thanks i'll add it to my journal.

Are you a post modernist?
— tilda-psychist

Mind your manners. No need for name-calling.

Folk tend to assume causation as a hard-and-fast rule, which it isn't. First it is unclear what causation is; next, it is clear that it is neither needed nor useful in QM. Third, complexity theory shows that cause is incalculable on a macro scale.

Hence, P1 is wrong. — Banno

You assumption is that because Scientists can't predict all the behaviors of particles means that they aren't based on cause and effect. That is an enormous leap of faith on your end.

I'm not sure i'm going to convince you of anything. It is very strange to find agnostics and atheists who also reject the concept of absolute truth.

When scientists measure the speed of a particle that can also effect it the direction of its travel, but this does not mean it is still not fully effected by cause and effect. I think it is safe to say that the rejection of scientific determinism or determinism is the reject of reasoning and rational thought. I think it this age we live in we get comfortable with creature comforts and don't doubt ourselves.

If everything is relative, than everything is crooked and there is no truth about what a person is, what he has done, and what he deserves. The world would therefore be entirely abstract and meaningless if there was no objective truth. Is this enough to prove relativism wrong? — Gregory

you are correct on this. Atheism and post-modernism really are at odds with each other even though somehow some Atheists feel the need to be post-modernists. Are you familiar with Noah Harrari's book "Sapiens"? If you don't feel like reading the 1st 4 or 5 chapters then check out some of his youtube videos.

Premise P1: Everything that is physical is determined, as per the laws of physics.
— Samuel Lacrampe

Well, that's wrong, for starters. — Banno

That seems irrational. Are you a post modernist? Post modernism is not rational and flies in the face of science and scientific thought.

There are multiple interpretations of Quantum Physics. Modern Quantum Physics test results to not with out a doubt prove post-modernism.

Absolutely all the inventions so far, no matter how sophisticated, serve directly or indirectly to ancient desires, almost instinctive. Although the world abounds with new inventions, there is nothing new under the sun at the level of desires.

Any technology has 2 phases:


1. Breakthrough - the invention of the device that satisfies the desire
2. Evolution - in the sense of perfecting the respective technology

1. If there is a finite set of desires, when they will be fulfilled, the only thing left is perfecting.

2. Improving existing technologies may seem like an argument for the endless potential of evolution, as perfection cannot be achieved. But this can only be a mirage, because once the goals are reached at an acceptable level, improvement becomes nonsense. Is a battery that lasts 1 million years more evolved than a battery with a 500.000 years autonomy?
Let's take the example of instantaneous distant communication, the old desire since the world:
Maximum goal: telepathic communication, maybe even at the level of senses and emotions. Suppose that in the future this device will be invented, and this big step has been made, then follows the improvement that means:
- not to bother
- not to affect health
- to have a battery that requires very rare charging
- others

After all this reaches an acceptable level, the technology as a whole has achieved both its main goal (satisfaction of desire) and secondary goals (satisfaction in optimal conditions).

1. Will technological evolution make us have new desires that our current brain cannot imagine?

2. Will the world over 10,000 years old be much more evolved than today's world, but about as evolved as the one 1 trillion years ahead ? — Eugen

i think the answer is yes. There is essentially no end to what technology can do. However most people are aware of the fact that new technology can bring new problems. Ancient hunter-gatherers fought lions and our modern lions are finding fiscally responsible ways to deal with globalism and automation. Automation to a strong extent started over 200 years ago.

Basically i'm saying some people know more than others however there is no end in sight of Scientists still having major discoveries of how the Universe operates and also things that relate to 10 dimensions and beyond. Like i said if we get one variable or coefficient wrong it can change our whole view of reality.
— tilda-psychist

Yes, you're right and, as I said, all scientists do is model reality with empirically-verified theory. So while it's right to say our whole "view of reality" (i.e. theoretical model of it) can massively change, the change in what it predicts (phenomena) have to be extremely restricted to match prior observations. The universe may behave as if it has precisely 11 dimensions, say. It might have 111. It might only have 4 or 5. But it behaves like it has 11.

