Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Science vs religion

124»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster



    Are you giving nature some kind of consciousness? That’s a big leap. How did you find out nature has a consciousness?

    I don’t know.

    But if we go back to a genuine question the quantum theory scientists are asking themselves.

    Does the universe only exist because we are here to see it.

    It begs the question, is anything truly random


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    And is anything that’s happened before now, truly a coincidence


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Midster wrote: »
    I don’t know.

    But if we go back to a genuine question the quantum theory scientists are asking themselves.

    Does the universe only exist because we are here to see it.

    It begs the question, is anything truly random
    It calls for questioning and that great, but it doesn’t call for throwing any old answer at the question. You’re looking for any old way possible to answer the question in such a way that there are god/gods.

    The questions are great, the answers are only reasonable when the evidence is there to back them up. What’s happening is you’re starting with an answer (god/gods) and looking for a way to apply it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Midster wrote: »
    And is anything that’s happened before now, truly a coincidence

    I don’t know so I don’t have justification for proposing and answers beyond wild speculations or thought experiments.

    Do you know if anything that’s happened before now, is truly a coincidence?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,192 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    looksee wrote: »
    Or maybe you have it back to front, and life evolved to suit the conditions available rather than it being miraculous that the conditions happened to suit the life form that evolved.

    Funnily enough, Venus is also in the same zone.

    Go figure...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭ Ariana Squeaking Supper


    Midster wrote: »
    I don’t know.

    But if we go back to a genuine question the quantum theory scientists are asking themselves.

    Does the universe only exist because we are here to see it.

    It begs the question, is anything truly random
    So we get the something out of nothing theory.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    So we get the something out of nothing theory.

    If that’s a theory you want to propose, then go ahead. I don’t know how the universe started and I don’t pretend to know.

    I suspect you’re a fan of the creator out of nothing idea. Would that be correct?


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,739 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    I think we were all born with the knowledge in our hearts that there is a God, but some have chosen to suppress it. Given that the mass produced mainstream media has sought to move us to an atheist society, this has resulted in a lot of people being deceived by those who work behind the scenes at the top.

    I believe the opposite is true.

    The media and the powers that be are actually keeping religion alive and up front.

    Its people thinking for themselves that is creating atheists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    1 of 2
    If a genuine question within the quantum science world is, does the universe exist only because we are here to view it.

    And that is something worth questioning.

    Then there must have been previous questions that have been answered that have led them to think there is reason enough to ask this one.

    I would say though that an entire universe existing, most of which has been completely invisible to us until recently is unlikely.

    But none the less, it exists.

    Which could mean that there is other life on other worlds within our galaxy and our universe that also have a consciousness, and also look up at the stars.

    With the billions of galaxies that we know exists, I surmise that if the answer to the question, does the universe exist because we are here to see it is yes.

    Then there must be millions of planets populated by living beings in every galaxy in every universe in order for it to be there at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    2 of 2
    It happens in nature, all be it very rarely that a plant might evolve specially to suit one particular bird.
    At the same time, that same bird evolves specially to suit the plant.
    Long term result is a situation is were one is only able to continue to exist, because of the existence of the other.

    It’s like a evolutionary handshake of sorts

    But if it truly is a relevant question to ask does the universe exist because we are here to see it then it suggests to me a partnership similar to the evolutionary one I mentioned before.

    An evolution of consciousness, and reality tied together over time so tightly they are indistinguishable.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Midster wrote: »
    2 of 2
    It happens in nature, all be it very rarely that a plant might evolve specially to suit one particular bird.
    At the same time, that same bird evolves specially to suit the plant.
    Long term result is a situation is were one is only able to continue to exist, because of the existence of the other.

    It’s like a evolutionary handshake of sorts

    But if it truly is a relevant question to ask does the universe exist because we are here to see it then it suggests to me a partnership similar to the evolutionary one I mentioned before.

    An evolution of consciousness, and reality tied together over time so tightly they are indistinguishable.

    Really interesting questions. Genuinely fascinating questions.

    Hypothesis will be formed, tested, disproved , changed, disproved, scrapped and replaced, then tested and disproved, etc. The only thing I can say is that we are at the questioning stage. The worst thing would be to get attached to one hypothesis because it agrees with a preferred outlook and then stick to that hypothesis when it’s replaced with one that doesn’t suit your preferred outlook.

    I’m not a quantum scientist so I’ll just keep an eye on the discussion and see what the science is saying at the time. Always ready to throw out the last hypothesis in favour of the better one.

    Gods are given loads of credit before we actually understand how things work, but funny enough the final answer is never “gods did it”.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    looksee wrote: »
    Or maybe you have it back to front, and life evolved to suit the conditions available rather than it being miraculous that the conditions happened to suit the life form that evolved.
    Or the Gaia thing where life changed the conditions to suit itself after it got the initial toehold.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    Or the Gaia thing where life changed the conditions to suit itself after it got the initial toehold.

    That’s also a very interesting point, because if you know your history, and think about it, it was Cyanobacteria that we’re the first microbes/organisms to begin oxygenating the atmosphere. This planet was terraformed by life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Midster wrote: »
    That’s also a very interesting point, because if you know your history, and think about it, it was Cyanobacteria that we’re the first microbes/organisms to begin oxygenating the atmosphere. This planet was terraformed by life.

