Science... it's just a religion

@lieunacy,

"The only thing I have to say is this: about energy "choosing" against its nature, I'm likely mistaken. That is something beyond measure and therefore untestable; the idea was derived from a video I'd watched about the double-slit experiment."

But there is no "choosing" going on within the double slit experiment. Not even in any sense of the word choosing. The particle is not intelligent and determining if there are two slits or one and then reacting on how to behave accordingly. You are trying to humanize the particle however; it is because your interpretation of the particle is that of a fixed object in a fixed location but we now know that it is not the case. It only becomes a fixed location when we take the steps to observe it in action. That the very measuring of the particle is what is getting in the way. The particle in reality has no fixed position but exists in a state of potential instead.

We know this with the work of light. If you were to shine a light on a some what reflective surface, say water, what determines how much of that light will be reflected and what light will continue on into the water? This can work with glass too. Like standing in front of a window and you can see your reflection yet at the same time you can still see objects outside at the same time. What determines if the photon will be reflected or pass through the glass and continue on?

We know it does not come down to proportions. We can not say that "this" amount of photons will be reflected and "this" amount will continue. We know this because if it were the case then if you were to add a second piece of glass behind the first piece of glass then the outcome should be uniform and its NOT. To our surprise the result is the same! In fact if you add a third or forth piece of glass the result is still the same! How does the photon "know" to not be reflected by the first piece of glass but to then be reflected at the second piece? Better yet still, how does the photon "know" there is more than one piece of glass?!

The mistake is saying that the photons are intelligent and that they know how many have passed through and then to reflect back. We know why this happens and it is not due to the particle being intelligent or having some form of awareness. We now know that it is in how photons behave that causes this to happen. On top of that we can only say on average a certain percentage (depending on opacity) of the photons will be reflected. We can never be certain which photon will be reflected!

Some people use to say that the photons that get reflected are actually bouncing off the particles in the glass at just the right angles which causes them to be reflected. This is not the case because that could be determined mathematically and when we try to do it, it fails to account for what we observe in testing the math.

Long story shortened. Energy is not intelligent. It doesn't do or respond to anything in any intelligent way. Energy is really nothing more than the interaction of phenomena mostly matter. When two particles bump into each other or the fact that the particle itself is vibrating due to its subatomic matter interacting. So in reality energy is dumb. Nothing godlike there but I doubt that would change your stance any.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

A good way of visualizing the double slit experiment is to imagine a dam in the middle of a lake with two small holes in it, while throwing a rock into the water and watching the wave caused by the rock to go through the holes and see how it behaves...of course if both holes are open the wave will go through both creating two smaller waves when getting out which in turn will interfere (bump) with each other...in turn, if one is open and other closed, no matter which, the wave will obviously pass by the open one...no big mystery there from the wave point of view...
What in fact is hard instead, is to philosophically define this potential state of existence in the wave by which the "effect" of Matter emerges into our senses...what does it mean to say that the "particle" is everywhere in the wave ? or just what is it in the particle which explains it as so ? What does to be a particle really means ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I've always understood the wave-particle duality as thus:

Each and every wave is made up of quantum particles; however, because these particles move at such an incredible speed, we may only measure one of two things at any given time: a single quanta of the particle, or the wave as a whole.

It's kind of like observing a human being, to "some" extent: you can observe either the human being as a whole, or a single cell in their body, not both. Now that's not entirely true (cells aren't THAT small and humans aren't THAT big, a middle can be reached), but bring that into the quantum world and that's why I believe the wave-particle "duality" exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

What I was actually getting at in terms of "photons choosing for themselves" was section towards the end of that video. Perhaps it's outdated; perhaps it was never right. But they claim that the photon may act as a wave (and an interference pattern emerges) or a particle (bands) depending on whether or not we observed/measured it as it passed through the slit.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

This isn't fair on my part, but I didn't read beyond your first paragraph in that wall of text because... well, I have no idea what you're trying to get at.

Who said anything about a fixed position? Nothing stops moving. Ever.

However, you did make me realize one thing as I glanced through the other paragraphs: you're quite right. Energy is not intelligent in the way the electrical signals sent by your brain are not intelligent; it does not choose its own way.

That doesn't eliminate God, however, as the "central HQ" of that energy potential. I'm not going to explain that any further, as your mind lacks the structure for such an idea. (Not trying to offend you, you've just made that clear.)

1 Reply

@lieunacy,

Since you do now appear to be pursuing the direction of "holistic consciousness" , I suggest you need to resolve the distinction between " a purposeful consciousness" which some might associate with a pantheistic "God", and merely a " mutual connectedness" which with the inclusion of "empathy" some might term "spirituality" (as opposed to God).

