only applies below the plank level. For all other scales the causal chain of determinism applies. In reality this allows for an infinitesimally small degree of randomness in the universe. Sufficient to bugger the concept of pre-determinism, but not deterministic cause and effect that still holds water.

Going back to one of your original posts - I agree with you that if the universe was rewound to the first instant of inflation and replayed like a tape, then exactly the same events would unfold - because you'd be replaying exactly the same set of causal parameters over again (including the quantum ones).

If however you could press a reset button that defaulted our universe to 0 before retriggering another inflationary event, then 'proven' quantum uncertainty implies very compellingly that any number of different possible outcomes are possible, from minor plasma farts to other massive inflationary events like the one that led to our universe.

DanDare
3rd May 2012, 07:39 PM
There is no "proof" in science. A scientific theory is the best you get. We have the theory of gravity, germ theory, theory of conservation of energy and matter, theory of thermodynamics, atomic theory and on and on.

Quantum Mechanics is very well established. There is nothing very controversial about it. It is precise enough to let these computers be built, to manage clouds of mobile and geostationary satellites, to properly calibrate atomic clocks, to allow quantum teleportation in a lab and quantum computing is close to reality.

Logic please
3rd May 2012, 11:26 PM
I dont think I should HAVE to communicate with this person, I find their posts offensive and vitriolic. However I will go back if and when I have time and try to find the question or questions they`re insisting I answer and answer them to the best of my ability.
@zygote: for your convenience, the relevant post with riddlemethis' outstanding questions is quoted HERE (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=297582&postcount=113), AFAIK. Riddlemethis may add to this, if I've missed any others.

I trust that there's no further impediment to your responding to these.

Cheers.

Darwinsbulldog
4th May 2012, 01:37 AM
<derail>

iinet SUCKS! Been offline for 48 hours! And a sloow connection now...:headbang::headbang::headbang:

<derail endz> :(

zygote
4th May 2012, 12:57 PM
@zygote I draw your attention to this post & the questions therein, which as I said were not rhetorical.
I never said it was or wasnt linked. I said I found the list of points posted boring, not unnecessary. I dont know how often my intuition is wrong, I dont keep records. The last question infers I stated that intuition was all I use. I did not, I said the scientific method was boring. I said an alternate method was using intuition, making a intuitive leap to a conclusion and testing rather than small studied steps and inferring conclusions from the result - philosphical rapid prototyping if you like.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 01:17 PM
I said the scientific method was boring. I said an alternate method was using intuition, making a intuitive leap to a conclusion and testing rather than small studied steps and inferring conclusions from the result- philosphical rapid prototyping if you like .

Great, if you find the scientific method boring, don't be a scientist, simple!!

If you don't use the basic scientific method in order to live your life I'm very surprised you have managed to survive for so long.

Intuition is a fine thing once you have gathered enough information from tried and tested results via the scientific method, but prior to that, intuition is as worthless as faith.

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 01:26 PM
I never said it was or wasnt linked. I said I found the list of points posted boring, not unnecessary. I dont know how often my intuition is wrong, I dont keep records. The last question infers I stated that intuition was all I use. I did not, I said the scientific method was boring. I said an alternate method was using intuition, making a intuitive leap to a conclusion and testing rather than small studied steps and inferring conclusions from the result - philosphical rapid prototyping if you like.

Ok, thank you. Of course this raises follow up questions ;)

How do you determine this is an adequate alternative to the scientific method for the production of useful results (for things a tad more complex than crossing the road, lets say!)?

How does intuitive thinking help in a discussion, say, about QM? It's a discussion that I think is clearly deeply mired in boring scientific method & which if left to intuition would mean we didn't have any number of amazing technologies, including the one upon which we currently communicate.

The scientific method is arguably responsible for every exciting leap forward we've made. You've made a number of comments now that demonstrate an incredibly simplistic understanding of how it works & why, let alone the pitfalls it saves us from. "Philosophical rapid prototyping" is exactly the sloppy kind of thinking that has given us the tens of thousands of religions & woo-beliefs in the world that people believe provide them with the ability to control their environment/nature. Intercesional prayer & faith healers aside, Feng Shuei would be a perfect example, homeopathy another, crystal healing, heck, I have a friend who believes that a little black box given her by a whack-job self styled guru in the Dandenongs protects her from ALL THE RADIATION that come from her home electrical appliances - she tests the truth of the conclusion every day that she wakes up healthy! Jumping to conclusions & fitting evidence to suit might feel great, but you've only got to look around to see the superstitious nonsense it produces.

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 01:29 PM
Great, if you find the scientific method boring, don't be a scientist, simple!!

If you don't use the basic scientific method in order to live your life I'm very surprised you have managed to survive for so long.

Intuition is a fine thing once you have gathered enough information from tried and tested results via the scientific method, but prior to that, intuition is as worthless as faith.

