The Modern Era Scientist don't help me, but I still have my faith in God

[BPPLEE]

So as far as you're concerned, there is only beliefs, ie: yours and everyone else's, science: a belief, atheism: a belief, Christianity: a belief, rocks existing: a belief, air we breathe: a belief, etc, etc ..?

Its all beliefs and nothing else.

As far as I'm concerned what you believe is your business. A rock is a rock. Air is air.

 

[Estrid]

Rivers

As an example of how highly complex system is
formed through interaction of random processes, entropy and
basic physical law.

 

[BPPLEE]

As an example of how highly complex system is
formed through interaction of random processes, entropy and
basic physical law.

How did the fish get in the river that started with a raindrop?

 

[Estrid]

How did the fish get in the river that started with a raindrop?

Maybe first address the trivially obvious fact that highly complex systems spontaneously arise from chaos, before, you know,
skipping ahead to abio.

On that last, neither of us has anything authoritative to say, though
I'd say it's a certainty that once life did start, a " fish" of some sort
is inevitably going to appear sooner or later.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe first address the trivially obvious fact that highly complex systems spontaneously arise from chaos, before, you know, skipping ahead to abio.

Hyper chemical dovetailing.

1. hyper handles the spontaneity
2. chemical handles the systems
3. dovetailing handles the complexity

 

[BPPLEE]

Maybe first address the trivially obvious fact that highly complex systems spontaneously arise from chaos, before, you know,
skipping ahead to abio.

On that last, neither of us has anything authoritative to say, though
I'd say it's a certainty that once life did start, a " fish" of some sort
is inevitably going to appear sooner or later.

So there are some things we don't know?

 

[SelfSim]

As far as I'm concerned what you believe is your business.

What about the things I don't believe? Are they not my business?

A rock is a rock. Air is air.

Circular truisms are very unconvincing.

 

[BPPLEE]

What about the things I don't believe? Are they not my business?
Circular truisms are very unconvincing.

What about the things I don't believe? The same applies

 

[SelfSim]

What about the things I don't believe? The same applies

Agreed.

So what about the beliefs I choose to throw aside so as to not form the basis of the meaning I choose to apply to the word 'reality'? Is the remaining meaning for that word also, somehow, not my business?

 

[BPPLEE]

Agreed.

So what about the beliefs I choose to throw aside so as to not form the basis of the meaning I choose to apply to the word 'reality'? Is the remaining meaning for that word also, somehow, not my business?

What you choose to do, to believe or not to believe is none of my business. What you believe about reality does not change it but you can believe whatever you want to about it or whatever you don't want to believe about it. I think this dead mule has been beat enough now.

 

[SelfSim]

What you choose to do, to believe or not to believe is none of my business. What you believe about reality does not change it but you can believe whatever you want to about it or whatever you don't want to believe about it.

I choose to avoid letting any beliefs I may have on the topic of objective reality, not dilute its consistency.

 

[BPPLEE]

I choose to avoid letting any beliefs I may have on the topic of objective reality, not dilute its consistency.

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

 

[SelfSim]

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

.. and what could be a better link to cite for demonstrating scientific consistency as being a reliable baseline for showing how beliefs are misleading when it comes to distinguishing what objective reality means?
Thanks for the supporting evidence.

 

[BPPLEE]

.. and what could be a better link to cite for demonstrating scientific consistency as being a reliable baseline for showing how beliefs are misleading when it comes to distinguishing what objective reality means?
Thanks for the supporting evidence.

No problem. Someone else could come to a completely different conclusion.

 

[SelfSim]

No problem. Someone else could come to a completely different conclusion.

The impact of assumptions about the contexts in which the respective measurements are taken, are still open to various (human) interpretations.

What I see happening in the Wigner's friend thought experiment, is two different humans making calls which subtly, (and likely), depend on different, but equally, valid assumptions.
Each are then inferring their own respective meanings for 'what the reality is' from those.

Generalizing about the differences in the outcomes, we already know that different minds think in slightly different ways: (for eg) what 'a rock is' to one person, can well be 'a boulder' to another .. with each person there, having their own valid objective reasons.
Regardless of those differences though, there is *zip* objective evidence that either 'a rock' or 'a boulder' actually exists independently from either of those obviously human minds.

 

[Astrophile]

Deleted.

 

[Estrid]

No problem. Someone else could come to a completely different conclusion.

"Different" equals not "valid"

 

[BPPLEE]

"Different" equals not "valid"

Not in this case

 

[Astrophile]

A rock is a rock. Air is air.

Ice in a glacier is rock, water vapour in the atmosphere is air, but both of them are H2O.

 

[Estrid]

Not in this case

Kind of double negative. Prease exprain.
I just meant it takes a lot more than being different to be right