The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[DogmaHunter]

That is unreal. How can predictions support a theory as being fact when it can never by directly verified to establish that fact. This is what I am talking about where the method is flawed. If this is how you say something can be established as a fact then the method is wrong for establishing the fact.

For crying out loud...


The theory is based on facts.
It explains the facts and the facts support the theory.
The theory also makes predictions. All testable, except the prediction of a multi-verse.
All that are tested, confirm the theory.
It is then infered that the last, untestable, predictions is very likely also correct.

The theory is based on facts.
The prediction flows from the theory, which is based on facts.

propose predict I can't see much difference

I know you don't. That is part of the problem.

I am fully aware that string theory predicts multiverse that's why I mentioned it with multiverse. Multiverse are also predicted from inflation theory which has its own problems.

None of those problems are being denied. I stated quite clearly that at this point, there is no such theory as I described.

The problem is more and more ideas are added to solve previous hypothesis which then create more problems and it ends up becoming a complicated mess.

Science is hard work, yes.
I understand it might sound easier to just say that a god-dun-it and leave it at that. But that's not really very satisfying, now is it?

That's a good example of what I mean when you say that if 99 out of 100 predictions are shown to be correct that it can make an idea fact.

That's not what I said. That's what you mistakenly took from what I actualy said.

But science does not have all the answers.

Nobody is saying otherwise.
What I will add though, is that when science doesn't have the answer, there is exactly zero reason to assume that (any) religion does.

The problem is the scientific materialist view will limit what is possible and dictate what is.

False. Science will consider those things possible, which are well motivated to being possible. For which there is evidence supporting the possibility.

There is exactly zero reason to assume X is possible, when there is exactly zero evidence supporting that notion.

And before you start babbling again...
As I explained, there are scenario's where a multi-verse could be very well motivated, eventhough it couldn't be tested directly.

It is not always about looking for answers but deciding what is and then trying to make everything fit that preconceived world view.

That's what creationists do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are just proving my point that an observed fact is then used to support all sorts of far fetched ideas that have not been verified. A Multiverse is not a verified fact like superposition but superposition is used to make a multiverse fact and this is the way some scientists are using science to support their ideas which they base on faith. This is no different to saying that consciousness is a product of the verified observations of the quantum world. The only difference is because those supporting parallel worlds put a science tag on their ideas its called science and is accepted in the halls of science but consciousness implies things that scientists do not want to allow into their hall so it is rejected.

No, you haven't understood; it's very simple - if you take the Schrodinger equation as a literal description of what is happening (you don't have to, but what's the alternative?), then unless you introduce ad-hoc wavefunction collapse (which isn't part of the formalism) as per the Copenhagen interpretation, it describes Everettian Many Worlds - in other words, if the wavefunction of the universe continues its unitary evolution without ad-hoc wavefunction collapse, it becomes a mass of decohered superpositions, i.e. Many Worlds. That's what the Schrodinger equation tells us - that it represents a fully deterministic universe wavefunction where the seemingly stochastic nature of quantum outcomes is due to the 'lottery effect', where each observer only sees the outcome of her particular 'branch'.

You can avoid that by not taking the Schrodinger equation as a literal description of what's happening, e.g. that there are hidden variables, or similar - but every experiment to test this has show it not to be the case. Or you can require ad-hoc wavefunction collapse, and then try to find a good reason for why that should happen.

But like the other multiverses, such as the cosmological multiverse or the inflationary multiverse, if you accept the underlying theories, e.g. quantum field theory, the big bang, inflation, etc., they predict volumes of spacetime with differing properties, of which ours is one. IOW, if our universe is a result of the processes these models describe, then other universes are too; our pocket of spacetime is not the only one, if these are reasonable models of what has occurred.

You may not like it, but that's the situation. The issue is: which is worse - introducing arbitrary constraints to avoid the stuff you find 'too far-fetched', and having to construct justifications for them; or accepting that our current best understanding of the universe suggests it's far larger and more varied than we imagined ?

When the universe was just the solar system and the dome of fixed stars, people had difficulty accepting we were just a tiny speck in a bigger universe, the galaxy - it seemed too far-fetched. Then they had difficulty accepting that our universe was just one of hundreds of other 'island universes' (galaxies). Then they had difficulty accepting that it was one of billions of galaxies. Eventually they got used to the idea.