2 Replies

@fresco,

I would say it is a purposeful consciousness, lending to the idea of intelligent design. However, because we are all byproducts of the stars, which are the byproducts of other cosmic phenomena over many years, you might say there is a certain level of mutual connectedness as well -- in this sense, God is indifferent from spirituality.

I've come to realize that my theories are very much in their infancy, and that I need to spend more time educating myself and developing my ideas. In truth, my universal model can be separated from God and still make sense -- however, in that being the case, I've found it appeals more to my better senses that there is something greater than us out there.

If I seriously want to have any weight in explaining that, I think it would be prudent to develop my ideas on what can be tested and observed. One of the fundamental principles of that is the law of attraction -- and its not about some kind of metaphysical bullshit. It describes the interactions and relationships of both the macro and micro world, and how each individual element works as a mutual system to create a more complex entity.

Also, it's less a "law" and more a... theory. A Relationship Theory.

2 Replies

@lieunacy,

Quote:

One of the fundamental principles of that is the law of attraction

That is only one small portion, but what about electromagnetism and the fact that practically all molecules repel each other? You want to focus on this idea of attraction as being some fundamental concept to support your idea yet you are completely neglecting this other aspect.

1 Reply

@lieunacy,

lieunacy wrote:

I've come to realize that my theories are very much in their infancy, and that I need to spend more time educating myself and developing my ideas.

It may be a good idea to read the writings of others who have attempted similar theories, and then read critiques of such theories.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Actually, I went on to say it was less a law and more a theory of relationships -- which it very much is. Relationships entail interactions of all kinds.

I recall reading an article that said the necessary "ingredients" of life -- that is, the reactions between bases and acids (to put it very simply) -- would have destroyed each other based on their typical interactions and life itself, thus, would not have been possible left to time and random chance.

Reading that article confirmed in my mind what I'd already suspected: intelligent design at the hands of a creator.

I've failed to mention this thus far, but another idea that I've played with is the idea as God as a neutralizing agent that allows otherwise harsh reactions to become stable. I actually believe that is what keeps atomic nuclei from "flying apart" -- the neutron, or any similar neutrally charged particle.

That is an idea rooted more deeply in thought than actual observation, but one I do believe has some potential. Also, I'm not trying to insert God as a de facto force into any one theory: His presence is omnipresent, like a conscious computer system administrating itself.

At first glance, that idea seems very untestable and even "stupid," but when you take a moment to consider the vast similarities between the universe as a system and any system it has produced (right down to the computer systems we produce), a pattern emerges that begs the question: is the universe a highly complex system developed by (what I can only thus far peg as) God?

Believe me, I want to account for everything you can throw at me -- and I've been trying to. You just have to keep in mind that I'm 21, rarely involved myself with high school, and so far haven't considered college; in other words, I'm raw. I, like the universe, need time to develop. Wink

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

It may be a good idea to read the writings of others who have attempted similar theories, and then read critiques of such theories.

After essentially coming up with Newton's law of gravity on my own, I must say I agree with you completely -- if only to save myself from that kind of silly mistake again.

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

Quote:

1. Science founds itself upon "fact."

true

Quote:

2. "Fact" does not exist, there is only the interpretation of observable qualities and quantities.

science is also about sound truths , such as , hypothermia , which is neither founded upon a quality observation nor quantiy

but experience

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

Quote:

3. Thus, "fact" is merely a universal interpretation of a given observation. For example, 2 + 2 = 4; this is universally accepted as true, and therefore considered "verifiable fact." In reality, there is no law that states 2 + 2 must always equal 4 and therefore, situations in which 2 + 2 = 1 may occur -- such as on the quantum or chemical level.

to compare the macro level of things to the micro level is really erroneous

in the macro level 2+2 does = 4 , as it should , since the macro orders things , while on the micro level is disorder

Quote:

4. Given this condition, so-called "facts" change and evolve as our individual and universal interpretation of observable qualities and quantities is refined -- that is, as we develop greater understanding of the principles involved.

sure

but there will always be a difference between the macro and micro world

Quote:

Given these four points, how can you reasonably argue that science is above religion?

because the thinking upon any observation is not set in stone

even Cosmic Plasmas are being considered in astrophyics

Quote:

Curiously, it is as reliant on faith as Christianity itself -- faith in principles, faith in theories, and faith in observations -- because for every one thing we do understand, there is another thing we do not.

the thing is though where christian thought is stagnat , science thought grows , evolves

Quote:

Don't get me wrong; I love science. It is a very calculating and precise method of observation, depending on strict adherence to logic and evidence.