That's exactly the other point that I was making when I asked in what way his intuition wasn't a product of what he knows via the products of the scientific method. The more one knows factually about any topic, the better one's intuition is likely to be.

So zygote if your 'intuition' doesn't come from the products (body of knowledge) of the scientific method, then from where?

zygote
4th May 2012, 01:43 PM
Ok, thank you. Of course this raises follow up questions ;)

How do you determine this is an adequate alternative to the scientific method for the production of useful results (for things a tad more complex than crossing the road, lets say!)?

How does intuitive thinking help in a discussion, say, about QM? It's a discussion that I think is clearly deeply mired in boring scientific method & which if left to intuition would mean we didn't have any number of amazing technologies, including the one upon which we currently communicate.

The scientific method is arguably responsible for every exciting leap forward we've made. You've made a number of comments now that demonstrate an incredibly simplistic understanding of how it works & why, let alone the pitfalls it saves us from. "Philosophical rapid prototyping" is exactly the sloppy kind of thinking that has given us the tens of thousands of religions & woo-beliefs in the world that people believe provide them with the ability to control their environment/nature. Intercesional prayer & faith healers aside, Feng Shuei would be a perfect example, homeopathy another, crystal healing, heck, I have a friend who believes that a little black box given her by a whack-job self styled guru in the Dandenongs protects her from ALL THE RADIATION that come from her home electrical appliances - she tests the truth of the conclusion every day that she wakes up healthy! Jumping to conclusions & fitting evidence to suit might feel great, but you've only got to look around to see the superstitious nonsense it produces.
You took my comment that I find the scientific method boring and my proposal that there is an alternative that I prefer and strawmanned a whole lot of nonsense onto it. Im not interested in defending a stance or stances you pretend I made.

Darwinsbulldog
4th May 2012, 01:50 PM
Intuition [actuallyI prefer the german term Umwelt] is of reasonably good value for survival in mundane conditions. I suppose it is part personal experience, genetic tuning, and societial experience. It can be OK for primative science.

In other words, we know what it is like to live in a particular corner of the Earth, expereince one g of gravity, one bar of atm pressure, temperatures between about 0 and 50 centigrade, and so on. Thus shapes our Unwelt. None of us knows what it is like to be in a black hole, travel at the speed of light, live a million years etc, etc. So our Umwelts are TOTALLY and utterly useless for shit like that.

Biologist like Ernst Mayr and Jarad Diamond noted that the indigenous people who lived a traditional bush lifestyle in places like Papua New Guinea were [B]SHIT HOT technical biologists of the local species of birds and stuff. Knowing how to identify important animals, plants etc for their food value, danger, medical properties etc are obviously essential to survival.
In terms of theory though, their instincts/intuitions did not help them much. None developed a sophisticated view of evolution.

The native data collected empirically was of great value, but origin stories etc, were of no scientific value, but obviously these people held them in high regard as part of their history and culture.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 01:54 PM
Well if there is a more effective alternative to the scientific method we now have, we alll want to know about it, please explain the way about which you gathered the body of facts on which you base your superior intuition.

Darwinsbulldog
4th May 2012, 02:00 PM
Well if there is a more effective alternative to the scientific method we now have, we alll want to know about it, please explain the way about which you gathered the body of facts on which you base your superior intuition.
No, I wasn't claiming it was better than the scientific method. In fact the most effective part of the Umwelt is the empirical part. [Which is the scientific part]. :thumbsup: The Umwelt is not tied together with theory, like science is, so the knowledge is less useful out of context. Someone in the hot jungle has no idea what snow is like until they experience it by travelling high up a mountain or to the poles. A scientist can predict what it [cold, snow]would look and feel like . :thumbsup:

zygote
4th May 2012, 02:01 PM
Well if there is a more effective alternative to the scientific method we now have, we alll want to know about it, please explain the way about which you gathered the body of facts on which you base your superior intuition.
There is an alternative to airtravel, boat travel. I prefer it. I find air travel boring.

edit: nm thought u were referring to my post

@MrBlack one can learn other than in formal education. An No, I like it here.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 02:06 PM
No, I wasn't claiming it was better than the scientific method. In fact the most effective part of the Umwelt is the empirical part. [Which is the scientific part]. :thumbsup: The Umwelt is not tied together with theory, like science is, so the knowledge is less useful out of context. Someone in the hot jungle has no idea what snow is like until they experience it by travelling high up a mountain or to the poles. A scientist can predict what it [cold, snow]would look and feel like . :thumbsup:

I guess I need to make my posts clearer, sorry DB it was directed at Zyg

wolty
4th May 2012, 02:07 PM
Remember peoples, please use the quote function.

Meissner, DB thinks the post was directed at him, zygote doesn't think it was directed at him. My guess is zygote. Am I right?

