Regarding Franko...
- Thread starter Titanpoint
- Start date
-
- Tags
- franko
Mordred,
I don't have the slightest doubt about your intellectual honesty.
Science is always opened to evaluate new possibilities, new theories and new descriptions about the Universe. I don't think that any true scientist has a-priori conclusion about anything, however when it comes to the God question then it seems that scientific-atheists hold a conclusion, but the true is that nobody has ever tested the hypothesis that there is a God.
Yes, now QM provides a very good approach to understand the Universe, and as a human race, we still have a huge amount of time to improve or develop new theories that can explain everything.
How many years since QM exists?, nothing if we compare it to how old is the Universe.
So, what you say is that with the current scientific knowledge that we have at the moment (QM), it is not possible to attempt to explain or suggest that the Universe behaves in a different way...
In short you say that :
I do not think that Franko thinks that his objections have empirical basis (am I correct?). What he says is that the current knowledge does not provide the ultimate answers and explanations about the Universe and us. The only problem is that, instead of taking what we have (scientific approach), he just dismisses it.
Q-S
Oh, I see. The particle itself KNOWS its speed and position. The particle is conscious.
I see clearly now, because you consider that humans are particles you implied that it is possible to determine position and speed at the same time.
I remember, but you seem to forget it very often. Thanks to those entities that carry those memes, we have reached such level of understanding...
Ah! the Truth.... I wonder why YOU are so scared to answer questions about the "Truth"
.Nevermind, I know the answers to my questions.
Q-S
Q-Source,
That would depend on how you define the term “conscious”.
All I am saying is that just because you don’t “know” where the particle is, doesn’t mean that the particle doesn’t “know” where it is. If the particle didn’t know (if TLOP didn’t know) then how can you even claim that the particle exists? If it exists, then it has a speed AND a position. Mordred, Heisenberg, and Bell are claiming that it doesn’t – they are claiming it is magic.
For yourself … sure, isn’t that rather obvious?
You are kidding yourself Source. The entities that carry that meme have done nothing but harm us. They produce Nothing, they simply consume and annihilate. They are worthless unless they can be forced to alter their course.
All scientific progress is made by Optimists. Being an A-Theist crushes the intuition.
Which question is that?
That would depend on how you define the term “conscious”.
All I am saying is that just because you don’t “know” where the particle is, doesn’t mean that the particle doesn’t “know” where it is. If the particle didn’t know (if TLOP didn’t know) then how can you even claim that the particle exists? If it exists, then it has a speed AND a position. Mordred, Heisenberg, and Bell are claiming that it doesn’t – they are claiming it is magic.
For yourself … sure, isn’t that rather obvious?
You are kidding yourself Source. The entities that carry that meme have done nothing but harm us. They produce Nothing, they simply consume and annihilate. They are worthless unless they can be forced to alter their course.
All scientific progress is made by Optimists. Being an A-Theist crushes the intuition.
Which question is that?
wraith said:just for ◊◊◊◊◊ and giggles, why chose the name "Mordred"?
King Arthur was 50 times the king as he was, and probably still is...
I don't believe that Mordred was ever king, as he died before Arthur. I used to go by Merlin online about six years ago, but that seemed an oft overused name. I chose Mordred because I have loved Arthurian legend since I first read it at around eight years old...and I find Mordred to be an interesting character who is often overlooked or misunderstood.
Q-Source said:
I don't think I particularly like the term scientific-atheist. I am a generally scientific thinker by nature. I am also an atheist. While the two are obviously linked, I would never claim that science has proven that no god exists. That is not the reason for my atheism. I don't really have a conclusion to the question does a god exist, if that is meant to imply conclusiveness. I have a current position. That position can and has changed in the past, it may again in the future. Either way, all I can rightly say anything about can only be said based on the evidence currently available to me. Anything else is wild speculation in my eyes. The reason that most god hypotheses have never been tested scientifically is that they are supernatural in nature.
I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. One of my points against what Franko seems to believe though, is that if you look at the evolution of scientific thought from the beginning (at least the recorded beginning) you can see it tend to be moving in certain directions. One revolution was away from the more philosophical methods of the Greeks to empirical methods. Another, away from the clockwork universe of classical physics to the relativistic, indeterminant universe of modern physics. Franko is behind the curve on both of these scores. It doesn't bother me so much that he wants to hold on to these things for whatever reasons he has...I could chalk that up to a simple disagreement and just have fun arguing it. What bothers me is how he presents his position and how he goes about attacking mine. He constantly misuses and misapplies scientific terminology in his own little belief structure. This is the same kind of thing that a lot of New Age types have been doing in recent years in order to imply some form of scientific validity in what they say. He constructs strawmen of current physical theories. He calls me a mystic for accepting them as the best current explanations of the universe (even though they are based strictly on empiricism). I see his whole approach as a direct affront to science itself, and physics in particular. As a physicist I'm obviously quite likely to take issue with it.
Well, obviously it is possible to attempt it...but any new explanation would have to explain the same observations that quantum mechanics explains, others that it cannot, and do it in a better way in order to displace quantum mechanics...which is exactly what Franko would need to do in order for me to believe his whole scheme. If he could provide a better explanation for the things we actually observe, I would believe him...but from what I've seen of his beliefs, he cannot explain the observations that quantum mechanics can quite easily. When I have asked him to explain them he has either sidestepped, ignored me, or misinterpreted the experimental results to better suit him.
I don't think our current knowledge gives any ultimate answers either. I don't know if we will ever find those answers. I hope we will someday. I am sure however, just as Franko's hero (and one of mine as well) was, that the best way to get to those answers is through the scientific method. There is no indication that this method is going to lead us back to determinism at this point.
Franko said:
And you know this how? There is a certain need for optimism in scientific research. You have to have a kind of belief in your own abilities and in the idea that whatever you are attempting in fact can be done. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your outlook on life or the universe overall. Besides which, atheism does not necessitate pessimism (unfounded assumption, prove it). I would call myself a realist in regards to my view of life, and an optimist in regards to the future of scientific inquiry.
Aardvark_DK
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2002
- Messages
- 448
This is lifted straight from Mein Kampf, isn't it?Franko said:
You know … new born babies sleep about 20 hours out of every 24 (unfortunately non-contiguous).
So I was wondering … What do babies dream about?
I mean, they haven’t done anything yet, so what experiences do they have to base a dream on?
So I was wondering … What do babies dream about?
I mean, they haven’t done anything yet, so what experiences do they have to base a dream on?
No it doesn't. Why are you so scared of me De-Bungler?
Why all the logical fallacies?
Why not just make your case for your "free willy" god religious fanatic?
You don't like being exposed as the giant hypocrite that you are moron-boy -- do you?
run along to the place where no one will dare question your beloved precious cult non-skeptic ... www.infidels.org
Franko said:
Is it an analogy?
They must dream about what they have experienced in their short lives.
Probably about their mothers, the sound around, the smell, the food, something like that.
I watched a TV programme last night. Even animals (just mammals) dream. Isn´t it strange?
Q-S
Maybe they dream about being back in the womb?
But that begs the question … what did they dream when they were in the womb? Did they dream of the days when they were but a lowly sperm?
I wonder what sperm “dream” of?
Maybe, but 20 hours a day – based on 4 hours of waking experience? Something seems a tad odd about that.
According to the LD babies sleep so much, because they have a low tolerance to this Universe when they first arrive. They need to build up their resistance.
From a materialistic POV I think it is very strange. But from an LD POV it makes perfect sense. All living creatures are Gravitons, all living creatures must periodically cycle through lower energy states.
Can you control what happens in your dreams “Q”?
Ever have lucid dreams?
