200 years??? LOL

Something has to give when faced with the evidence of quantum contextuality as a causal thing. — apokrisis

We simply cannot expect our models of the universe to be immune from inadequacy and eventual revision. Do we live in a universe of waves or particles? Is the universe digital or analogue? It seems to be neither and both.
We've been here before. Model revision is what makes science what it is. But at every stage of the development of science we have relied on an assumption that we can work out what is going on based on observations of what went before. Uniformitarianism and determinism has continued to sustain investigations, and results.
I do not see anything in QM to change that situation.
After all we cannot exactly predict the fall of a simple dice, yet we can define the parameters with determinism. Were we to have complete knowledge of the dice's rotation, speed, the wind resistance, the reflective properties of the table onto which it falls and so on, we'd be able to tell what the result is, and know the result could never be 7.
It is simply the case that measuring these things tend to change their values. Observations have always played their part in skewing results - ask any anthropologist.
Double slit, double nonsense. Stick to determinism and we'll understand it.

But that was torpedoed by the discovery of the uncertainty principle and the indeterminate nature of sub-atomic matter. — Wayfarer

This is just a failure of the atomistic paradigm, it does not refute the simple fact that effects are the result of causes.

"why are we here?" Is no question.
How do we come to be here might be a better one, and that can be answered by looking at natural history.

I think creation began with consciousness and that consciousness is the state life aspires to. — Jon

This is so obviously the complete opposite of what is evident.
But that aside why would life aspire to that which began everything. You you even know what evolution means literally?

What is going on? Why we are here? — bahman

It's not even a question.

It is impossible to find evidence for determinism in science — Rich

LOL.
That's like saying its impossible to find evidence of pages of paper in the content of a book.

BTW. This "." is a period. You said period period.

The universe is inherently probabilistic. — Rich

Don't buy into this free will clap trap, as this flies in the face of the massive advances in science of the last 250 years which assert determinism.
Determinism is what makes the universe predictable, and everything we have gaind in understanding has been based on deterministic principles.

Abduction means that we take a list of properties (for example white, long neck, beak, bird) and we associate them with a common name - swan. — Agustino

Sub-category of deduction.

To say it's true because it works seems unsatisfactory. — Perplexed

That is all we have.
Deduction can only say it is true because we say it is!!! Deduction is basically playing with definitions; nothing more.

True. But nonetheless the findings of science are reliable, and the deeper science is able to describe what seems to be going on the more reliable are the laws that it devises. Alongside all this reliability is the idea that the laws are only as good as their repeated performance and descriptive power.

In fact I think the sceptical implications of Hume’s ideas are reflected by the acceptance of the provisional nature of scientific hypotheses — Wayfarer

This is of key importance. And is something that science is apt to forget at crucial times. Paradigms tend to get established and hard to shift.
Thomas Kuhn's work has been very influential on this question.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

So his empiricism rests on his taking experience as the starting point for knowledge instead of basing it on innate ideas or a priori thinking. — Perplexed

Yes. Empiricism is about what the world demonstrates and not what principles you hold about it.

If induction is not based on a rational principle then how does one go from a constant conjunction to an assertion of probability?

It's basically repetition; then formulate an hypothesis about what it happening, and see if it sticks. Experimenting to demonstrate the hypothesis' value would be the next step. All inductive knowledge is therefore contingent on replicability and repetition.

For many years now I have sensed that we are all in agreement.

I used to say that disagreement is an illusion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You could not be more wrong.
It's all about Point of View.

He did not deny it. He defined it and recognised its limitations.
He rightly asserted that empiricism was inductive, and that induction was really about the probability of reoccurrence through constant conjunction, rather than reliant on an assumption of a priori thinking.

So you reduce everything to the interaction of quarks and leptons? — Jon

No - I'm talking about the universe. Not just a few particles, or your hopeless anthropomorphic reductionism. Man is the crown of his own imagination.

Well.. if you look at the first two chapters you'll see discussion on creation. What do you think of that? — Jon

To call that a discussion is an abuse of words. As for what I think of it; it is as misguided and shows as much ignorance as any number of other creation myths, and is about as accurate as turtles (going all the way down).

Biodynamics I think comes down to the interplay in life. It also has to do with social interaction and all it offers. — Jon

I'm talking about the universe, not the activities of a few smart monkeys.

I really think this a naive view. The Bible is much to deep to be contrasted with goat herders and myth. — Jon

LOL!
How much of it have you even read?

You need to open the book of nature to really see what is going on.
— charleton
This is a great point... but are you talking macro, micro or both? I think the term "biodynamics" became popular with Rudolf Steiner. — Jon

You have a choice. Either take the word of a bunch of half illiterate post neolithic goat herders and their myths, or look at the world as we know it. The book came about because people wrote down the myths of their culture. The Jewish culture is one amongst many. The books come down to us because of political power, and says nothing about anything I'm interested in.

Macro, micro both.
Biodynamics is a tiny part of nature. No idea why you want to take that route.

If you are asking is there a god, then ask that!
Otherwise you seem to have your question backwards. You cannot understand the universe by imposing a predefined view of god upon it; You have to understand god through your understanding of god's creation.
The argument goes; The universe is...... therefore the creator is .....
You are taking a view of god through the BOOK "of god"; but this is a human creation.
You need to open the book of nature to really see what is going on.

The human spirit is pathetic, mean, and spiteful.

Driving to work this morning I saw two old dogs being taken for a walk from the back of a car.
They were two aged chocolate Labradors, maybe siblings as they were like two peas in a pod. Their faces were lined with grey hair; must have been 12 years old, struggling on their feet. But despite the cold, rain and miserable over cast sky they were happily together sniffing the ground and wagging their tails in unison. And despite the discomfort of their age, they were happy to be together enjoying their lives as no human is capable of.
THAT is spirit.