Now you have trouble accepting that what we thought was our entire universe is probably just one of innumerable other 'bubbles' of spacetime. Well, that's understandable, but if you feel that strongly about it, you need to show how this is not the case, how the models that predict it are flawed, and present a better model with less 'far-fetched' predictions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are still missing my point. The 'Many Worlds' of QM is not the same reality within each alternative world. That is the idea that because a different world splits off at the point of decoherence it will be different in its own reality. It will have different physics and outcomes.

The physics will be the same because it's the same physics producing the different outcomes that constitute the superpositions.

Not really according to the following.
Scientists Propose a 'Mirror Universe' Where Time Moves Backwards
Scientists Propose a 'Mirror Universe' Where Time Moves Backwards

That's fine, but the forward and time-reversed outcomes of the big bang would act as separate universes. The time-reversed universe would have its own universal wavefunction, which would have its own 'Many Worlds' branch superpositions. In each, time would run in the corresponding direction, there would not be branches where it was reversed. Just think it through - the MW branches represent the outcomes of a single set of physical laws.

If you think about it, the time-reversed universe is an alternative way of describing a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang without specifying an origin

The problem is some scientists say that what we see in the quantum world could be how things really work and it is only in our world that we do not see this dominate becuase of our particular physics. It may be possible that in other worlds the quantum weirdness is more dominant which would make their reality defy what we understand as reality. Becuase everything began from a quantum world anything from that point to what we understand as reality and beyond may be possible. How we see things even at the quantum level is only the way we see things in our reality.

It's a possibility, but it doesn't mean anything goes; QM isn't magic, it's still a set of rules, they're just different from those of our everyday experience.

Yes and when we do not take this literally then some scientists say this can point to consciousness where the observer affects reality. So either way, we have ideas that scientists are willing to believe that step outside our understanding of reality and can point to other realms such as there being intelligence behind what we see and a realm that exists that is immaterial.

That's very much a minority view, and - given the lack of quality work & evidence behind them - generally considered the crackpot fringe or pseudoscience. There are always people trying to straddle the boundary between science and fantasy pure speculation; take them seriously when they have a well-supported model based on solid evidence.

Depends what you mean by spiritual realm. Religion does not attempt to scientifically verify the spiritual realm of heaven. But realms with very similar descriptions from scientists have been proposed and are theoretically based as I have posted earlier. Like I said science could put a theory and explanation of heaven and then it would be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.

I think if they could they would, but among other things, the various multiverse 'realms' of mainstream physics don't interact (and if they were to interact, they'd do so according to the physical laws that govern them).

As I was once taught, proposed spiritual realms such as heaven are supposed to interact with this universe, but not under the physical laws of this universe - which is a contradictory idea, scientifically incoherent; and nothing in the physical laws of this universe would support the interactions suggested (and for which there is no plausible evidence).

I am not saying that any spiritual realm as a theory is scientifically verified. I am saying it doesn't even get to base one as being proposed as an idea to be included with other far-fetched ideas that scientists propose that are well accepted and not verified. Yet like consciousness, it can have all the theoretical basis and indirect support just as much as other ideas proposed by mainstream scientists.

Sure; so get back to us when it does. We'll still be here.

Considering that they have been wrong so often when it comes to their ideas about the origins of cosmos and some of its observations I think some would say that the scientific method has limits in being able to explain and account for these things. Therefore they may need to consider that there is something else at play and acknowledge this. But that will never happen becuase it is not just about the science but also belief.

Quite; the scientific method is a toolkit to guide us in acquiring knowledge that is as reliable as possible. If our ability to acquire reliable knowledge has limits, is it really sensible to decide that beyond those limits we'll just believe whatever feels right? The scientific method was developed precisely because that approach doesn't work.

I suggest getting used to living without certainty, being able to live with not knowing.

As Richard Feynman said, “I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.”

 

[stevevw]

For crying out loud...


The theory is based on facts.
It explains the facts and the facts support the theory.
The theory also makes predictions. All testable, except the prediction of a multi-verse.
All that are tested, confirm the theory.
It is then infered that the last, untestable, predictions is very likely also correct.