Likewise it behaves as if there's dark matter and dark energy in a universe and otherwise follows current cosmological models. And it will behave differently in future cosmological models. More dark matter, less, none, dark matter made of one thing, dark matter made of fudge. As I said before:

Dark matter is supposed to make up 80% of massive matter in order to explain the rotational velocity of galaxies. As accurate mass estimates for galaxies are on-going (e.g. only recently have we realised the abundance of supermassive black holes), it's worth treating with some scepticism. Dark matter is, sceptically, an error between current cosmological estimates of mass and current astronomical measurements of mass.
— Kenosha Kid — Kenosha Kid

probably true. I'm about high school calculus level so i guess your right.

good point.

well since you gave me a compliment, i like you now.

you win. no sarcasm intended.

You asked me to explain existence, hence yours and my quotes:

Me: We are talking about the existence of something. In this case, in human terms, it would be the human being called Jesus. Using your words, what does knowledge have to do with existence?

You: I asked you what you know, and you have answered with what you believe. That both is and is not an answer. As to knowledge it is nothing, but given the context it also says that you don't know.

Me: As I've said over in the Lounge, existentially, one does not know the true nature of their own existence, and so why should this be any different (?).

Now if you want to speculate metaphysically, you're more than welcome to elucidate there.

Me: What I meant was explaining your own existence metaphysically. In other words, your conscious existence.

Make any sense now...and so, what would be the distinction between the two explanation's of the man called Jesus who had a conscious existence, and your own conscious existence? Or, in the case of the cosmological God, if space and time are a mystery, how should one go about explaining it? Isn't space and time a theory? — 3017amen

For one he is saying that the very nature of feeling or awareness makes it very hard for us to assume that we know everything about feeling or awareness. I would argue feeling and awareness will be the final frontier of Scientific study. This is why consider myself somewhat of a Pan-psychist. There are over 11 forms of pan-psychism.

My assumption is the End of Grade thing is he is saying hes taken the metaphorical end of grade tests for the study of philosophy. Arragance is common on philosophy forums and i can't claim to be excluded from that boat.

Is there anything else you wanted me to reinterpret that he stated?

Thats a common theme on most forums such as this by religionists and non-religionists. If scientists have problems understanding everything then so do most people on forums like this.

Puking out information from a popular physics book doesn't make us experts.

I'm sure you are aware to the concept that when one question is answered that 10 more questions pop up in its place (a common proverb). Missing one small detail in a concept can throw off the proper conclusion for that concept. This is similar to if we have an equation missing one variable and one coefficient for example. The whole output of the equation or function can change drastically.
— tilda-psychist

This is a justification for considering science a work of fiction? Or, to put it another way, how does this relate to what you quoted?

You seem to be taking not knowing something as being seen as inferior. But you just quoted me as saying not knowing is the starting point.

Welcome to the forum by the way :) — Kenosha Kid

Thanks for your welcome. No sarcasm intended. Basically i'm saying some people know more than others however there is no end in sight of Scientists still having major discoveries of how the Universe operates and also things that relate to 10 dimensions and beyond. Like i said if we get one variable or coefficient wrong it can change our whole view of reality.

Last call. — tim wood

Last call? Last call before what? Are you an admin. What he said made sense to me.

Cosmologists, like any other scientist, build theoretical models to test against empirical evidence. If your point is that they do not know in advance that the model is the correct one, then yes, you have correctly distinguished science (which proceeds from not knowing but wanting to find out) from religion (which proceeds from pretending to know and fearing being found out). — Kenosha Kid

Thats a common theme on most forums such as this by religionists and non-religionists. If scientists have problems understanding everything then so do most people on forums like this.

Puking out information from a popular physics book doesn't make us experts.

I'm sure you are aware to the concept that when one question is answered that 10 more questions pop up in its place (a common proverb). Missing one small detail in a concept can throw off the proper conclusion for that concept. This is similar to if we have an equation missing one variable and one coefficient for example. The whole output of the equation or function can change drastically.