Catholic nonsense

[No wides]

It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.

EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?

You asked me what is not bullshit - life isn't, for 7 billion people on this planet they are born, they live whatever hand they have and they die.  If you are away in another dimension like stargate good for you hope the weather is pleasant.

...Yes and according to quantum mechanics those lives are just a jumble of floating atoms which consist of particles whizzing and popping around.

Arent you travelling through time? I am thanks to the spacetime geodesic that all my atoms are sitting on but if I was hanging out on a neutron star time would slow way down (relative to you of course), and should stop in a black hole.

So you are governed by an infant theory, how do you get through your day, are you married, so you have kids, a job?  Why bother with anything, sure if you just ended your life, would it matter, this reality is probably pants and the real you is a blow job queen in another dimension.  If you use a collection of atoms to release your collection of atoms, maybe they will fundamentally assist another life who appreciates life.

[omaghjoe]

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/2015/02/24/what-does-quantum-mechanics-suggest-about-our-perceptions-reality/

Don't particularly want to go down this rabbit hole with you Joe, but logic dictates I must. With regard to your questions about consciousness and conscience, I think the area itself is one of the last great frontiers for science. As I've stated before on the board I'm an agnostic, so if science comes to the conclusion a la Occam's Razor that there is a higher force at work in human consciousness, I'll neither be surprised or dismayed.

However, you are using the existence of quantum mechanics as an argument to discredit the possibility of empiricism providing us with any concrete answers to your questions re experience. Ipso facto there must be a higher power/force of right and wrong/whichever you'd like to call it that cannot be accounted for by empiricism.

The link above is a discussion paper about the relationship between quantum mechanics and perceived reality. It's a dense read but I'd point your attention to the last paragraph which would seem to refute your argument below.

Then again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.

The last paragraph states

Where does that leave us? The remarkable thing is that we can still reliably track aspects of reality. Whatever quantity you want to measure — be it position, momentum, or spin — if you measure it twice, within a short span of time, you will find that it has the same value.  Thus, we have good reason to think that our measurements provide reliable information about reality.  This sort of reliability is good enough to guide our actions, and it provides strong evidence of the hidden reality behind our perceptions.

To paraphrase,  science does give a reliable base for measuring reality, as well as being the principle tool for exploring quantum physics. The existence of one does not negate the measures in another, and using quantum mechanics as a sledgehammer to demolish the legitimacy of theories such as genetic evolution is the very definition of a "strawman" argument.

So perhaps you need another line of argument? Have at it Joe, I have the popcorn in the microwave as we speak.

Thanks for the link by the way great read however his point is fundamentally different to mine but then you concluded my point was something different to what I was trying to make! I am not arguing for or against an idealist universe like he is. I am simply arguing like J70 says that true knowledge is simply unknowable and there will always be doubt on whatever knowledge is obtained however I agree that we must move forward so we have to assume some things. Empiricism is a basic assumption of science but what bais do we have to say that it gives us an accurate picture of reality? I used the quantum realm verses the classical realm to demonstrate that we have built two very different realities and neither make any sense so who is to say either is a true picture of reality?

Also consciousness is not a frontier of science its a fundamental assumption of science and as I said without that assumption and a good few others like deductive reasoning science cant go anywhere. Its existence is disputed by Neurologists and Physicists who say there is nothing there because all the energy is used up by the firing of neurons, so the best they can up with is oh its an illusion caused by brain wave frequency. And sorry to tell you this but there are far more frontier of science now than there ever where, 5% of the detectable universe is all we can observe and even that 5% doesnt add up, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, multiverses....And thats just physics, we dont even know how the human gut works yet for ffs, there are countless frontiers in science.

Im glad your enjoying my posts tho it makes a change wha?

[omaghjoe]

OmaghJoe's argument is always simply to allow you to go to the edge of proven science and insist that God lives just beyond it.

There is no evidence, observation or even solid theory to work with.

Utter bollocks muppet as usual, have I even mentioned God in this thread? Tho to be fair a straw man is usually a more intricate fallacy than your usual red herring (tho maybe not in this case).

Tho I will reiterate what my point is and that is we can never be completely sure of anything.

And even if you do believe in a materialist world fine but why would you assume that empiricism can give you an accurate picture of that world? Its a massive jump in logic to assume that it does, and the discovery of the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics with spooky action and randomness more or less confirms that our empirical view of things aint accurate, and also begs the question is that realm a true picture of reality?

What is the thread about?

As for....

"we can never be completely sure of anything. "

This is exactly the point I was making and precisely where you go in any religious argument.

We can be sure of plenty. Scientific process, evidence, peer-review and most importantly, reproducibility, can prove some things with certainty.

Is that inspite of the basic assumption we use in science to move forward?

[omaghjoe]

Then again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.

I don't get this. Please expand.

And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?

What dont you get?

