Table Salt
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2013, 11:43 AM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 12:03 PM by viole.)
RE: Table Salt
(06-12-2013 01:05 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Speaking of illogical and irrational, you're making sweeping generalizations from a sample size of one. I'm a YEC and I see the universe as orderly.

And you forgot the completely unpredictable character of Nature at very small scale. See Quantum Mechanical true randomness. i mean, we are not even able, for fundametal reasons, to say if a piece of glass will reflect a photon or not.

Is that really so orderly as you presuppone? Wink

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 11:49 AM
RE: Table Salt
Duplicate
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 11:59 AM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 12:05 PM by viole.)
RE: Table Salt
Duplicate again, darn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 11:41 AM)viole Wrote:  Although I don't think you can invoke induction to describe the Universe. For instance, you cannot induce, despite apparently repeatable and consistent observations, that snakes cannot talk. Lol.

Ciao

- viole
Sure I can. Inductive reasoning is uncertain by nature and only deals in probabilities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:16 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 11:43 AM)viole Wrote:  And you forgot the completely unpredictable character of Nature at very small scale. See Quantum Mechanical true randomness. i mean, we are not even able, for fundametal reasons, to say if a piece of glass will reflect a photon or not.
We can't predict it is not equivalent to inherently unpredictable. I find it hard to believe that true randomness aggregates to order. I find it more likely that we just don't know that much about it yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:08 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 11:41 AM)viole Wrote:  Although I don't think you can invoke induction to describe the Universe. For instance, you cannot induce, despite apparently repeatable and consistent observations, that snakes cannot talk. Lol.

Ciao

- viole
Sure I can. Inductive reasoning is uncertain by nature and only deals in probabilities.

It turns out that all the supernatural stuff in the Bible, and in other stories as well, is actually well-documented examples of bizarre quantum mechanics being observed.

It's too bad these awesome, yet highly improbable things stopped happening in recent recorded history. Especially after we developed the means to video-record them.

*Resumes looking out the window on the off chance that pegasus will fly by, and that we just haven't observed them yet.*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 12:40 PM by viole.)
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:16 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 11:43 AM)viole Wrote:  And you forgot the completely unpredictable character of Nature at very small scale. See Quantum Mechanical true randomness. i mean, we are not even able, for fundametal reasons, to say if a piece of glass will reflect a photon or not.
We can't predict it is not equivalent to inherently unpredictable. I find it hard to believe that true randomness aggregates to order. I find it more likely that we just don't know that much about it yet.

That just proves that you believe in things without evidence and you don't believe in things that have it. I would maybe suggest to re-examine your epistemology. If Nature works like that, what makes it difficult for you to accept it without a-priori assumptions?

The fact that Quantum Mechanics excludes, at fundamental level, total predictability, is a major conquest of last century's physics.

Alas, you are not alone. Many people, including atheists, have problems to accept the concept. Einstein did not accept it, either, but he was proven wrong.

After all, Plantinga was right (for the wrong reasons): evolution favors adaptive beliefs which do not necessarily correspond to truths. Chasing electrons for food and gaining thereby an intuition about their behaviours is not necessarily a faculty that needs to be naturally selected.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: Table Salt
(03-12-2013 09:00 AM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  'well, were you there?!'
This implies that evolution has been and gone.

The correct answer is "Yes, I am there"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
10-12-2013, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 12:50 PM by viole.)
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:29 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 12:08 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Sure I can. Inductive reasoning is uncertain by nature and only deals in probabilities.

It turns out that all the supernatural stuff in the Bible, and in other stories as well, is actually well-documented examples of bizarre quantum mechanics being observed.

It's too bad these awesome, yet highly improbable things stopped happening in recent recorded history. Especially after we developed the means to video-record them.

*Resumes looking out the window on the off chance that pegasus will fly by, and that we just haven't observed them yet.*

Yeah. It is absurd to accept induction/order and miracles (deviations from inductive/orderly behavior of Nature) at that same time and both as evidence of God. It is, at best, question begging (twice).

What is claimed is equivalent to: Nature is orderly except in those cases when it isn't. We call the latter case "miracles".

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes viole's post
10-12-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:36 PM)viole Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 12:16 PM)alpha male Wrote:  We can't predict it is not equivalent to inherently unpredictable. I find it hard to believe that true randomness aggregates to order. I find it more likely that we just don't know that much about it yet.

That just proves that you believe in things without evidence and you don't believe in things that have it. I would maybe suggest to re-examine your epistemology. If Nature works like that, what makes it difficult for you to accept it without a-priori assumptions?

The fact that Quantum Mechanics excludes, at fundamental level, total predictability, is a major conquest of last century's physics.

Alas, you are not alone. Many people, including atheists, have problems to accept the concept. Einstein did not accept it, either, but he was proven wrong.
The random nature of the quantum level is predictable hence Schrodenger's probability equation has been proven to be accurate.

Einstein couldn't accept "Spooky action at a distance" because it violates the principle of locality and the speed of light constraint on which his GR was founded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: