Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by zacariah88, Feb 22, 2023.
Hubris is claiming to have knowledge about something you have no evidence for.
We do observe and measure light and other electromagnetic radiation.
I don't understand your basis for declaring something to not be "real" until it is observed as a particle.
Telescopes collect waves in the electromagnetic spectrum. Are you suggesting that wave forms aren't real?
What would you say about a microwave oven which cooks by emitting powerful electromagnetic waves.
Humans don't have to ignore their limited brainpower, just recognize it. Humans in our universe have no more ability to understand our creator than Charlie Brown, existing only on paper, can understand his creator Schulz. Trying as hard as he can he can only ever know what's immediately around him, never understanding there's an enormous reality outside his physical paper world he cannot see or touch.
"I am convinced that evolution and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction. Indeed, if science and religion are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because they concern different matters. Science and religion are like two different windows for looking at the world. The two windows look at the same world, but they show different aspects of that world. Science concerns the processes that account for the natural world: how planets move, the composition of matter and the atmosphere, the origin and adaptations of organisms. Religion concerns the meaning and purpose of the world and of human life, the proper relation of people to the Creator and to each other, the moral values that inspire and govern people’s lives. Apparent contradictions only emerge when either the science or the beliefs, or often both, trespass their own boundaries and wrongfully encroach upon one another’s subject matter." Francisco Ayala, biologist, University of California, Irvine
I pity those who only consider the "how'"
I don't disagree with what what Ayala is saying here - and it's sad to see that he died a few days ago. In fact, it matches what the last couple Popes have said about religion and science being different "realms" and thus shouldn't be seen as being in conflict.
The established religions we have are NOT the only source of philosophy.
Science does not presume to address religiously supernatural ideas (differentiated as all that we don't know could be considered supernatural simply because it isn't known).
The problems come in when some religion decides that it is the one true solution and thus has the authority to use government to promote itself.
In that case, I retract my statement. I am pro-choice up until the time that brainwaves are present.
I believe you have that backwards. Teachers (specifically public school teachers, private schools are different) are prohibited from doing that. I know if I learned that a teacher of one of my kids was doing that, I'd take my happy ass to the Courthouse and get a big settlement, plus having one less teacher.
Then explain to me how a particle can simultaneously go through two slits, interfere with itself, and eventually build into an interference pattern? And once you're done with that, explain to my how a photon knows where it's ultimate destiny is, so they can arrange to take the quickest route through whatever mediums (air, water, etc.) it has to travel through to get there.
That's what happened in Bremerton, WA.
A coach who was a government employee worked with his team of school students to pray to his god.
Parents didn't like it and it went to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the coach.
I'm not a quantum physicist. There is a LOT written on the double split experiment, though.
The great thing about the double slit experiment is that it is relatively straight forward to test - it's not simply theoretical. Our experience with particles we can see does not apply to the quantum mechanical level of how our universe works.
I know of no case that could be described as photons "knowing" where they are going or planning how to get there.
Well you pose a hypothesis, how are you going to test it?I don’t have a God shaped tole to fill.so, an exception to your assertion.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Because you've decided to ignore a huge part of the human experience, pretend it doesn't exist.
Not necessarily. One might recognize an external prompting. The thing is, if you assume a good influencing force, then by default the should be a bad one as well. So then it becomes a matter of deciding to listen to that "still small voice"
Whether there is or is not is irrelevant to the thought experiment. By default we are making an assumption in the existence of any deity. So it's not any stretch to assume time travel.
Should the decision maker decide to follow the "still small voice of God" to him and everyone else it would appear to be his decision. All decisions involve alternatives, but not all alternatives necessarily originate with the decision maker. It would seem that unless outside influence were eliminated a decision may not be entirely of one's own choosing.
Thought experiments are fine. That's not limited to religion. We have theoretical physicists all over the world working on hypotheses concerning observations that aren't currently explained.
There does need to be a line between thought experiments and statements concerning how our universe is known to work. They search for the holy grail of ability to test those ideas to see if they can be disproven.
Star Wars violates well understood physics all over the place. Religions have created broad panoplies of supernatural beings and places, taking various actions, giving orders and interacting with the real world in various ways. That's fine. Of course, there is no method or even interest in finding ways to prove or disprove these ideas.
But, one can't assume those wonderful ideas are all even remotely possible.
All of which has nothing to do with what I put out. You are moving way beyond the scope on of my point. At issue was the question of whether it was known, as a certainty instead of a good guess based on data, what the decision would be as to whether or not it was a decision or predestined. The situation I presented brings that potential situation into its most basic form and asks whether the person actually makes a decision the second time.you observe the exact event in history or do they in fact no longer have free will because of that certainty of knowledge?
I pity those who throw out reason and logic and have fooled themselves into thinking they know the why.
The greatest tool that every human has is their ability to reason. To see people voluntarily give that up is said.
Yes, reason is a wonderful gift from our Creator and no one is giving it up. But. it's not infallible and it's not God's only gift.
Ok, I probably missed your point.
I don't like time machine analogies, because of the fact of their impossibility. One can't postulate real rules for what happens if you jump to some previous time. What is the time traveler's relationship to the past time? Can they act? How do we decide what is possible and what is not when time travel has no real definition?
In religion, theologians and philosophers have debated the question of free will and the capabilities of a god, such as omniscience.
In physics, one wonders whether our meat computers really have the power to implement free will.
It is not infallible. We are human and many times we get fooled into believing what we want to be true rather than what the evidence says is true.
Basically I made the point that if you observe a choice, and then go back to observe it again from a different point, doing nothing else but observe, is it still a choice the observed person makes or is it predetermined? Or if you want something a little less potentially interfering, a device that views the past but can't interact? We can see everything that someone did in real time. Does that mean they actually made decisions at key points, or is everything predetermined?
This is basically what I am doing. Distilling omniscience to a single event/choice observed.
I would say that the choice was only made once and only at one specific time. You're only suggesting that it was observed multiple times, I think. Plus, the human time traveler going to the past doesn't know the full future.
The issue of the omniscience of a god is different in that a god such as the Judeo-Christian god could observe and take action in all times and with full detailed knowledge of the future and the past.
Of course, even that is contentious, as we see with Noah, wherein god changed his mind on discovering Noah!!
If someone makes a choice and you record it in a video, are they still making a decision when you play back the video? Reverse time travel is an imaginary concept where we imagine that we can go backward as though rewinding a video.
Actual time travel only works when moving forward through time by traveling through space.
You are nicely illustrating my point. On that assumption of a deity working outside the flow of time where it can observe cause and effect and choices made, and can then act to introduce new variables, all it is doing is putting up different situations where it increases the likelihood of given choice being made. It's really no different then when we as parents manipulate the situation to get our children to make the choice that we want them to. They still are making a choice, even though we knew they would. But in the end, there is still always that small chance that they choose other then we want.
Separate names with a comma.