The theory is based on facts.
The prediction flows from the theory, which is based on facts.

Superposition is a fact but the idea that the resulting effects of when the quantum world decoheres produces a multiverse is not a fact. This is just a thought experiment where the idea of multiverses were proposed. The resulting effects can produce the observer effect which decides the outcome and no alternative worlds are created. My point is becuase the idea of a multiverse is speculated idea from the observations of the double split experiment so is the observer effect which points to consciousness. Yet scientists are willing to believe in paralelle worlds but not consciousness.

False. Science will consider those things possible, which are well motivated to being possible. For which there is evidence supporting the possibility.

I said the scientific materialist world view. This has a particular point of view which is promoted by scientists and dictates how science is done. It really is based on a belief rather than science ie

The 10 dogmas of scientific materialism
1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
2. All matter is unconscious.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is conserved.
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.
5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
The 10 dogmas of scientific materialism, refuted

That's what creationists do.

Beleive it or not it is also what many scientists do at least those that support a materialistic view.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Superposition is a fact but the idea that the resulting effects of when the quantum world decoheres produces a multiverse is not a fact.

The THEORY is based on facts.

Good grief....
How many times must it be repeated?

I said the scientific materialist world view. This has a particular point of view which is promoted by scientists and dictates how science is done.

It is not.
That's just you and your subpar understanding of how science is done.

The 10 dogmas of scientific materialism
1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
2. All matter is unconscious.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is conserved.
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.
5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
The 10 dogmas of scientific materialism, refuted

Beleive it or not it is also what many scientists do at least those that support a materialistic view.

LOL

 

[stevevw]

The physics will be the same because it's the same physics producing the different outcomes that constitute the superpositions.


That's fine, but the forward and time-reversed outcomes of the big bang would act as separate universes. The time-reversed universe would have its own universal wavefunction, which would have its own 'Many Worlds' branch superpositions. In each, time would run in the corresponding direction, there would not be branches where it was reversed. Just think it through - the MW branches represent the outcomes of a single set of physical laws.

If you think about it, the time-reversed universe is an alternative way of describing a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang without specifying an origin

The point is the spectrum of possible effects is wide and can include couner intuitive results which a possible spiritual realm could fall within. If consciousness is a possible effect on the quantum world then a spiritual realm of some sort would also be possible.

It's a possibility, but it doesn't mean anything goes; QM isn't magic, it's still a set of rules, they're just different from those of our everyday experience.

Like I said if there was a heaven or spiritual realm then I am sure scientists would try to put some rules to it even if it defied classical physics and was counter-intuitive like some of the effects in quantum physics.

That's very much a minority view, and - given the lack of quality work & evidence behind them - generally considered the crackpot fringe or pseudoscience. There are always people trying to straddle the boundary between science and fantasy pure speculation; take them seriously when they have a well-supported model based on solid evidence. [/quote] What is the solid evidenvce for some of the speculative ideas in science that are believed and well accepted especially in the cosmos and quantum fields. They are based on thought experiments that really do not have well-supported and solid evidence.

Two writers argue that modern science needs to get a grip on reality, rejecting 'timeless' theories of the universe and the 'fairytale' physics of string theory.
In Farewell to Reality, Baggott now castigates theoretical physicists for indulging a whole industry of "fairytale physics" – strings, supersymmetry, brane worlds, M-theory, the anthropic principle – that not only pile one unwarranted assumption on another but are beyond the reach of experimental tests for the foreseeable future.
Time Reborn by Lee Smolin; Farewell to Reality by Jim Baggott – review

As I was once taught, proposed spiritual realms such as heaven are supposed to interact with this universe, but not under the physical laws of this universe - which is a contradictory idea, scientifically incoherent; and nothing in the physical laws of this universe would support the interactions suggested (and for which there is no plausible evidence).

Don't some of the ideas like superstring theory spectulate and step outside the physical laws of this universe.

Quite; the scientific method is a toolkit to guide us in acquiring knowledge that is as reliable as possible. If our ability to acquire reliable knowledge has limits, is it really sensible to decide that beyond those limits we'll just believe whatever feels right? The scientific method was developed precisely because that approach doesn't work.