An No, I like it here.
Knock yourself out. :) Though you will be called on anything that smells even the tiniest bit fishy. We are full-on skeptics here. We don't handle bullshit well.
Yes, it is a tough place, but well worth the effort.


My advice, make good posts. Think about what you are writing, use some research, form your conclusions, ask questions. :)

Darwinsbulldog
4th May 2012, 02:08 PM
I guess I need to make my posts clearer, sorry DB it was directed at Zyg
No problem. It doesn't hurt to clarify my jumbled thought in any case! :)
Editz: Yes, Wolty moi posts was direct at Zyg's arguments.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 02:17 PM
There is an alternative to airtravel, boat travel. I prefer it. I find air travel boring.

edit: nm thought u were referring to my post

.

I was, and great, boat is a viable alternative to plane, not quite as efficient but hey, some may find it more enjoyable.

Now all you need to do is address the question I asked rather than one that I didn't, from what method do you derive the knowledge you apply to intuition?

Side note;

Here's an example of applying the sci-method in day-to-day life:

1. I see a gas barbecue

2. I want to know if the barbecue is turned on

3. I predict that if it is turned on, it will be hot, and if I look under the plate I will see a flame.

4. I put my hand near the plate and find that it is not hot

5. I conclude it Isn't hot, but maybe it has only recently been turned on and hasn't heated up yet.

6. I look under the plate and see that the flame is not lit and I smell no gas.

7. Based on the acquired information, I can say the barbecue is not turned on.

Believe it or not, these processes would go through your head without you even thinking about it very deeply, but it is still application of the scientific method.

zygote
4th May 2012, 02:23 PM
Well if there is a more effective alternative to the scientific method we now have, we alll want to know about it, please explain the way about which you gathered the body of facts on which you base your superior intuition.
In my comment on travel, where do I make a comparison on the methods? I state I have a preference, not that it is better. I stated the same with scientific method and intuition.

This will have everyone frothing at the mouth but in the discovery of and arguing for and against QM some intuition must have been used since QM contains ideas which have no real life analog does it not?

Meissner
4th May 2012, 02:35 PM
In my comment on travel, where do I make a comparison on the methods? I state I have a preference, not that it is better. I stated the same with scientific method and intuition.

This will have everyone frothing at the mouth but in the discovery of and arguing for and against QM some intuition must have been used since QM contains ideas which have no real life analog does it not?

If QM isn't based on "real life" it doesn't belong in physics, QM contains ideas that have been based on observations of energy/matter at the quantum state.

You still aren't addressing the question properly, you are welcome to say you "prefer" intuition but that begs the question of the basis you use to even get to a state of being able to use intuition.

Also the barbecue example, no dis-agreement there?

zygote
4th May 2012, 02:46 PM
I will put forward a scenario where intuition maybe >= the scientific method posted in this thread. I have a limited number of resources and an indefinite number of options with a limited amount of time. If I have to examine every option I wont finish. I can use a linear search or binary search with the possibility of not finishing. Or I can ask my resources to use their 'gut feeling' to select a number of likely candidates that they have time to search and now have the possibility to finish my search.

zygote
4th May 2012, 03:00 PM
@Zyg: If the possible outcomes of those choices involve harm or great loss, how does that sway you?
Vs never finishing? Lets assume then we're trying to identify an antibody, would it be preferable to never finish and possibly miss the solution by brute forcing or finish a group of intuitively selected items, with a potentially increased level of accuracy. Id rather fail on the latter.

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 03:01 PM
You took my comment that I find the scientific method boring and my proposal that there is an alternative that I prefer and strawmanned a whole lot of nonsense onto it. Im not interested in defending a stance or stances you pretend I made.

No, I took exception to the notion that it is & asked you to discuss on what basis you find it boring. Which is where you keep tripping up by demonstrating that you don't understand how the SM works (ie: QM is only a theory - as of that statement is a meaningful criticism about a lack of evidence). But do please elucidate on how I've straw-manned you.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 03:12 PM
Vs never finishing? Lets assume then we're trying to identify an antibody, would it be preferable to never finish and possibly miss the solution by brute forcing or finish a group of intuitively selected items, with a potentially increased level of accuracy. Id rather fail on the latter.

You just strawmanned the SM, if what you are saying is true, then we would never reach any sort of result on any sort of topic, since we know these two things.

A. the SM is always applied in the field of biology (amongst other fields)
B. the field of biology yields results

Therefore I conclude that your whole question is fallacious, flawed logic strikes again, it seems.

zygote
4th May 2012, 03:13 PM
"Never finishing"? Is this an artifact you've introduced?

Many scientific working theories exist. I'll leave it to you to find the difference between a theory and a hypothesis by any method you prefer.
In my scenario I did state if I have to examine every option I wont finish.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 03:15 PM
In my scenario I did state if I have to examine every option I wont finish.

