Bitcoin Forum
October 15, 2019, 03:11:15 AM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 ... 444 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion?  (Read 898332 times)
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 05:56:11 PM
 #701

So many people are doing the same logical fallacy (so called round-trip fallacy) again and again. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless (still less junk). In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

This pertains to the original post as well (that about Mycoplasma)
What credentials do you have so that you can disprove the claims of other scientists? Rather than showing "superiority" how about actually posting references? Thank you.

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk" (rather than showing "superiority", wtf)...

Yes!

The whole realm of scientific evidence includes a whole lot of theory (fiction) right along with the things that are literally fact.

We need to see the actual proof in all directions, so we can sift out what the real and true fact is.

Smiley

Scientific evidence is to Religious beliefs what Magellan's then theory that the Earth isn't flat to the Church's previous belief that it was.
(Point is that common beliefs in religions tend to change slowly throughout time simply with the gain of knowledge thanks to science, partly showing the falseness of such religions)

Some of this is correct.

We don't know as fact where the universe came from.
We don't know as fact regarding how it came into being.
We also know that we are also tied to cause and effect in everything so that true random essentially doesn't exist.
We know that people's minds and thoughts are products of the causation of cause and effect.
We know by observation of how everything operates that everything is intelligently designed.
We know that stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere without a cause.

In other words, science knows very little about the basics. But what it DOES know suggests that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Smiley

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571109075
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571109075

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571109075
Reply with quote  #2

1571109075
Report to moderator
1571109075
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571109075

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571109075
Reply with quote  #2

1571109075
Report to moderator
1571109075
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571109075

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571109075
Reply with quote  #2

1571109075
Report to moderator
celestio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 05:57:28 PM
 #702

So many people are doing the same logical fallacy (so called round-trip fallacy) again and again. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless (still less junk). In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

This pertains to the original post as well (that about Mycoplasma)
What credentials do you have so that you can disprove the claims of other scientists? Rather than showing "superiority" how about actually posting references? Thank you.

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk" (rather than showing "superiority", wtf)...

Yes!

The whole realm of scientific evidence includes a whole lot of theory (fiction) right along with the things that are literally fact.

We need to see the actual proof in all directions, so we can sift out what the real and true fact is.

Smiley

Scientific evidence is to Religious beliefs what Magellan's then theory that the Earth isn't flat to the Church's previous belief that it was.
(Point is that common beliefs in religions tend to change slowly throughout time simply with the gain of knowledge thanks to science, partly showing the falseness of such religions)

Some of this is correct.

We don't know as fact where the universe came from.
We don't know as fact regarding how it came into being.
We also know that we are also tied to cause and effect in everything so that true random essentially doesn't exist. - Wrong
We know that people's minds and thoughts are products of the causation of cause and effect.
We know by observation of how everything operates that everything is intelligently designed. -Wrong
We know that stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere without a cause. -Wrong

In other words, science knows very little about the basics. But what it DOES know suggests that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Smiley

Religion trails after science. So if science knows very little about the basics, then those religions know absolutely nothing at all.

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 06:14:38 PM
 #703

So many people are doing the same logical fallacy (so called round-trip fallacy) again and again. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless (still less junk). In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

This pertains to the original post as well (that about Mycoplasma)
What credentials do you have so that you can disprove the claims of other scientists? Rather than showing "superiority" how about actually posting references? Thank you.

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk" (rather than showing "superiority", wtf)...

Yes!

The whole realm of scientific evidence includes a whole lot of theory (fiction) right along with the things that are literally fact.

We need to see the actual proof in all directions, so we can sift out what the real and true fact is.

Smiley

Scientific evidence is to Religious beliefs what Magellan's then theory that the Earth isn't flat to the Church's previous belief that it was.
(Point is that common beliefs in religions tend to change slowly throughout time simply with the gain of knowledge thanks to science, partly showing the falseness of such religions)

Some of this is correct.

We don't know as fact where the universe came from.
We don't know as fact regarding how it came into being.
We also know that we are also tied to cause and effect in everything so that true random essentially doesn't exist.
We know that people's minds and thoughts are products of the causation of cause and effect.
We know by observation of how everything operates that everything is intelligently designed.
We know that stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere without a cause.

In other words, science knows very little about the basics. But what it DOES know suggests that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Smiley

Religion trails after science. So if science knows very little about the basics, then those religions know absolutely nothing at all.

The dedicated scientist looks for two things. First he looks for something that happened. Then he looks for why/how.

Just to be a scientist, a scientist looks for cause and effect, even though he does it in reverse order, effect first. Once he finds the cause (he had already found the effect), then he turns the cause into another effect in his mind, and looks for the thing that caused it. This is the basic way scientific investigation operates.

The greater a scientist is, the more he looks for cause and effect.

The dreamer looks for what he wishes would exist. The dreamer dives into his science fiction.

Real science has even predicted and found organization in the pandemonium of an atomic blast. This organization involves the way matter and energy act upon each other inside the blast. There is no disorder. There is only extreme complexity. Everything operates by cause and effect in an atomic blast, even though there are countless trillions of causes that turn into reactions, reactions that themselves become causes that act on other "things" and turn them into reactions, that only become further causes, etc.