But if the scientific method makes certain assumptions which it bases its approach on then the method would be flawed. Eveen though it would make sense within a certain parameter it would not in the overall scheme of things and always be grappling with trying to make things fit to that certain materialistic view.

I suggest getting used to living without certainty, being able to live with not knowing.

I am quite happy with not knowing things. But sometimes just like you say religion can put answers on things that maybe do not need to be there scientists can hold up ideas that they believe to be true becuase they need to find an answer that will explain something to support their beliefs rather than what may be true. IE nothing is really something and this can explain the origins of the universe and therefore we do not need a God to account for it. This idea has gained traction and people like Dawkins wholeheartedly believe it and hold it up as the great proof that there is no God. In reality is is an unsupported idea based in speculation that has been turned into a truth.

 

[stevevw]

The THEORY is based on facts.

Good grief....
How many times must it be repeated?

Then what is the fact that the theory of parallel worlds theory is based on.

It is not.
That's just you and your subpar understanding of how science is done.

so you do not think science is based on things like science takes a mechanical view of things, all matter is unconscious, the laws of nature are fixed, etc. This is the materialist view which rejects any notion of there being something beyond materialism despite there being support to the contrary. If science takes this view dont you think they have a limited view of things and are starting from an assumed position.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then what is the fact that the theory of parallel worlds theory is based on.

so you do not think science is based on things like science takes a mechanical view of things, all matter is unconscious, the laws of nature are fixed, etc. This is the materialist view which rejects any notion of there being something beyond materialism despite there being support to the contrary. If science takes this view dont you think they have a limited view of things and are starting from an assumed position.

No you dont understand. Science can never be about metaphysics, if it was, then it wouldnt be science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then what is the fact that the theory of parallel worlds theory is based on.

I guess it again needs to be repeated....
The theory is based on facts.
The theory, next to explaining the facts it is based on, also makes predictions.

One of those predictions is other universes. It's not a theory by itself. It is a prediction of a theory.

so you do not think science is based on things like science takes a mechanical view of things, all matter is unconscious, the laws of nature are fixed, etc. This is the materialist view which rejects any notion of there being something beyond materialism despite there being support to the contrary. If science takes this view dont you think they have a limited view of things and are starting from an assumed position.

Science takes the view of evidence based reality.
If there is no evidence to suggest that matter is conscious, that the laws of nature are "flexible", that "minds" can exist independend of bodies,.... why on earth would science then assume such?

This is something anti-science theists simply don't seem to get.... Science doesn't "dogmatically" exclude the supernatural or whatnot....

Instead, it only includes things based on evidence.

The supernatural isn't supported by evidence. So it's not included.
The notion that matter is conscious, isn't supported by evidence. So it's not included.

Get it now?

My money is on "no".

 

[stevevw]

I guess it again needs to be repeated....
The theory is based on facts.
The theory, next to explaining the facts it is based on, also makes predictions.

One of those predictions is other universes. It's not a theory by itself. It is a prediction of a theory.

But you have not answered the question. What fact is the theory of parallel worlds based on?

Science takes the view of evidence-based reality.
If there is no evidence to suggest that matter is conscious, that the laws of nature are "flexible", that "minds" can exist independent of bodies,.... why on earth would science then assume such?

The problem is even if there was evidence for this which I think there is, scientists are not going to even see that evidence or acknowledge it because that is not what they are looking for or want to acknowledge. In other words, if consciousness was real scientists would always come up with a material explanation, therefore, being blinded to the truth through the method and trying to force fit an explanation that will never fit. The problem is the scientific method has become a dogmatic way of looking at the world for some.

This is something anti-science theists simply don't seem to get.... Science doesn't "dogmatically" exclude the supernatural or whatnot....

Instead, it only includes things based on evidence.

That is not true for many ideas they have about the universe or other things that cannot be directly tested. There is no direct evidence for String theory and a multiverse yet some believe they are verified. The problem is as mentioned above even if there is supernatural goings-on scientists will always try to fit a material explanation to it which is still taking a dogmatic approach as they have taken a one sided view of things and therefore everything has to be that way regardless of the evidence. The problem is not the science but the scientists who try to fit the method to things that the method may not be capable of explaining. This is becoming truer the more we look at the universe and the complexity of life.

