The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

[Estrid]

.

 

[trophy33]

What experiment might that be and what is " fixed reality "?

Look for "Heisenberg uncertainity principle".

 

[Estrid]

Look for "Heisenberg uncertainity principle".

I dont think thats what it is about.
But I'd be interested in how you connect it to " fixed reality"
You gonna tell me how my pov was wrong?

 

[trophy33]

You gonna tell me how my pov was wrong?

Nothing you said in it was true. It was obviously meant as a demeaning representation of religion.

 

[Estrid]

Nothing you said in it was true.

You would need to explain how religions dont require the
supernatural.

 

[trophy33]

You would need to explain how religions dont require the
supernatural.

It seems you have forgotten what your POV was:

From an atheist pov, the bedrock of ant religionn is belief
in magic, totally incomprehensible supernatural
beings and events. No attempt is made to understand them.

All untrue.

 

[AV1611VET]

From an atheist pov, the bedrock of any religion is belief in magic, totally incomprehensible supernatural beings and events. No attempt is made to understand them. How is that like science.

Au contraire.

Magic aside, science indeed made an attempt to apply its myopic scientific method to the supernatural.

And failed miserably -- very miserably.

One of the better-known failures is the Apollo 14 ESP test.

And scientists today even tested the effects of prayer-vs-placebo.

Everything from astral projection to Kirlian photography has science's myopic fingerprints all over it.

And what do they usually conclude?

"Duuuuh ... I don't know, Tennessee."

The one thing they did test though, that I think was very informative, was the DNA in the wafers of the Eucharist.

One of the few times I agree with their conclusions regarding the supernatural.

When will scientists ever learn that testing the supernatural is a waste of time, energy, resources, intelligence, and money?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Edit: according to some experiments in physics, we can even say there is no fixed reality without a mind.

No. Quantum 'measurements' do not require minds.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Quantum 'measurements' do not require minds.

No argument there.

 

[trophy33]

No. Quantum 'measurements' do not require minds.

I did not say that measurements require mind. According to some experiments, the outcome does, though.

“The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them is impossible.”
Werner Heisenberg

 

[essentialsaltes]

I did not say that measurements require mind. According to some experiments, the outcome does, though.

I doubt that. Which experiments?

The Heisenberg quote refers to observations, which is the same as measurement.

 

[Estrid]

It seems you have forgotten what your POV was:



All untrue.

" all untrue " -more of
the interaction problem elsewhere referred to.
You just say things with no substance, no interaction with
anything real.
Note how much correction you need just on your strange
understanding of the uncertainty principle.

Anyway, no point in attempting to interact. Bye.

 

[trophy33]

I doubt that. Which experiments?
The Heisenberg quote refers to observations, which is the same as measurement.

I do not have them saved in bookmarks, I will try to find them again.

 

[trophy33]

I doubt that. Which experiments?

The Heisenberg quote refers to observations, which is the same as measurement.

For now, I have found this:

Experimental tests of the role of consciousness in the physical world:
https://fundacaobial.com/media/1899/18_experimental-tests-of-the-role_bolsa6308_21022014.pdf

The experiment is said to be consistent with this interpretation:
Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation - Wikipedia

 

[essentialsaltes]

For now, I have found this:

Experimental tests of the role of consciousness in the physical world:
https://fundacaobial.com/media/1899/18_experimental-tests-of-the-role_bolsa6308_21022014.pdf

Dean Radin's work, if valid, would not really tell us anything about quantum mechanics. It would prove the existence of psychic powers. Very few people think it's valid.

The experiment is said to be consistent with this interpretation:
Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation - Wikipedia

I will grant that this is a minority interpretation of QM, with the flaws noted.

 

[trophy33]

Very few people think it's valid.

Who knows, but the number of people thinking its valid or invalid does not make it valid or invalid.

I do not suppose its hard to repeat the experiment, so I am looking forward to see the results of others. But I am afraid it will be simply dismissed as "too spooky" without that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, its just a presupposition. We have no way to prove the world existed yesterday or that we actually understand anything and are not insane instead, talking some gibberish.

That's why it's not a presupposition, but effectively a hypothesis; all scientific hypotheses and theories are provisional, and it's possible (though it seems extremely unlikely) that the patterns and regularities we observe and interpret could turn out to be the result of chance, or hallucinations, or whatever. We simply observe that there are patterns and regularities, and try to make sense of them.

 

[trophy33]

That's why it's not a presupposition, but effectively a hypothesis; all scientific hypotheses and theories are provisional, and it's possible (though it seems extremely unlikely) that the patterns and regularities we observe and interpret could turn out to be the result of chance, or hallucinations, or whatever. We simply observe that there are patterns and regularities, and try to make sense of them.

If the starting point is just observation, then the first certainity we have is that we exist and that we observe/experience. Everything else is just a chain of thoughts we have built upon that.

And its a thing we should do, nothing against that. Even if we were in a dream, it would be useful for us to figure out how it works and use that for our advantage.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If the starting point is just observation, then the first certainity we have is that we exist and that we observe/experience. Everything else is just a chain of thoughts we have built upon that.

Quite - that's the Cartesian conclusion, that all we can be certain of is that there is a thinker of these thoughts; for the rest, we cannot know whether "... some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice" to deceive us.

And its a thing we should do, nothing against that. Even if we were in a dream, it would be useful for us to figure out how it works and use that for our advantage.

That is the project of science, an empirical approach to reducing our uncertainty about the world as it presents itself.

 

[trophy33]

Quite - that's the Cartesian conclusion, that all we can be certain of is that there is a thinker of these thoughts; for the rest, we cannot know whether "... some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice" to deceive us.

I like Descartes.

That is the project of science, an empirical approach to reducing our uncertainty about the world as it presents itself.

With this I could agree. The problem can be with the interpretation of facts, because it seems that many atheists reduce reality to only what it seems to be right now & right here. Or to materialism.