There is intelligent design in it all. This indicates Intelligent Designer, and when you have an Intelligent Designer that can design something this great, It falls into the classification of God.

Smiley

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
celestio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 07:09:31 PM
Last edit: June 08, 2015, 07:20:18 PM by celestio
 #704

So many people are doing the same logical fallacy (so called round-trip fallacy) again and again. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless (still less junk). In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

This pertains to the original post as well (that about Mycoplasma)
What credentials do you have so that you can disprove the claims of other scientists? Rather than showing "superiority" how about actually posting references? Thank you.

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk" (rather than showing "superiority", wtf)...

Yes!

The whole realm of scientific evidence includes a whole lot of theory (fiction) right along with the things that are literally fact.

We need to see the actual proof in all directions, so we can sift out what the real and true fact is.

Smiley

Scientific evidence is to Religious beliefs what Magellan's then theory that the Earth isn't flat to the Church's previous belief that it was.
(Point is that common beliefs in religions tend to change slowly throughout time simply with the gain of knowledge thanks to science, partly showing the falseness of such religions)

Some of this is correct.

We don't know as fact where the universe came from.
We don't know as fact regarding how it came into being.
We also know that we are also tied to cause and effect in everything so that true random essentially doesn't exist.
We know that people's minds and thoughts are products of the causation of cause and effect.
We know by observation of how everything operates that everything is intelligently designed.
We know that stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere without a cause.

In other words, science knows very little about the basics. But what it DOES know suggests that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Smiley

Religion trails after science. So if science knows very little about the basics, then those religions know absolutely nothing at all.

The dedicated scientist looks for two things. First he looks for something that happened. Then he looks for why/how.

Just to be a scientist, a scientist looks for cause and effect, even though he does it in reverse order, effect first. Once he finds the cause (he had already found the effect), then he turns the cause into another effect in his mind, and looks for the thing that caused it. This is the basic way scientific investigation operates.

The greater a scientist is, the more he looks for cause and effect.

The dreamer looks for what he wishes would exist. The dreamer dives into his science fiction.

Real science has even predicted and found organization in the pandemonium of an atomic blast. This organization involves the way matter and energy act upon each other inside the blast. There is no disorder. There is only extreme complexity. Everything operates by cause and effect in an atomic blast, even though there are countless trillions of causes that turn into reactions, reactions that themselves become causes that act on other "things" and turn them into reactions, that only become further causes, etc.

There is intelligent design in it all. This indicates Intelligent Designer, and when you have an Intelligent Designer that can design something this great, It falls into the classification of God.

Smiley

Except that on a subatomic level, cause and effect works differently, there might not even be a cause. And all of that is irreleavnt, that your view that because things are organized, then an "intelligent designer" must have designed it. That makes no sense as you can look at it in a multitude of ways(There being no "intelligent designer", everything happening by "chance"/coincidence, the math behind it, etc). That's why you can't use science to prove or disprove god.

So everything you've said there is irrelevant and proves nothing, to make it simple.

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 07:20:47 PM
 #705


The dedicated scientist looks for two things. First he looks for something that happened. Then he looks for why/how.

Just to be a scientist, a scientist looks for cause and effect, even though he does it in reverse order, effect first. Once he finds the cause (he had already found the effect), then he turns the cause into another effect in his mind, and looks for the thing that caused it. This is the basic way scientific investigation operates.

The greater a scientist is, the more he looks for cause and effect.

The dreamer looks for what he wishes would exist. The dreamer dives into his science fiction.

Real science has even predicted and found organization in the pandemonium of an atomic blast. This organization involves the way matter and energy act upon each other inside the blast. There is no disorder. There is only extreme complexity. Everything operates by cause and effect in an atomic blast, even though there are countless trillions of causes that turn into reactions, reactions that themselves become causes that act on other "things" and turn them into reactions, that only become further causes, etc.

There is intelligent design in it all. This indicates Intelligent Designer, and when you have an Intelligent Designer that can design something this great, It falls into the classification of God.

Smiley

Except that on a subatomic level, cause and effect works differently, there might not even be a cause. And all of that is irreleavnt, that's your view that because things are organized, then an "intelligent designer" must have designed it. That makes no sense as you can look at it in a multitude of ways(There being no "intelligent designer", everything happening by "chance"/coincidence, the math behind it, etc). That's why you can't use science to prove or disprove god.

So everything you've said there is irrelevant and proves nothing, to make it simple.

Your explanations have little behind them. The things that are true regarding your explanations, have a whole lot of scientific manipulation regarding them. The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way.

Smiley

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
celestio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 07:29:33 PM
 #706


The dedicated scientist looks for two things. First he looks for something that happened. Then he looks for why/how.

Just to be a scientist, a scientist looks for cause and effect, even though he does it in reverse order, effect first. Once he finds the cause (he had already found the effect), then he turns the cause into another effect in his mind, and looks for the thing that caused it. This is the basic way scientific investigation operates.

The greater a scientist is, the more he looks for cause and effect.

The dreamer looks for what he wishes would exist. The dreamer dives into his science fiction.