The supernatural isn't supported by evidence. So it's not included.
The notion that matter is conscious, isn't supported by evidence. So it's not included.

This is a good example of what I am saying above. One evidence for parallel worlds is based on wave function from the double split experiment where particles can take multiple positions and rather than breaking down when measured each time are said to branch off into alternative positions. Another alternative effect of this same experiment is the observer effect that when the particle is measured it takes a position pointing to the observer creating what we see. For some, this is indirect evidence for consciousness.

Both effects are based on indirect evidence yet scientists are willing to accept the idea of parallel worlds but not conscioousness. When you say the science is based on evidence sometimes that evidence is not scientifically verifiable or tested as in the proper way it should be in science yet many scientists will accept sometimes far-fetched ideas based on the supposed evidence from science which is indirect and which can also imply other effects that point beyond the ability of science.

Get it now?

My money is on "no".

I understand the scientific method and the difference with the supernatural. I am pointing out that some of the ideas supported by mainstream science have many hallmarks of the supernatural while not acknowledging some of the same indirect scientific evidence that points to non-material phenomenon.

 

[stevevw]

No you dont understand. Science can never be about metaphysics, if it was, then it wouldnt be science.

I am not disputing that. I am saying that some of the very scientists who support the scientific method do not understand this as they support ideas that really should be classed as metaphysics but then call it science yet will reject ideas that are based on the same indirect evidence because say they are not science like consciousness for example. But if evdience points to something non material it should be acknowledged.

 

[stevevw]

No, you haven't understood; it's very simple - if you take the Schrodinger equation as a literal description of what is happening (you don't have to, but what's the alternative?), then unless you introduce ad-hoc wavefunction collapse (which isn't part of the formalism) as per the Copenhagen interpretation, it describes Everettian Many Worlds - in other words, if the wavefunction of the universe continues its unitary evolution without ad-hoc wavefunction collapse, it becomes a mass of decohered superpositions, i.e. Many Worlds. That's what the Schrodinger equation tells us - that it represents a fully deterministic universe wavefunction where the seemingly stochastic nature of quantum outcomes is due to the 'lottery effect', where each observer only sees the outcome of her particular 'branch'.

You can avoid that by not taking the Schrodinger equation as a literal description of what's happening, e.g. that there are hidden variables, or similar - but every experiment to test this has show it not to be the case. Or you can require ad-hoc wavefunction collapse, and then try to find a good reason for why that should happen.

But like the other multiverses, such as the cosmological multiverse or the inflationary multiverse, if you accept the underlying theories, e.g. quantum field theory, the big bang, inflation, etc., they predict volumes of spacetime with differing properties, of which ours is one. IOW, if our universe is a result of the processes these models describe, then other universes are too; our pocket of spacetime is not the only one, if these are reasonable models of what has occurred.

You may not like it, but that's the situation. The issue is: which is worse - introducing arbitrary constraints to avoid the stuff you find 'too far-fetched', and having to construct justifications for them; or accepting that our current best understanding of the universe suggests it's far larger and more varied than we imagined ?

A I mentioned the scientific method and some of the scientists that support it are so blinkered in their views that they do not see the forest through the trees. Here we have three possible outcomes of wave function. Putting aside the hidden variables the other two point to different results. You have given support for the Schrodinger effect which leads to the many worlds interpretation which I assume as other scientists do in supporting multiverses is the preferred outcome as it suits their materialistic view. But this is not based on verified fact as you say, its just a speculated interpretation.

The other interpretation being wave function collapse you have implied as being unreal by saying it is ad-hock mainly I would say because of the implication it brings being the observer effect and consciousness. Yet both come from the same verified observations and both are interpretations of that verified observation but the many worlds is no more verified than consciousness. In fact, there is just as much if not more scientific support for the observer effect than the many worlds interpretation.

As for the other areas that may support a multiverse these are also based on non-verified observations and speculation. The inflation theory is not verified science and has speculation about quantum vacuums. In fact the ironic thing about inflation is that inflation in producing a multiverse makes it unpredictable in producing our universe which needs to have specific conditions. The problem is inflation was introduced to deal with problems of another theory the big bang and simplify it. But it just made things worse and brought up more problems. So a inflation does not make scientific predictions that can be verified and is speculation and a multiverse is not based on fact but speculated ideas.