Strawman, the scientific method DOESN'T explore every possibility, only the ones worth exploring, the ones based on evidence.

zygote
4th May 2012, 03:22 PM
Strawman, the scientific method DOESN'T explore every possibility, only the ones worth exploring, the ones based on evidence.
My options are all worth exploring which is why they are in the list.

zygote
4th May 2012, 03:29 PM
No, I took exception to the notion that it is & asked you to discuss on what basis you find it boring. Which is where you keep tripping up by demonstrating that you don't understand how the SM works (ie: QM is only a theory - as of that statement is a meaningful criticism about a lack of evidence). But do please elucidate on how I've straw-manned you.
As I have repeatedly stated any SM I refer to relates only to the SM presented to me earlier and in this thread.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 03:31 PM
As I have repeatedly stated any SM I refer to relates only to the SM presented to me earlier and in this thread.
Please, reiterate, with links to that particular post, please

zygote
4th May 2012, 03:37 PM
Im at the gym posting on my gal s, have to wait or you can go look.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 03:58 PM
Im at the gym posting on my gal s, have to wait or you can go look.

never mind, heres a quote from a previous post of mine that you didn't acknowledge, it was hard to miss but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Here's an example of applying the sci-method in day-to-day life:

1. I see a gas barbecue

2. I want to know if the barbecue is turned on

3. I predict that if it is turned on, it will be hot, and if I look under the plate I will see a flame.

4. I put my hand near the plate and find that it is not hot

5. I conclude it Isn't hot, but maybe it has only recently been turned on and hasn't heated up yet.

6. I look under the plate and see that the flame is not lit and I smell no gas.

7. Based on the acquired information, I can say the barbecue is not turned on.

Believe it or not, these processes would go through your head without you even thinking about it very deeply, but it is still application of the scientific method.

Do you agree that this is reasonable?

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 04:15 PM
As I have repeatedly stated any SM I refer to relates only to the SM presented to me earlier and in this thread.

Absolute nonsense. You've been guided to numerous links outlining the SM & you've clearly not read a one.

I'm sorry, but it's pretty clear you are trolling this board. Your preferences are one thing, as they pertain to your life, they are your right, however, discussion of the claims you make for those preferences, on a board such as this needs to be undertaken honestly. To refuse to do so, is simply wasting time & bandwidth.

Logic please
4th May 2012, 05:54 PM
In my comment on travel, where do I make a comparison on the methods? I state I have a preference, not that it is better. I stated the same with scientific method and intuition.
Sorry, but I think you are forgetting some of your earlier postings on the topic, then:
I am not trolling. In post 61 Meisnerr outlined the scientific method. I think its a boring way to look at science. How do make big leaps forward with that method? It seems anti innovative and safe vs developing a theory and then trying to prove it. Im not saying its wrong. Im saying I dont like it.
Your example post here (and there was another post where you claimed that SM couldn't make "great leaps forward", or similar) to measures of effectiveness, not just preference or alternative. It clearly implied that intuition performs better than SM, in respect of your stated areas of comparison.

Well, I'm afraid you've produced zero actual credible evidence of any greater effectiveness for intuition over SM. You've stated that you can't see how SM could advance or innovate as quickly or as far as intuition, but without any evidence, that's merely an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't intuit how SM innovates quickly, doesn't evidence that it can't, does it?

zygote
4th May 2012, 06:43 PM
Sorry, but I think you are forgetting some of your earlier postings on the topic, then:

Your example post here (and there was another post where you claimed that SM couldn't make "great leaps forward", or similar) to measures of effectiveness, not just preference or alternative. It clearly implied that intuition performs better than SM, in respect of your stated areas of comparison.

Well, I'm afraid you've produced zero actual credible evidence of any greater effectiveness for intuition over SM. You've stated that you can't see how SM could advance or innovate as quickly or as far as intuition, but without any evidence, that's merely an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't intuit how SM innovates quickly, doesn't evidence that it can't, does it?
Travelling on a boat means I can swim in a pool, watch some theatre, get a suntan, do some recreational gambling. . . am I then implying that boat travel is superior to air travel by ommitting the benefits of air travel? No.

zygote
4th May 2012, 06:50 PM
never mind, heres a quote from a previous post of mine that you didn't acknowledge, it was hard to miss but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



Do you agree that this is reasonable?
It is out of context. On a personal level, I do know people like this, they grate on my nerves.

Logic please
4th May 2012, 07:38 PM
Travelling on a boat means I can swim in a pool, watch some theatre, get a suntan, do some recreational gambling. . . am I then implying that boat travel is superior to air travel by ommitting the benefits of air travel? No.
And are you addressing the inconsistency in the two quotes from you, that I highlighted and explained? No.

Please address the substance of my post. Thanks.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 08:18 PM
It is out of context. On a personal level, I do know people like this, they grate on my nerves.

So you're saying everybody over the age of five years old who doesn't suffer from Aspergers syndrome, Downs syndrome or Autism grates on your nerves?

The reasoning I listed is absolutely in context, the process would go through the mind almost too fast to notice.

Once you have these sorts of tried and tested concepts in your mind, you put them to use without even thinking about it.

zygote
4th May 2012, 08:27 PM
And are you addressing the inconsistency in the two quotes from you, that I highlighted and explained? No.

Please address the substance of my post. Thanks.
Im getting tired of playing this knit picking game. If you have credible evidence (a quote) where I say INTUITION IS BETTER THAN THE SM post it. Your interpretations of what I meant are incorrect, why? because I am the premier expert of what I was thinking at the time and you have no choice but to accept that and further I would not say that because it is not always true.

Worldslaziestbusker
4th May 2012, 08:33 PM
Im getting tired of playing this knit picking game.

Did you mean nit picking?

Answer the questions asked of you or take your whining else where. This forum is not a pulpit for your opinions about intuition.






WLB: Waltzing on the brink of Skits law for the sake of the funny.

zygote
4th May 2012, 08:36 PM
So you're saying everybody over the age of five years old who doesn't suffer from Aspergers syndrome, Downs syndrome or Autism grates on your nerves?

The reasoning I listed is absolutely in context, the process would go through the mind almost too fast to notice.

Once you have these sorts of tried and tested concepts in your mind, you put them to use without even thinking about it.
I believe one of the first things to learn to help you to understand others is to understand the way your own mind works is not how others minds work. I believe the majority of people would go through a less logical less process oriented more intuitive test.

zygote
4th May 2012, 08:45 PM
Did you mean nit picking?

Answer the questions asked of you or take your whining else where. This forum is not a pulpit for your opinions about intuition.






WLB: Waltzing on the brink of Skits law for the sake of the funny.
Old habit from Aces High.

I have sufficiently and exhaustedly attempted to answer all questions put to me. Certain individuals here have repeatedly flip flopped around attempting to trip me up on everything they can think off. I suggest if you have a genuine problem with my posts you use the report button. Thank you.

Fearless
4th May 2012, 08:45 PM
Zygote, honestly, how is this all panning out for you so far? You refer to game playing by others but I think you are playing your own little game here as you are not working towards meaningful discourse, just making people aware that you are the master of your own domain and no one will ever quite understand, so don't bother trying. So what's the point?
It's getting old already.
To others I just recommend not playing his game. There is no winner.

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 08:50 PM
I believe one of the first things to learn to help you to understand others is to understand the way your own mind works is not how others minds work. I believe the majority of people would go through a less logical less process oriented more intuitive test.

Like what?

Honestly, it's becoming clear that your signature on this forum is an ironic performance piece.

We have a place for believers here at the AFA Forums & I reckon the tailors ought to be along to measure your inner leg for safron jarmies aaannny minute now.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 08:58 PM
I believe one of the first things to learn to help you to understand others is to understand the way your own mind works is not how others minds work. I believe the majority of people would go through a less logical less process oriented more intuitive test.

That is entirely my point, intuition is the result of the scientific method being applied and learnt from over time, you are not born with these intuitions, they become your thought processes once the premises and "laws" are verified.

Without first learning the basis on which you build your intuition via the SM, your intuition is worthless.

Could the intuition you have on the planet earth help you to survive in an environment on an unfamiliar planet with unfamiliar laws and unfamiliar creatures? No, because you don't have anything to base you intuition on (outside of gravity, physics, universal absolutes etc). First learning, then verifying, then application, eventually intuition, but you get that intuition from the SM.

My barbecue example (no matter how silly) demonstrates this perfectly, if you knew nothing about barbecues or how they work, intuition would not help you until you use other methods based on earlier experiences to get "barbecue based" ( lol ) intuition.

Sorry, but this is becoming redundant and it feels more and more rhetorical with every post.

zygote
4th May 2012, 09:01 PM
Zygote, honestly, how is this all panning out for you so far? You refer to game playing by others but I think you are playing your own little game here as you are not working towards meaningful discourse, just making people aware that you are the master of your own domain and no one will ever quite understand, so don't bother trying. So what's the point?
It's getting old already.
To others I just recommend not playing his game. There is no winner.
Im constantly on the backfoot here. I have a bunch of people who are disrespectful, shooting a lot of questions at me demanding answers based on the GBL, but ignoring the GBL in regards to their own conduct here. A good example a few pages back I was being slammed about intuition in my example but when my argument seemed to have them on the back foot they dropped it suddenly and switched to their current attack. It seems they are more interested in winning at anything than discussing.

Its fine by me although I think the personal attacks should cease. Not necessary.

