The thread's topic is based on physics, not common words. Use physics terms properly.
Is it just based on physics. Or are you determining what is or is not the OP. It seems to me the OP is posing a philosophical question and not just about physics ie the commentator says she thinks the math and physics point to God.
Why would the physics itself determine this question. We can all agree on the physics and how wonderful it is at explaining reality. But people will differ as to what that represents philosophically. How can science verify this aspect of epistemics.
Are you saying that methofdological naturalism is the only explanation for what we observe. If so then this is a belief rather than a scientific claim.
I don't care what your AI said. Do you own work. An AI can't understand for you.
Do my own work to do what. Prove God with mathmatics. No one is disputing that physics and maths describe very well what we observe. The question is whether those physical laws and maths are purely invented or point to fundementally to mind.
This is a philosophical question.
I mean we could go down the rabbit hole of whether the mind is just a physical phenomena or something beyond. Thats a big topic and its certainly not as though theres some knockdown evidence either way. The mind/body battle has been goind for 100 years or more.
Not related to QM at all.
Ok I thought it did.
Quantum nothingness might have birthed the Universe
The fact that matter may come out of what we would call “nothing” shows that the “nothing” of quantum physics is far from a complete void. Virtual particles appear and disappear like bubbles in a boiling soup. In the current view of quantum physics, the void bubbles continuously with the creation and destruction of matter particles.
Matter in space can arise out of what we perceive as nothing. But there is no such thing as a void in the Universe.
An expert in philosophy. This is a philsophical question I think. That the math/physics points to a mind, intelligence or God. Or are we trying to verify the math and physics. I don't think it matters.
Its good your an expert so you can verify the physics and how well they describe oberservation. The better we can describe the observations the better we can understand how this points to a mind or some sort of creator of the physics.
Look at my signature lol. I linked that over 10 years ago and for me it is still coming true. If you disagree then thats ok. But that is your belief that it does not point to a creator. Not science. It is beyond what expertise in physics can claim. It is the physicist injecting themselves into the equation by a personal belief in metaphysical naturalism.
Because I was disputing that *you* understood the claims made in the OP based on your responses. You clearly didn't.
What claims. There was a claim that the math/physics points to intelliegnce behind it. That was a belief claim. The belief is based on the science. The expertise knowledge of the science. It seems at least for the commentator her expert knowledge gave her even more belief that there was a God than those with less knowledge.
The more she was able to understand the physics down to the quantum level the more she thought it reflected intelligence. That it made sense that God would make it such for us mere mortals to be able to get some insight into Gods all knowing and infinite mind.
That is why I jumped straight into the very bottom, the quantum vacumn. No one disputes the theory. Its the philosophical implications of this beyond the theory as to the greater scheme of reality and beyond that is the question.
How is knowing the physics or explaining observations with science accounting for ontological reality. A description is not prescriptive. A Lennox says a description of whats happening does create what is happening. This is a philosophical question.
Which is not what my responses from February were about, nor my commentary on the video's claims. You are arguing against things I haven't been saying.
I know what Templeton is and what their (semi-hidden) goals are. I don't care what they publish.
Steve, a few things you need to know:
1. I discard all AI output posted to this site. (I also skip all bible quotes, unless the discussion is specifically about them.)
How do you get to decide what counts or not lol. It seems to me this thread is more a philosophical one than a scientific one. Afterall the question is whether the math/physics points to a creator or not.
I am not sue what your point was. I made my point based on the OP. You came into my post from memory.
2. Links are not arguments. Links provide references and sources to back your argument.
I thought I had already made my arguements. I just made them again. This is a philosophical question and you seem to want to control things epistemically. Make it an empiricle question. Make it only about knowledge of physics and exclude philsophy.
3. I'm probably not going to watch any embedded videos either, with exceptions like the OP.
Thats quite dismissive. Almost a priori assumption that they are of no use. I though good critical thinking was looking at counter evidence and stuff you may feel is irrelevant. To actually see if it is or not rather than assuming.
As to this thread, what you have posted is not tied to the claims made by the Purdue physics professor in the video in the OP. That video uses the regularity of physics as an argument for god. I made my assessment of her claim quite plainly in the first two pages of this thread. If you want to discuss those claims and counter claims, that is fine, but be sure you know what is being discussed first. (If you have a question, I am open to replying.)
Yeah I read those and some from others and I don't think they are any different to the usual objections. The idea that because we are here to marvel at how we are here somehow deminishes that we are here at all and could be here due to all those parameters being just right and designed that way from the start.
Its sort of assuming that its all self evident. That merely existing to contemplate negates the possibility that there was design in why we are here to do that. In fact it makes just as much sense and if not more to say that it should be expected that we see the world this way because God made us that way.
If there is a creator God who designed everything including us then it makes sense that He gave us the ability for his most intelligent and concious creatures to be able to know Him through what he has made.
But I think its still missing the point. Just making the claim is stepping beyond science. Its making a philosophical claim based on the observations. Science cannot claim there is no God or design.