So what's my qualm with it?

Simply put: scientists are my problem with science. Specifically, those whom claim to be correct beyond doubt. It is the caste of scientist who refuse new and varied viewpoints, discounting them as "absurd", without first considering them.

agreed

but they tend to be Technicians of science rather than the , " discovers " of science

Quote:

Is that not the defining trait of a scientist's mortal enemy, the religious zealot?

not just science but Humanity its self

Quote:

There are as many gaps in scientific knowledge and understanding as there are logic gaps in the Bible, but yet I find the Bible a more relevant and accurate account of not only the beginning of time, but the condition and mentality of man.

Why?

The Bible is symbolic; to literally interpret it is... well... you'd honestly have to be retarded. And that goes for both religious zealots and scientists alike; the Bible was ahead of its time. You will miss the point if you are simply reading the words and not the context behind them.

the bible is about social aspects of Human relationships between themselves and god

the bible has not given any understanding of life , evolution , nor the understanding of the solar system and the Universe

Quote:

But do most scientists take a moment to pause and consider that? No. And the reason for that is simple: most "scientists" lack the ability to truly think for themselves. They lack the originality and creativity necessary to make true scientific progress; why do you think some of the greatest minds in history were often considered as crazy as they were genius?

most were not considered " crazy " , it just took awhile to grasp what they were putting forth as a theory

Quote:

And yet their most admirable trait is humility; many believed God might yet be at the center of things, including Einstein. To them, God was a possibility that could not be proven one way or the other; so why has modern man decided that they've found the answer?

because in the end , god made no difference to understanding Nature

Quote:

They haven't. Their arrogance merely blinds them to possibilities, upon which this universe and the world we live in is built. What does it mean to exist? Simply put: to have potential. To have a destination and the possibility of reaching it. That is... movement across space -- the passage of time.

agreed

but not based on any god but based on the maturity of Humanity

Quote:

Is this truly the state of science? Has it become only a haggard religion full of pride, arrogance and irreconcilable attitudes?

sometimes yes , but science ology are you referring too ?

Quote:

Wake up, guys: you aren't right, and you aren't getting any closer to becoming right if you don't start working with your fellow man to produce new, more vibrant and broad perspectives to contribute to greater understanding of life, the universe, and the way it all works.

what do you mean here ?

explain further

Quote:

Always be true to your opinion and views, but make sure they are YOURS and not your professor's, or your parent's, or your peers, as I largely attribute monkey-learning to the decline of authentic scientific creativity.

agreed

Quote:

There's a reason great scientific minds stand out, and it isn't because they know more than you.

sometimes true , sometimes not true

usually based on their imagination of what they do know however

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

to compare the macro level of things to the micro level is really erroneous

I disagree entirely. The macro world is a result of the micro world; my error is in the direct, mutual equivalency of them. They are not disparate elements, but there is a sort of "conversation factor" between them.

I also disagree that the micro world is disordered; in fact, there is a very structured and perfect order to it. I maintain that nothing within nature is accidental nor random -- therefore, I maintain that any perceived "disorder" within the micro world is a lack of comprehension.

As our understanding of the micro world continues to grow and evolve, I believe that disorder will become a very obvious and very simple order. That is, of course, my opinion.

In either case, I feel the true error within my "2 + 2 = 4" example is the exemption of units. Without that degree of specification, the equation is inherently flawed; what are you adding? Two arbitrary units? The result could then be anything you wished.

For example, 2 + 2 = 1; without units, you're only left to surmise how and why 2 seemingly absolute values produced a lesser value.

However, if you then explain that you added 2 men plus 2 women to a single room, and that one man was a murderer who then proceeded to kill the other three people in the room, the answer becomes less mysterious and more case-specific.

In the end, my original example was poorly thought out; while I was trying to argue "fact", my example was rooted in the philosophy of math and numbers. I didn't think about that at the time, though.

Quote:

but they tend to be Technicians of science rather than the , " discovers " of science

That sums it up beautifully.

Quote:

the bible is about social aspects of Human relationships between themselves and god

the bible has not given any understanding of life , evolution , nor the understanding of the solar system and the Universe

Quite right.

Quote:

because in the end , god made no difference to understanding Nature

I disagree only in a passive sense; I believe God was the fundamental difference between understanding nature and merely being a product of it. However, I agree that He played no active, observable role in this; man did not need to look to the Heavens, only to the ground below his feet, to discover the nature of... well, nature. The evidence had been presented to us long before we were consciously aware of it.

