Please critique this argument against miracles

[acbytesla]

ftfy. Otherwise you would have two contradictory sentences.

Thank you.

 

[Pixel42]

Did you seriously believe that we could observe a single atomic nucleus and see what is happening down there?

Whether we can observe it or not we know that it happens, and that each individual case of it happening is an event without a cause.

 

[psionl0]

Whether we can observe it or not we know that it happens, and that each individual case of it happening is an event without a cause.

Now that is faith.

No person of science would make such a definitive statement. They would say that we can make behavioural predictions based on statistical models (and such models are subject to refinement as we learn more through observation).

 

[Pixel42]

Now that is faith.

That's established physics.

 

[psionl0]

That's established physics.

Source?

 

[Pixel42]

The laws of quantum mechanics were discovered nearly a century ago, and are the basis of entire industries.

 

[arthwollipot]

To my understanding individual decay is currently understood to have no immediate and direct cause, but physicists don't like it and so they are keeping the question open.

Now that is faith.

Do you have a source that says that individual decay does have a direct cause?

 

[Darat]

Source?

Almost a hundred years ago, a rather important paper by Born - the one that vexxed Einstein so much, and then 60 years ago Bell's theorem(s). Both papers/concepts have seen off all attempts to posit deterministic theories that account for empirical results of quantum physics. If you want to learn more search for "quantum hidden variables".

 

[psionl0]

Almost a hundred years ago, a rather important paper by Born - the one that vexxed Einstein so much, and then 60 years ago Bell's theorem(s). Both papers/concepts have seen off all attempts to posit deterministic theories that account for empirical results of quantum physics. If you want to learn more search for "quantum hidden variables".

I am not referring to "hidden local variables" or other simplistic attempts to account for QM phenomena.

I am pointing out that it is nuts to conclude that it is all purely random just because we have run out of ideas (for now) that could be tested. You might just as well say it is all magic.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You are failing in understanding a very basic property of Quantum mechanics.
Randomness exists. Events happen with a certain probability, but that doesn't tell what the outcome of an individual event will be - and there is nothing you can do to figure it out in advance, just observe the result.

 

[Darat]

I am not referring to "hidden local variables" or other simplistic attempts to account for QM phenomena.

I am pointing out that it is nuts to conclude that it is all purely random
just because we have run out of ideas (for now) that could be tested. You might just as well say it is all magic.

You think the work of Einstein, Born, Bohr, Bell, Daric, Heisenberg et al made "simplistic attempts" to account for QM? That is astonishing. From your statement I suspect that you haven't grasped the concepts (and no I'm not saying you must understand the maths). This is not about running out of ideas, it is empirical evidence backing up the mathematics that means there are no hidden variables* or to put it another way no deterministic model can model the "quantum realm". It is not magic to go with the science.

Do you believe there is a lower "ground state" for the hydrogen atom nicknamed the hydrino? Because that is the scale of what you are suggesting science has missed over the last century when you want to deny we don't know if the quantum realm is non-deterministic or not. Sometimes we do know what we know and what we don't know.


*Yes I am aware of the local/non-local difference.

 

[psionl0]

Randomness exists. Therefore, Events happen with a certain probability, but that doesn't tell what the outcome of an individual event will be - and there is nothing you can do to figure it out in advance, just observe the result. Therefore, randomness exists.

ftfy.

 

[psionl0]

From your statement I suspect that you haven't grasped the concepts (and no I'm not saying you must understand the maths).

It's amusing when somebody who barely knows what they are talking about calls somebody else stupid.

You are the one who doesn't get it. We have absolutely no model whatsoever that will explain QM. All we have is the maths. We have to assume that randomness exists to make the maths work. As the OP pointed out, in the original context, you can't then use the maths to prove that randomness exists.

 

[Darat]

It's amusing when somebody who barely knows what they are talking about calls somebody else stupid.

You are the one who doesn't get it. We have absolutely no model whatsoever that will explain QM. All we have is the maths. We have to assume that randomness exists to make the maths work. As the OP pointed out, in the original context, you can't then use the maths to prove that randomness exists.

Nope - you've got that all wrong.

 

[psionl0]

Nope - you've got that all wrong.

I'm convinced.

 

[Paul2]

…. We have to assume that randomness exists to make the maths work.

I’m interested in seeing you demonstrate that QM assumes randomness in order to make its mathematics work.

 

[arthwollipot]

"You appear to not understand the details of quantum mechanics, the most complex and unintuitive subject in physics that can only be really understood by the application of powerful mathematics" is not the same as "You are stupid".

 

[acbytesla]

"You appear to not understand the details of quantum mechanics, the most complex and unintuitive subject in physics that can only be really understood by the application of powerful mathematics" is not the same as "You are stupid".

Yeah.
What was it that Richard Feynman said about quantum mechanics? "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.

 

[theprestige]

It's probableistic mass-energy conversions all the way down.

 

[dellarte]

Is the goal to prove that miracles happen or that the Christian god exists?

False dilemma.