    Oxygen in the atmosphere is only important for animals that evolve to use oxygen. If you place humans on the board and try to work backwards it might seem like they’re essential. But humans aren’t essential. We just what happen to be here to ask the questions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Midster wrote: »
    the smallest of atoms being proven to have the ability to be in more than one place at any one time
    Quantum theory says there is a chance of detecting an atom in various places. It does not say that an atom is actually in all those places at the same time.

    What is more extreme though is that this is because it says an "atom" is only a type of mark left in classical objects like experimental equipment, i.e. when it says there is a chance for an atom to be at position x, it really means there is a chance for a device placed at x to click.

    You aren't made of atoms according to quantum theory. It's that what you are made of can present itself as atoms under certain conditions.
    Quantum is just unexplained like all the other things we can’t explain yet. And what about all the things we don’t even know about yet? Gods must be eyeing them is as hiding places for the future.
    According to current research it is very different.

    To be clear Quantum Mechanics is a gambling theory. It tells you the chances of seeing various outcomes or events when you interact with the microscopic world, given the information that you saw previous events. It doesn't actually tell you what is going on at the microscopic scale.

    Due to certain theorems (Kochen-Specker, Bell, PBR, Ekart-Renner) it seems you cannot describe what is actually going on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Fourier wrote: »
    According to current research it is very different.

    To be clear Quantum Mechanics is a gambling theory. It tells you the chances of seeing various outcomes or events when you interact with the microscopic world, given the information that you saw previous events. It doesn't actually tell you what is going on at the microscopic scale.

    Due to certain theorems (Kochen-Specker, Bell, PBR, Ekart-Renner) it seems you cannot describe what is actually going on.
    That’s grand. It can be as different as possible. It’s still absolutely no reason to create gods to explain it, any more than it was justifiable to invent gods to explain everything else we didn’t understand.

    I’d say we should just keep
    Exploring the quantum level of reality and see if we can learn how it works. Inventing gods to explain it, isn’t an explanation it’s giving up trying to understand it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭ Ariana Squeaking Supper


    That’s grand. It can be as different as possible. It’s still absolutely no reason to create gods to explain it, any more than it was justifiable to invent gods to explain everything else we didn’t understand.

    I’d say we should just keep
    Exploring the quantum level of reality and see if we can learn how it works. Inventing gods to explain it, isn’t an explanation it’s giving up trying to understand it.

    Your working on the premis, we Invented god's. You need to reverse your thinking.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    That’s grand. It can be as different as possible. It’s still absolutely no reason to create gods to explain it, any more than it was justifiable to invent gods to explain everything else we didn’t understand.
    I'm not discussing gods. Pointing out that it has a difference was not intended to support the notion of gods.
    I’d say we should just keep
    Exploring the quantum level of reality and see if we can learn how it works
    The point is the theorems strongly suggest you can't learn how it works. That's what's different about it, completely different about it compared to previous theories. It also offers no picture of what is going only, only a calculus for experimental outcomes, that's another major difference. Another major difference is the absence of reduction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Your working on the premis, we Invented god's. You need to reverse your thinking.

    I suppose I would need evidence for gods in the first place. Do you have evidence for gods?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Fourier wrote: »
    I'm not discussing gods. Pointing out that it has a difference was not intended to support the notion of gods.


    The point is the theorems strongly suggest you can't learn how it works. That's what's different about it, completely different about it compared to previous theories. It also offers no picture of what is going only, only a calculus for experimental outcomes, that's another major difference. Another major difference is the absence of reduction.

    Fair enough. I didn’t think you were proposing gods as the answer.

    Whether that’s what the theorems say or not, I’m sure we will continue to try to understand it. It might ultimately be unintelligible to us.

    I remember a quantum scientist being asked whether we would ever understand it and he said something along the line of; if you could speak to a cat, do you think you could explain general relativity to it? Answer, probably not because the cat probably just doesn’t have the gray matter in its brain to understand it. So do you think you could teach quantum mechanics to a human? Maybe, maybe not. We might or might not have the gray matter to fathom it.

    That’s genuinely fascinating to have a branch of science that might be pretty much impenetrable to humans because we’re just not smart enough. That’s class!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Just to be clear quantum mechanics itself is comprehensible to human beings. The problem is that it's only a theory of how the microscopic reacts when you probe it, but it doesn't tell you anything about the microscopic itself. It's the microscopic itself that seems incomprehensible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    Comprehensible to you maybe. But not to the rest of us.

    See your message put a stop to the whole thread it was so confusing, and therefore unanswerable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Midster wrote: »
    Comprehensible to you maybe. But not to the rest of us.

    See your message put a stop to the whole thread it was so confusing, and therefore unanswerable.
    That's how difficult the subject is, I can't change that. You can't build insights off a subject you don't grasp.

    Take a sentence you don't understand and I'd be happy to explain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,862 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Midster wrote: »
    Comprehensible to you maybe. But not to the rest of us.

    See your message put a stop to the whole thread it was so confusing, and therefore unanswerable.

    Not understanding something and not being able to explain it, isn’t a reason to invent gods as the explanation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    Lol


Advertisement