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 09:01 PM
Zygote, honestly, how is this all panning out for you so far? You refer to game playing by others but I think you are playing your own little game here as you are not working towards meaningful discourse, just making people aware that you are the master of your own domain and no one will ever quite understand, so don't bother trying. So what's the point?
It's getting old already.
To others I just recommend not playing his game. There is no winner.

Yes, the time is fast approaching for a pro-forma response to such wibblings, I think. Along the lines of "how nice for you, you must be very proud." :facepalm:

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 09:05 PM
Im constantly on the backfoot here. I have a bunch of people who are disrespectful, shooting a lot of questions at me demanding answers based on the GBL, but ignoring the GBL in regards to their own conduct here. A good example a few pages back I was being slammed about intuition in my example but when my argument seemed to have them on the back foot they dropped it suddenly and switched to their current attack. It seems they are more interested in winning at anything than discussing.

Its fine by me although I think the personal attacks should cease. Not necessary.

Personal attacks? Where? Feel free to use the little yellow triangle to report any such things. Or are you perhaps confusing attacks on ideas with attacks on person?

And please, do point out where you had anyone here on the backfoot with your argument.

Logic please
4th May 2012, 09:06 PM
Im getting tired of playing this knit picking game. If you have credible evidence (a quote) where I say INTUITION IS BETTER THAN THE SM post it. Your interpretations of what I meant are incorrect, why? because I am the premier expert of what I was thinking at the time and you have no choice but to accept that and further I would not say that because it is not always true.
Give us a break. You wrote what you wrote. You don't subsequently get to airly claim that it must've meant something else that suits you, because only you know what you were really thinking behind it. If your own postings don't accurately communicate your actual thinking, that's no-one else's fault, and no-one else's problem.

BTW, I'm playing no games here, and thanks for shouting about it. :rolleyes: I thought I already did this, but for the avoidance of doubt:
I wasn't inferring knowledge was boring I was inferring that the scientific method seems boring. If we had applied the scientific method to every discovery we ever made we'd be still halfway through the great leap forward. (my emphasis)
I am not trolling. In post 61 Meisnerr outlined the scientific method. I think its a boring way to look at science. How do make big leaps forward with that method? It seems anti innovative and safe vs developing a theory and then trying to prove it. Im not saying its wrong. Im saying I dont like it. (my emphasis)
Again, in these posts you've purported to identify these alleged "deficiencies" in SM, as against putting intuition up as the sole alternative. You repeatedly claimed (highlighted above) that the SM doesn't make "great leaps forward".

Well, if the SM didn't make or assist these alleged "great leaps forward", then what did, FFS? What was more "pro-innovation"? And according to those metrics, that approach would necessarily be "better" than the SM, no? What was the sole alternative to the SM that your posts identified, again???

And as I posted in another thread - others shouldn't have to intuit guess at what you're really saying. You're either here to communicate clearly, or you're not. So, here's your chance to be crystal clear. Do you consider that intuition is "better" than the SM, yes or no? And on what metrics and evidentiary basis?

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 09:07 PM
That is entirely my point, intuition is the result of the scientific method being applied and learnt from over time, you are not born with these intuitions, they become your thought processes once the premises and "laws" are verified.

Without first learning the basis on which you build your intuition via the SM, your intuition is worthless.

Could the intuition you have on the planet earth help you to survive in an environment on an unfamiliar planet with unfamiliar laws and unfamiliar creatures? No, because you don't have anything to base you intuition on (outside of gravity, physics, universal absolutes etc). First learning, then verifying, then application, eventually intuition, but you get that intuition from the SM.

My barbecue example (no matter how silly) demonstrates this perfectly, if you knew nothing about barbecues or how they work, intuition would not help you until you use other methods based on earlier experiences to get "barbecue based" ( lol ) intuition.

Sorry, but this is becoming redundant and it feels more and more rhetorical with every post.

I have the impression that what is being studiously avoided here by zygote is a claim about the origins of his intuition. It doesn't come from data collection over time, so it must be.........

you know where this ends, right?

Fearless
4th May 2012, 09:08 PM
Maybe you should step back and review your conversations here and try to find out what it is that has been leading to this. What has caused or contributed to this situation.

If you can't accept any responsibility for this then I'm afraid you may not find a purpose in continuing.

wolty
4th May 2012, 09:10 PM
Maybe you should step back and review your conversations here and try to find out what it is that has been leading to this. What has caused or contributed to this situation.

If you can't accept any responsibility for this then I'm afraid you may not find a purpose in continuing.

+1. This is getting out of hand.

Time-out is an option.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 09:11 PM
I have the impression that what is being studiously avoided here by zygote is a claim about the origins of his intuition. It doesn't come from data collection over time, so it must be.........

you know where this ends, right?

Jeebus godz? halle-fuckin-lujah

zygote
4th May 2012, 09:12 PM
That is entirely my point, intuition is the result of the scientific method being applied and learnt from over time, you are not born with these intuitions, they become your thought processes once the premises and "laws" are verified.