“The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace.”

Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. “So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing,”
Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation!



This is what I mean when I say that scientists will come up with new ideas to prop up other ideas that are not verified to verify them and yet the new ideas are not verified themselves. But put enough non-verified ideas together and it begins to fool some by losing the forest through the trees.

Yet consciousness can also be indirectly supported through other areas and the same propped up support can be made such as from fine tuning and origins of the universe arguments that point to a intelligence or consciousness behind things. Or from the many tests and evidences showing how the mind/consciousness can affect the material world.

Put all together this can offer just as much if not more support for scientific indirect evidence of a non-material existence yet mainstream scientists who are fixated on the materialistic view will reject this in favor of just as indirect and speculated ideas like many worlds and a multiverse. But do not take my word for it.

When the universe was just the solar system and the dome of fixed stars, people had difficulty accepting we were just a tiny speck in a bigger universe, the galaxy - it seemed too far-fetched. Then they had difficulty accepting that our universe was just one of hundreds of other 'island universes' (galaxies). Then they had difficulty accepting that it was one of billions of galaxies. Eventually they got used to the idea.

Now you have trouble accepting that what we thought was our entire universe is probably just one of innumerable other 'bubbles' of spacetime. Well, that's understandable, but if you feel that strongly about it, you need to show how this is not the case, how the models that predict it are flawed, and present a better model with less 'far-fetched' predictions.

Significant difference in that we could directly verify that our universe was bigger with telescopes and this was an extension of the same realm we lived in. A multiverse or other worlds and other ideas being speculated are impossible to directly verify. Maybe it’s the other way around now where those who are saying what we see is all there is are correct which would imply some uncomfortable outcomes for some and those who are coming up with all these speculative non-verifiable ideas is the new religion of the scientific materialist view.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not disputing that. I am saying that some of the very scientists who support the scientific method do not understand this as they support ideas that really should be classed as metaphysics but then call it science yet will reject ideas that are based on the same indirect evidence because say they are not science like consciousness for example. But if evdience points to something non material it should be acknowledged.

Your posts clearly show that no, you dont understand.

You really really wanting your religious beliefs to be true does not make it so or someting that science can aknowledge.

 

[Kylie]

I am completely capable to answer. YOU are not capable to ask.

If you don't understand the question "How do you define life", then I don't know how to ask it any clearer than that.

 

[Kylie]

I did provide enough supporting arguments to one who asked, and I don't like to repeat it to many who asked the same question at later time. Which of your question I did not answer? For the sake of love, if you ask it again, I would answer it one more time.

The question that I asked which you did not answer was, "How do you define life?"

Now it has been asked, very very clearly, and I would like you to answer it.

 

[Kylie]

If you don't get my answer or not satisfied, then ASK AGAIN. If you don't bother, then so be it.

I've asked so many times that I've lost count! Would you PLEASE give me the definition for life that you are using?

 

[Kylie]

but even if they were able to do so the best explanation will still be that they dont evolved from a common descent. right?

If cars and trucks could reproduce, the entire automotive industry would be completely unlike anything we have today. So there is no way to compare the two.

 

[Kylie]

Better yet why do they have evidence that evolution happens, happened in the past and will continue to happen?

Because it's all a big conspiracy to keep the average person from the troooooooooth!!!!!11!!11!!!

 

[Kylie]

Superposition is a fact but the idea that the resulting effects of when the quantum world decoheres produces a multiverse is not a fact. This is just a thought experiment where the idea of multiverses were proposed. The resulting effects can produce the observer effect which decides the outcome and no alternative worlds are created. My point is becuase the idea of a multiverse is speculated idea from the observations of the double split experiment so is the observer effect which points to consciousness. Yet scientists are willing to believe in paralelle worlds but not consciousness.


I said the scientific materialist world view. This has a particular point of view which is promoted by scientists and dictates how science is done. It really is based on a belief rather than science ie

The 10 dogmas of scientific materialism
1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
2. All matter is unconscious.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is conserved.
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.
5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
The 10 dogmas of scientific materialism, refuted

Beleive it or not it is also what many scientists do at least those that support a materialistic view.