Quote:

what do you mean here ?

At first I was only going to say that I was completely off my rocker at the time I wrote the topic, but I think I can explain that:

In other words, if we're to make any true scientific progress we need to work together. This is difficult, but one example is in the case of myself: I've been attacked for my views, as I'm sure we all have (within science or simply within our own lives), but the entire time I was open to new and "correct" knowledge. It took me a few days to center myself, but now that I have, I quite honestly feel attacking me would be an uninformed, idiotic mistake -- not because I'm right or special, but because I have a valid desire to learn and in turn, discover.

In the end, it was merely a generalized calling to observe the the Socratic Method -- something I had to come to terms with quickly on A2K. No matter what your qualms with someone's idea, always know that it is their idea and not yours; therefore, it is their mistake and not yours. In doing so, you should also accept that you, as Socrates so eloquently put it, "know nothing;" always be ready to accept that your ideas, too, no matter how well founded, may be mistaken as well.

It would have been a good statement to make... except that it had no provocation nor intended audience. I merely dislike those that consider themselves right beyond reasonable doubt, and attack others as if their opinions are God's own. Ironically, my original posts did exactly that -- despite accepting that I may be wrong, I argued as if I was not. My mistake.

Quote:

sometimes true , sometimes not true

usually based on their imagination of what they do know however

I believe that statement should be assessed on a personal level; it's more or less meant to imply that everyone is capable of genius, and that oftentimes, the only limitation is the belief that you're inferior.

It's not about what great scientists know, it's about how they use their creativity and imagination to apply that knowledge... kind of like saying "do what you can with what you've got."

2 Replies

@fresco,

Note that once you include purpose in your overview, you become embroiled with simplistic issues of an anthropomorphic deity, technical issues of teleology versus causality, and moral issues of the "wastefulness" of creation. These taken together seriously divide what we call "science" from what we call "religion".

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

Quote:

to compare the macro level of things to the micro level is really erroneous

Quote:

I disagree entirely. The macro world is a result of the micro world; my error is in the direct, mutual equivalency of them. They are not disparate elements, but there is a sort of "conversation factor" between them.

oh the macro world is the result of the micro world , no doubt , but there is a difference between a ton of feathers and a feather

the " conversation " is limited or constricted by density

Quote:

I also disagree that the micro world is disordered; in fact, there is a very structured and perfect order to it. I maintain that nothing within nature is accidental nor random -- therefore, I maintain that any perceived "disorder" within the micro world is a lack of comprehension.

then give an example of the micro-world order

Quote:

As our understanding of the micro world continues to grow and evolve, I believe that disorder will become a very obvious and very simple order. That is, of course, my opinion.

of course

and it is my opinion that it is the micro-world that gives creativity to the Universe

Quote:

In either case, I feel the true error within my "2 + 2 = 4" example is the exemption of units. Without that degree of specification, the equation is inherently flawed; what are you adding? Two arbitrary units? The result could then be anything you wished.

true

but what two units , added together would not equal four , 2+2 ?

Quote:

For example, 2 + 2 = 1; without units, you're only left to surmise how and why 2 seemingly absolute values produced a lesser value.

of course

Quote:

However, if you then explain that you added 2 men plus 2 women to a single room, and that one man was a murderer who then proceeded to kill the other three people in the room, the answer becomes less mysterious and more case-specific.

of course

you have gone beyond just the simple 2+2

Quote:

In the end, my original example was poorly thought out; while I was trying to argue "fact", my example was rooted in the philosophy of math and numbers. I didn't think about that at the time, though.

fair enough

Quote:

but they tend to be Technicians of science rather than the , " discovers " of science

That sums it up beautifully.

Quote:

the bible is about social aspects of Human relationships between themselves and god

the bible has not given any understanding of life , evolution , nor the understanding of the solar system and the Universe

Quite right.

Quote:

because in the end , god made no difference to understanding Nature

Quote:

I disagree only in a passive sense; However, I agree that He played no active, observable role in this; man did not need to look to the Heavens, only to the ground below his feet, to discover the nature of... well, nature. The evidence had been presented to us long before we were consciously aware of it.

query

Quote:

I believe God was the fundamental difference between understanding nature and merely being a product of it.

how ?

Quote:

what do you mean here ?