Without first learning the basis on which you build your intuition via the SM, your intuition is worthless.

Could the intuition you have on the planet earth help you to survive in an environment on an unfamiliar planet with unfamiliar laws and unfamiliar creatures? No, because you don't have anything to base you intuition on (outside of gravity, physics, universal absolutes etc). First learning, then verifying, then application, eventually intuition, but you get that intuition from the SM.

My barbecue example (no matter how silly) demonstrates this perfectly, if you knew nothing about barbecues or how they work, intuition would not help you until you use other methods based on earlier experiences to get "barbecue based" ( lol ) intuition.

Sorry, but this is becoming redundant and it feels more and more rhetorical with every post.
Well it goes without saying that human thought process will always have a large dose of prior learning involved. Where did I say that intuition is divorced from logical process, prior learning. I think it was an attractive leap for the giant strawman in the room named Daniel is Anti Science Pro-God. A horrible and very incorrect thought. I have zero personal belief in a god and I love science, i just dont worship it or my non belief.

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 09:22 PM
Well it goes without saying that human thought process will always have a large dose of prior learning involved. Where did I say that intuition is divorced from logical process, prior learning. I think it was an attractive leap for the giant strawman in the room named Daniel is Anti Science Pro-God. A horrible and very incorrect thought. I have zero personal belief in a god and I love science, i just dont worship it or my non belief.

Oh, passive aggression, how cute! A game the whole family can play.

That wasn't a straw man my friend, it was just the farm gate being opened so the horse can at least make it to the trough in the hope he might even take a drink.

You do understand that with your admission above, you've just downed your entire argument to this point though, right.

zygote
4th May 2012, 09:22 PM
Give us a break. You wrote what you wrote. You don't subsequently get to airly claim that it must've meant something else that suits you, because only you know what you were really thinking behind it. If your own postings don't accurately communicate your actual thinking, that's no-one else's fault, and no-one else's problem.

BTW, I'm playing no games here, and thanks for shouting about it. :rolleyes: I thought I already did this, but for the avoidance of doubt:


Again, in these posts you've purported to identify these alleged "deficiencies" in SM, as against putting intuition up as the sole alternative. You repeatedly claimed (highlighted above) that the SM doesn't make "great leaps forward".

Well, if the SM didn't make or assist these alleged "great leaps forward", then what did, FFS? What was more "pro-innovation"? And according to those metrics, that approach would necessarily be "better" than the SM, no? What was the sole alternative to the SM that your posts identified, again???

And as I posted in another thread - others shouldn't have to intuit guess at what you're really saying. You're either here to communicate clearly, or you're not. So, here's your chance to be crystal clear. Do you consider that intuition is "better" than the SM, yes or no? And on what metrics and evidentiary basis?
Where in the quoted text does the word intuition appear. You are trying to force your opinion of what I said onto me. While it is true that I am responsible for correctly expressing myself I am telling you now, again and for the last time I did not intend, nor do I believe that I accidently, implied SM was inferior to intuition. If I gave that impression than my apologies.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 09:24 PM
Well it goes without saying that human thought process will always have a large dose of prior learning involved. Where did I say that intuition is divorced from logical process, prior learning. I think it was an attractive leap for the giant strawman in the room named Daniel is Anti Science Pro-God. A horrible and very incorrect thought. I have zero personal belief in a god and I love science, i just dont worship it or my non belief.

You are avoiding the inevitable here and shifting the goalposts, why do you think logic works? because you feed facts into it from things that have been verified and subsequently learnt, via the SM.
(observe, hypothesize, predict, test, verify)

What gives rise to prior learning's that are true and useful versus ones that aren't true and are useless?
You guessed it, like it or not, you have employed the SM without even knowing it to learn all these things that you now base your intuition upon.

Intuition is the result, not the predecessor, not the parallel.

Who the fuck worships science or a lack of belief? so much god damned straw it's almost unbearable.

I can't believe I tried to defend you against Riddlemethis, somebody who I should be engaged in comradeship with, obviously he has had more experience than me and could see this coming.

I fear this is getting personal.

I didn't think it was possible, but I'm starting to lose my cool here, I'll be back when I've calmed down, enjoy your ignorance.

zygote
4th May 2012, 09:25 PM
Oh, passive aggression, how cute! A game the whole family can play.

That wasn't a straw man my friend, it was just the farm gate being opened so the horse can at least make it to the trough in the hope he might even take a drink.

You do understand that with your admission above, you've just downed your entire argument to this point though, right.
lol you must be referring to the other strawman you constructed, the one called Daniel Said the SM < Intuition.