Hahahahahaha

The site that you posted as a source does not actually refute ANY of those claims. Rather, it links to another website, and when I try to open that site, I get this:

And the site that you DO link to is basically Natural News style site filled to the brim with nonsense like ads for colloidal silver mouthwash and organic broccoli sprout powder. And most damning of all, perhaps you missed the disclaimer down the bottom:

"The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind."
​

If that's your source, you've got nothing. Get your science from scientists, would you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A I mentioned the scientific method and some of the scientists that support it are so blinkered in their views that they do not see the forest through the trees. Here we have three possible outcomes of wave function. Putting aside the hidden variables the other two point to different results. You have given support for the Schrodinger effect which leads to the many worlds interpretation which I assume as other scientists do in supporting multiverses is the preferred outcome as it suits their materialistic view. But this is not based on verified fact as you say, its just a speculated interpretation.

Incoherent gibberish. If you don't understand the basics of the subject, you're better off saying nothing; 'Schrodinger effect'...

The other interpretation being wave function collapse you have implied as being unreal by saying it is ad-hock mainly I would say because of the implication it brings being the observer effect and consciousness.

Wrong. It is ad-hoc, and there are interpretations that don't require it; but that doesn't mean it's 'unreal' - something happens from an observer's point of view; the question is, what? Experience suggests that we should be wary of observer-centric explanations.

Also, WFC doesn't imply 'the observer effect and consciousness' - that interpretation was shown to be irredeemably flawed about 80 years ago (assuming you mean consciousness collapsing the wavefunction - your language is barely intelligible).

In fact, there is just as much if not more scientific support for the observer effect than the many worlds interpretation.

Of course there is - the observer effect is a well-known phenomenon - but it isn't particularly relevant to wavefunction collapse.

... inflation does not make scientific predictions that can be verified...

Oh really?

"The standard inflationary models predict that the universe should have a critical mass density (that is, it should be geometrically flat), and they also predict the statistical properties of the faint ripples that we detect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). First, the ripples should be nearly “scale-invariant,” meaning that they have nearly the same intensity at all angular scales. Second, the ripples should be “adiabatic,” meaning that the perturbations are the same in all components: the ordinary matter, radiation and dark matter all fluctuate together. Third, they should be “Gaussian,” which is a statement about the statistical patterns of relatively bright and dark regions. Fourth and finally, the models also make predictions for the patterns of polarization in the CMB, which can be divided into two classes, called E-modes and B-modes. The predictions for the E-modes are very similar for all standard inflationary models, whereas the levels of B-modes, which are a measure of gravitational radiation in the early universe, vary significantly within the class of standard models.

The remarkable fact is that, starting with the results of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1992, numerous experiments have confirmed that these predictions (along with several others too technical to discuss here) accurately describe our universe."

Yet consciousness can also be indirectly supported through other areas and the same propped up support can be made such as from fine tuning and origins of the universe arguments that point to a intelligence or consciousness behind things. Or from the many tests and evidences showing how the mind/consciousness can affect the material world.

No-one is denying consciousness exists, but it has nothing to do with the appearance of fine tuning other than perceiving it.

Perhaps you'd like to post a few of the best of the "many tests and evidences showing how the mind/consciousness can affect the material world"; educate me - I don't know of any that don't have mundane explanations. Just links or references if you're feeling lazy.

But do not take my word for it.

Perish the thought!

Significant difference in that we could directly verify that our universe was bigger with telescopes and this was an extension of the same realm we lived in. A multiverse or other worlds and other ideas being speculated are impossible to directly verify.

Sure, they're currently unverifiable, but that's nothing new in science. Relativity predicted the existence of black holes (long after their possible existence was proposed), but they remained unverifiable until relatively recently.

Whether any variety of multiverse will ever be verifiable, I don't know, but they are predictions of our best theories, so it's quite reasonable to take an interest in them.

It is a metaphysical question whether something that is permanently causally disconnected from our universe bubble is, or can be, 'real' - clearly, for practical purposes, they might as well not exist; but that doesn't mean they are not of interest, nor that we may be able to learn things of practical utility from investigating them (just as we've gained a number of useful techniques and theorems from investigating String Theory).