A non-naturalist universe is simply one that is not naturalist. It doesnt make the case for anything else stronger but quantum randomness seemingly dispels the notion. But then who knows.... maybe dark matter is controlling it 

[omaghjoe]

Joe disavows the God Of The Gaps proposition while, it seems to me, presenting an even more simplistic proposition – that which is unknown is unknowable.

He seems to think that because science hasn't developed a theory of consciousness, there never will be an explanation of how consciousness works. Therefore, mysticism must be considered as the alternative explanation.

And then, in a bizarre non-sequitur, quantum theory proves that it must be something "spooky" that's going on.

Very Good Hardy although if you want to have a real discussion stop inventing things i said and google spooky action

[omaghjoe]

It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.

EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?

You asked me what is not bullshit - life isn't, for 7 billion people on this planet they are born, they live whatever hand they have and they die.  If you are away in another dimension like stargate good for you hope the weather is pleasant.

...Yes and according to quantum mechanics those lives are just a jumble of floating atoms which consist of particles whizzing and popping around.

Arent you travelling through time? I am thanks to the spacetime geodesic that all my atoms are sitting on but if I was hanging out on a neutron star time would slow way down (relative to you of course), and should stop in a black hole.

So you are governed by an infant theory, how do you get through your day, are you married, so you have kids, a job?  Why bother with anything, sure if you just ended your life, would it matter, this reality is probably pants and the real you is a blow job queen in another dimension.  If you use a collection of atoms to release your collection of atoms, maybe they will fundamentally assist another life who appreciates life.

Since I believe we also have a spiritual component which gives life meaning then this  is a question for those who believe only in the physical realm that i described

[muppet]

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."


― Aristotle

The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.

Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.

The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.

However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.

[omaghjoe]

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."


― Aristotle

The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.

Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.

The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.

However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.

Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning....

There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.

The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.

[muppet]

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."


― Aristotle

The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.

Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.

The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.

However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.

Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning....

There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.

The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.

Your last sentence completely contradicts your first.

Which sums up your reasoning really.

[J70]

Then again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.

I don't get this. Please expand.

And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?

What dont you get?

A non-naturalist universe is simply one that is not naturalist. It doesnt make the case for anything else stronger but quantum randomness seemingly dispels the notion. But then who knows.... maybe dark matter is controlling it 

I don't get why quantum randomness and spooky action blow the naturalist outlook out of the water.

[omaghjoe]

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."


― Aristotle

The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.

Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.

The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.

However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.

Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning....

There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.

The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.

Your last sentence completely contradicts your first.

Which sums up your reasoning really.

NO its doesnt,... sums up your comprehension really

[muppet]

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."


― Aristotle

The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.

Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.

The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.

However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.

Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning....

There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.

The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.

Your last sentence completely contradicts your first.

Which sums up your reasoning really.

NO its doesnt,... sums up your comprehension really

How could we know everything about Quantum Physics, if we don't know whether or not anything is real?

As for the Standard Model being complete, would you mind publishing it, as the world would be very interested. You might even get a Nobel Prize for it. That is, if Nobel Prizes really exist. 

[omaghjoe]

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."


― Aristotle

The only thing that moves anything forward consistently, is science. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, but it always comes back to science.

Just because we are bamboozled by recent discoveries in Quantum Physics, doesn't mean we know less about it. We still know more about it that before each discovery. However we also know now that the field is much bigger than we ever knew before. This is still learning and it is still progress.

The telescope and microscope didn't mean the end of science due to the sheer volume of new territory suddenly available after their inventions. Equally, the great explorers weren't talked out of going to newly discovered lands because of the argument that everything is unknowable. The search for knowledge is what we are all about as a species.

However while it is true to say that you cannot be sure of anything, to somehow use this as an argument against science and for religion, is ridiculous. Science assumes nothing in the first place. Religion is built from the ground up on assumptions and 'faith'.

Sorry to tell you Muppet but sciecne assumes that our sesnes give us an accurate picture of reality. How do you know we arent a brain in a VAT.
Also inductive reasoning....

There are basic assumptions science makes to move forward if your denying that your living in lala land.

The Standard model of Quantum Physics is pretty much complete by the way no one is bamboozled by it.

Your last sentence completely contradicts your first.

Which sums up your reasoning really.

NO its doesnt,... sums up your comprehension really

How could we know everything about Quantum Physics, if we don't know whether or not anything is real?

As for the Standard Model being complete, would you mind publishing it, as the world would be very interested. You might even get a Nobel Prize for it. That is, if Nobel Prizes really exist. 

Peter Higgs already got it

[omaghjoe]

Then again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.

I don't get this. Please expand.

And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?

What dont you get?

A non-naturalist universe is simply one that is not naturalist. It doesnt make the case for anything else stronger but quantum randomness seemingly dispels the notion. But then who knows.... maybe dark matter is controlling it 

I don't get why quantum randomness and spooky action blow the naturalist outlook out of the water.

Because a naturalist universe is based on causality coming from inherent laws of nature where every event is determined. Randomness doesn't adhere to either of those.

[muppet]

Higgs didn't give us a dark energy particle or account for the rapid expansion of the universe. You obviously know better though.