Annie
4th May 2012, 09:25 PM
I dont think I should HAVE to communicate with this person, I find their posts offensive and vitriolic.
Really? I find them relevant. You don't HAVE to do anything but we have rules and consequences for whatever it is we do. Your tendency for offense doesn't rate in that equation.



Sent from my iPad, using my iBrain, & iEyes.

wolty
4th May 2012, 09:26 PM
I can't believe I tried to defend you against Riddlemethis, somebody who I should be engaged in comradeship with, obviously he has had more experience than me and could see this coming.



Gender? :p:D

riddlemethis
4th May 2012, 09:30 PM
You are avoiding the inevitable here and shifting the goalposts, why do you think logic works? because you feed facts into it from things that have been verified and subsequently learnt, via the SM.
(observe, hypothesize, predict, test, verify)

What gives rise to prior learning's that are true and useful versus ones that aren't true and are useless?
You guessed it, like it or not, you have employed the SM without even knowing it to learn all these things that you now base your intuition upon.

Intuition is the result, not the predecessor, not the parallel.

Who the fuck worships science or a lack of belief? so much god damned straw it's almost unbearable.

I can't believe I tried to defend you against Riddlemethis, somebody who I should be engaged in comradeship with, obviously he has had more experience than me and could see this coming.

I fear this is getting personal.

I didn't think it was possible, but I'm starting to lose my cool here, I'll be back when I've calmed down, enjoy your ignorance.

:thumbsup: Thank you Meissner. Indeedy doody I saw this coming a mile off!

Oh, pssst, I be a lady ;)

Meissner
4th May 2012, 09:33 PM
Gender? :p:D

Fuck, really? sorry Riddle

Meissner
4th May 2012, 09:35 PM
:thumbsup: Thank you Meissner. Indeedy doody I saw this coming a mile off!

Oh, pssst, I be a lady ;)

Apologies me'lady, assumptions will be the death of all of us.

wolty
4th May 2012, 09:38 PM
Apologies me'lady, assumptions will be the death of all of us.

Hehehe, no, only you. :p

It's a great exercise though, to write responses with an eye on not knowing the gender of someone. It makes the brain think about what is being written.

There's another ladee floating around who will do your head in also.

Logic please
4th May 2012, 09:49 PM
@Meissner: you are correct about the value of experience in this matter, though, IMHO. ;):)

Meissner
4th May 2012, 10:03 PM
Hehehe, no, only you. :p

It's a great exercise though, to write responses with an eye on not knowing the gender of someone. It makes the brain think about what is being written.

There's another ladee floating around who will do your head in also.

go on....

wolty
4th May 2012, 10:06 PM
go on....

Nope, I prefer to watch and giggle.


Sent telepathically.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 10:11 PM
Nope, I prefer to watch and giggle.


Sent telepathically.

....is it me?

wolty
4th May 2012, 10:14 PM
....is it me?

That I'm giggling at? Not yet. :)



Sent telepathically.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 10:19 PM
That I'm giggling at? Not yet. :)



Sent telepathically.

no, is it me that's secretly a bit more vaginal than penile?

Meissner
4th May 2012, 10:23 PM
That would be seriously literal introversion!

Nope. Don't assume gender and you'll do fine.

And so another lesson is learnt, I'm growing more and more every time I visit this forum.

Meissner
4th May 2012, 10:25 PM
I think Zygote is gone, it's sad to have these conflicts with atheists, it would be alot more effective for the atheist movement if we all agreed but I guess that's life, not perfect, but the only one we are certain to get :)

Logic please
4th May 2012, 10:33 PM
Nope. Don't assume gender and you'll do fine.
There are no women on the internet (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/there-are-no-girls-on-the-internet). ;)

FWIW I was going back over old threads recently, and I came across a thread where a poster had referred to another poster as "it" and was instantly flamed by the theist for alleged dehumanising behaviour.

But as in most cases, the theist had it wrong. :D It wasn't intended as a dehumanising act, but a means of remaining gender-neutral. :thumbsup:

Sir Patrick Crocodile
4th May 2012, 11:09 PM
Holy fucking wowie. I stay away from these forums for just a few hours and look at this. Like, woah, man. Probably for my benefit too, having encountered some real-life nutjobs not long ago.

4lan
4th May 2012, 11:55 PM
Holy fucking wowie. I stay away from these forums for just a few hours and look at this. Like, woah, man. Probably for my benefit too, having encountered some real-life nutjobs not long ago.

I know its frikken crazy that I got my MB workin too!.. oh was it sommit else you ment.. maibee? fureel?

Um, yeah. Serious disconnect was in the house. But 'nowt' to see here ;ŹD

4lan

DanDare
5th May 2012, 12:15 AM
Did we send nuclear missiles as courtesy items? Did we? Huh?

Centauri
5th May 2012, 05:32 AM
Gender? :p:D

Heh. Not a 'he', but a 'she', and a very attractive one at that, I might add.