I dont think thats what it is about.Look for "Heisenberg uncertainity principle".
It seems you have forgotten what your POV was:You would need to explain how religions dont require the
supernatural.
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.
Au contraire.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.
Edit: according to some experiments in physics, we can even say there is no fixed reality without a mind.
No argument there.No. Quantum 'measurements' do not require minds.
I did not say that measurements require mind. According to some experiments, the outcome does, though.No. Quantum 'measurements' do not require minds.
I did not say that measurements require mind. According to some experiments, the outcome does, though.
It seems you have forgotten what your POV was:
All untrue.
I do not have them saved in bookmarks, I will try to find them again.I doubt that. Which experiments?
The Heisenberg quote refers to observations, which is the same as measurement.
For now, I have found this: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
Who knows, but the number of people thinking its valid or invalid does not make it valid or invalid.Very few people think it's valid.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
That is the project of science, an empirical approach to reducing our uncertainty about the world as it presents itself.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.
I like Descartes.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.
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.That is the project of science, an empirical approach to reducing our uncertainty about the world as it presents itself.