There is no doubt that you owe everything you are to your brain. It's the only organ you cannot live without.
I like to think of my "mind" as what the brain does. It is the software of the brain which is the hardware.
As for a purpose - that is what the mind decides.
It is most likely that there is no "grand scheme of the universe"

True, but rationality isn't an authority and it isn't infallible. If it was, then we would only need one rational person around at any given time. We have found that several people applying reason is better than depending on 1 person alone. — Bitter Crank

Philosophers have a way of distilling from reality and praxis, ideals. Such is the case with what we like to call 'rationality', which is not actually evident, but an idealised extrapolation; as if to say; "if only we could think with purity we would achieve a purity of rationality."

It is true to say that there is nothing wrong with rational thinking; it is a means by which totally reliable and replicable results can be shared throughout our language community, where the evidence and assumptions are also correct. We can agree formal, even objective, criteria and methods to take what is evident and offer universal and agreeable results.

Obviously no such state of affairs can really exist. It is not possible to completely share the same point of view, it is not always possible to agree upon what makes reliable or applicable evidence. And so our ideal of rationality often fails to produce the expected results.

weak attempts at scoring points.
— Benkei

You said "no"; "no" to WHAT? — charleton

Just answer the question and stop being such a queen.

weak attempts at scoring points. — Benkei

You said "no"; "no" to WHAT?

You mean in Holland you get work as a lawyer regardless of your ability?

It's a very common metaphor. I don't know why you don't get it. Just see the movies. Villains are always depicted with high IQ. Get the hint? — TheMadFool

This has no bearing on the thread. If you can't see 'why I don't get it", I think the fault lies with you, ot me.
I mean really what the fuck are you babbling on about?

In the Netherlands. What does "being a good lawyer" (whatever that is) have to do with the issue of billable hours? — Benkei

Clearly being able to attract those hours to fall into your lap relates to people's perception of you as a lawyer?

some of these atoms know how to organize themselves — CasKev

And the complex biological organisms that exist - somehow programmed by DNA — CasKev

It is no wonder you are confused. The way you ask the questions already has intelligent design locked in as an assumption.

Adding an intelligent designer into the mix, simply makes your case even harder to argue and you then have all your work to face ahead of you. Since a designer is more difficult to explain that the shit he has made, you only have managed to shoot yourself in the foot.

Quark might not even exist as anything more than a model to try to explain what the hell is happening. Atoms are similarly a model that cannot fully represent reality. So rather than get all het up about asking how can an atom "know" what to do, simply accept that things behave to their nature. Ultimately there is no explanation to this nor can there ever be an adequate explanation; this goes for bosons and 'designers' too.

It assumes experience is a good indicator for performance, which it isn't and that managing a household does not instil a person with (management) skills they can apply to a job — Benkei

That is a matter for the employer and the market. The assumption does not have to have a bearing; the performance which is usually better due to experience deserves more pay, as it attracts more competitive pay. Employers have a great interest in keeping more experienced staff in that they tend to improve the performance of others around them.

Generally, most hiring policies and systems have an ingrained bias against women as the measurements applied favour men. For example, the sociable female lawyer that takes the time out to educate juniors and paralegals has less billable hours than the... — Benkei

Are you in the US or UK? Traditional professions tend to keep ossified ideas OR Maybe you are just not that good a lawyer?

Bullshit usually does that.

If this explains the gender pay gap then why is it that men bring more "value" than women?

Regardless, it's a gender pay gap all the same. — Michael

But if you think it has to be addressed, despite the reasons, then that would make you the sexist.
Let's say there are non sexist reason (say a gap in her work record due to motherhood) that woman X is paid less than man Y, but you insist she be paid then same that would make you the sexist.
But all things being equal, if a man and woman, or a black and a white are paid differently then there is a clear case of discrimination due to the factors not related to the ability to do the job.

I don't think the pay gap stats really deal with the issues. There is a gap, but I do not think most of it is because women are women or men are men, necessarily.
Averages can hide the truth.
If job A pays progressively due to increasing experience, then people who stay in the job longest will end up with more pay. In such a case men might be more likely to achieve higher wages over the long term, but it would have nothing to do with then BEING men.
In such work environments women taking time off for pregnancy and child rearing would automatically be playing catch up for the rest of their career. This is about personal circumstances not sexism.
If job B requires strength and mechanical skill and pays higher than other jobs that do not, this also may lead to increasing the pay gap as, in general, women are less likely to do well in such jobs being on average of lower strength. Additionally women, for whatever reason, tend to have less mechanical skill - this might be a cultural thing, rather than a natural thing. But it would not be the fault of the employer necessarily - thought they might apply the same cultural bias and not consider a women.

However - in really high paid jobs there is a clear and obvious pay gap, such as we find in the BBC, and there is an obvious male club in the stock market, and the board room which skew the averages.

I think you would be less confused about things if you were to drop your assumption of some kind of meta-meaning to the universe which crept into your discussion.
Accept there is no 'grand scheme' and you will be more content. Even if there was a 'grand scheme', it would be very unlikely in a universe of this size and complexity for your life to be a significant part of it, or that you would ever be able to understand it, or even know of its existence.
There is a real world of experience and a world of ideas which can be shared; with books, videos, and text, speech and many other forms of media. Just enjoy it whilst you can.

If I attack this Forum, as a Forum, then I am going to compromise the activities of this Forum. Soros is attacking Social Media for the things they do, qua social media. Your analogies are stupid.

Time to go to church — Rich

This explains much about you.

I have no idea what it means to think rationally. — Rich

Here's one thing you seem to get right.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The brain is loving and tries to heal like every other part of the body. — Rich

ROTFLMFHO