Quote:

At first I was only going to say that I was completely off my rocker at the time I wrote the topic, but I think I can explain that:

In other words, if we're to make any true scientific progress we need to work together. This is difficult, but one example is in the case of myself: I've been attacked for my views, as I'm sure we all have (within science or simply within our own lives), but the entire time I was open to new and "correct" knowledge. It took me a few days to center myself, but now that I have, I quite honestly feel attacking me would be an uninformed, idiotic mistake -- not because I'm right or special, but because I have a valid desire to learn and in turn, discover.

your being questioned by me anyway

Quote:

In the end, it was merely a generalized calling to observe the the Socratic Method -- something I had to come to terms with quickly on A2K. No matter what your qualms with someone's idea, always know that it is their idea and not yours; therefore, it is their mistake and not yours. In doing so, you should also accept that you, as Socrates so eloquently put it, "know nothing;" always be ready to accept that your ideas, too, no matter how well founded, may be mistaken as well.

a possibility , sure , to your last sentence

Quote:

It would have been a good statement to make... except that it had no provocation nor intended audience. I merely dislike those that consider themselves right beyond reasonable doubt, and attack others as if their opinions are God's own. Ironically, my original posts did exactly that -- despite accepting that I may be wrong, I argued as if I was not. My mistake.

we learn

there are things though that are true beyond reasonable doubt

Quote:

sometimes true , sometimes not true

usually based on their imagination of what they do know however

Quote:

I believe that statement should be assessed on a personal level; it's more or less meant to imply that everyone is capable of genius, and that oftentimes, the only limitation is the belief that you're inferior.

no , not everyone is capable of being a genius , being a genius is more , much more , than a single focus upon any ology

Quote:

It's not about what great scientists know, it's about how they use their creativity and imagination to apply that knowledge... kind of like saying "do what you can with what you've got."

agreed

2 Replies

@north,

Unfortunately North doesn't seem to have a clue about the problems of observer-observed interactions which tend to differentiate what we can micro and macro levels. This point is indicative of another science versus religion theme, namely that of the status of "empirical evidence". This is a secondary issue with respect to the one of teleology raised above, because choice of whether a theory is "top-down" (teleological) as in biology, or "bottom-up" (causal/reductionist) as in say the kinetic theory of heat, determines what qualifies as "evidence".

If you wish to pursue these issue further, I suggest you need to read up on developments in the philosophy of science. For example, here is a reference to Quine's seminal paper on empiricism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

Sorry, that last post should have been directed to you.

(TYPO ...what we can call macro and micro ......)

0 Replies

Interesting thread. (bm)

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

Quote:
I believe God was the fundamental difference between understanding nature and merely being a product of it.

how?

You must first accept the premise of intelligent design, after which the pieces fall into place. If humans had never developed a conscious mind and the ability to think critically, we would be oblivious to the order of things -- a product of the world, contained entirely within it.

However, our consciousness frees us from that limitation; therefore, our conscious mind is the fundamental difference between understanding nature and being a product of it. We have a choice.

Why would something as feeble as a human being have a choice in determining the outcome of the world? That is a loaded question, and not one I intend to break down critically right now, but if you're to accept that time and chance were the sole responsibility for the way things are, and by extension the way we are... well, personally, I think that's arguing something statistically less probable than the direct, programmatic creation of a higher power. You might argue that both are statistically impossible because neither is testable, but again... it's a loaded question.

0 Replies

@lieunacy,

Your post is riddled with so many fallacies I don't even know where to begin.

Quote:

would have destroyed each other based on their typical interactions and life itself, thus, would not have been possible left to time and random chance.

How do you know this? You seem to be assuming that things could not come about without some outward entity manipulating it. How can you even determine that? Also you use the term "random chance" which has never been seen. How do you even come to the conclusion that random chance could not produce life? That is two fallacies right there yet the second one is completely useless because random chance is not even necessary. The building blocks of chemicals that make up life actually naturally come together. So there is absolutely NO randomness about it.

It is clear to me that you are being far less than scientific about this. You are starting from a premise that a god exists and are trying to work backwards. That is about as far from scientific as you can get. Why not first prove your starting premise and leave all that other stuff alone until you can actually provide something substantial to support that premise?

Otherwise your conclusions are completely unsupported like your claim that "that is what keeps atomic nuclei from "flying apart" just seem absurd. It is just another fallacy. Simply because we do not know (yet) why this strong force is being canceled should not be just written off as a "god dun it" answer. There is probably another force which can account for it, a force that is not (god).

You are exercising the same mentality that people long ago use to attribute nature to gods. When something isn't understood they slapped the god label onto it and that is exactly what you are doing with quantum physics. So why not start from the beginning, go back and provide something that would actually make your starting premise true and then after that we can discuss all this other stuff as being plausible off that premise?

1 Reply

Science... it's just a religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know