Real science has even predicted and found organization in the pandemonium of an atomic blast. This organization involves the way matter and energy act upon each other inside the blast. There is no disorder. There is only extreme complexity. Everything operates by cause and effect in an atomic blast, even though there are countless trillions of causes that turn into reactions, reactions that themselves become causes that act on other "things" and turn them into reactions, that only become further causes, etc.

There is intelligent design in it all. This indicates Intelligent Designer, and when you have an Intelligent Designer that can design something this great, It falls into the classification of God.

Smiley

Except that on a subatomic level, cause and effect works differently, there might not even be a cause. And all of that is irreleavnt, that's your view that because things are organized, then an "intelligent designer" must have designed it. That makes no sense as you can look at it in a multitude of ways(There being no "intelligent designer", everything happening by "chance"/coincidence, the math behind it, etc). That's why you can't use science to prove or disprove god.

So everything you've said there is irrelevant and proves nothing, to make it simple.

Your explanations have little behind them. The things that are true regarding your explanations, have a whole lot of scientific manipulation regarding them. The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way.

Smiley

" The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way."
, Go look into quantum physics.

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 2154



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 07:40:29 PM
Last edit: June 08, 2015, 09:01:29 PM by LaudaM
 #707

" The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way."[/i], Go look into quantum physics.
This thread is starting to fill up with nonsense again. However, I'm not saying that what you're posting is nonsense.


The thread went completely the wrong path once you've started answering to BADecker.
Okay, point taken. I won't speak to him on this thread anymore.
You should also consider this advice of mine. You're wasting your time with people such as BADecker. This thread has been coming up on my watchlist quite often today and I had to take action considering that his posts were nonsense.

In case you've missed it, the guy said that the universe didn't exist before one was born. His words are true wisdom.  Roll Eyes


Update 3: Corrections. Removed parts of the post recognizing that my time was being wasted on someone who is straying away from the original thread (without knowing the difference between blaming and suggesting). Answering from knowledge available at hand is not related to illusory superiority, thus the syndrome assumption is wrong. Sneaky personal attackers automatically join the list.  Smiley

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 07:48:18 PM
 #708


The dedicated scientist looks for two things. First he looks for something that happened. Then he looks for why/how.

Just to be a scientist, a scientist looks for cause and effect, even though he does it in reverse order, effect first. Once he finds the cause (he had already found the effect), then he turns the cause into another effect in his mind, and looks for the thing that caused it. This is the basic way scientific investigation operates.

The greater a scientist is, the more he looks for cause and effect.

The dreamer looks for what he wishes would exist. The dreamer dives into his science fiction.

Real science has even predicted and found organization in the pandemonium of an atomic blast. This organization involves the way matter and energy act upon each other inside the blast. There is no disorder. There is only extreme complexity. Everything operates by cause and effect in an atomic blast, even though there are countless trillions of causes that turn into reactions, reactions that themselves become causes that act on other "things" and turn them into reactions, that only become further causes, etc.

There is intelligent design in it all. This indicates Intelligent Designer, and when you have an Intelligent Designer that can design something this great, It falls into the classification of God.

Smiley

Except that on a subatomic level, cause and effect works differently, there might not even be a cause. And all of that is irreleavnt, that's your view that because things are organized, then an "intelligent designer" must have designed it. That makes no sense as you can look at it in a multitude of ways(There being no "intelligent designer", everything happening by "chance"/coincidence, the math behind it, etc). That's why you can't use science to prove or disprove god.

So everything you've said there is irrelevant and proves nothing, to make it simple.

Your explanations have little behind them. The things that are true regarding your explanations, have a whole lot of scientific manipulation regarding them. The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way.

Smiley

" The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way."
, Go look into quantum physics.

Quantum Physics can produce any results that you want. Quantum is probability. Look into it. Exactly the opposite results of effect before cause can be produced by quantum physics as well. Take your pick. Quantum physics doesn't do anything at all until a "scientist" uses it.

Smiley

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 07:52:05 PM
 #709

" The manipulation by scientists is all cause and effect by scientists, and it might appear to create effect before cause. Things in nature don't work that way."[/i], Go look into quantum physics.
This thread is starting to fill up with nonsense again.


The thread went completely the wrong path once you've started answering to BADecker.
Okay, point taken. I won't speak to him on this thread anymore.
You should also consider this advice of mine. You're wasting your time with people such as BADecker.
This thread has been coming up on my watchlist quite often today and I had to take action considering that his posts were nonsense.

In case you've missed it, the guy said that the universe didn't exist before one was born. His words are true wisdom.  Roll Eyes

Your link leads nowhere
-snip-
I guess you pretty much don't know. And by your arrogance it is easy to guess that you don't know much overall
It was just a 'let me google that for you' link that I've fixed. Notable genes.
I pretty much know as much as you do. Our design is flawed; why use less "wires" (can't figure out a correct analogy to computers/scaling) that have more functions, when you can use more?
More is less right? Roll Eyes

If I had been some sort of superior creature that was doing the designing, I would have done a better job that this. However you should stop going off topic. If you want to discuss DNA, start your own thread.

Update: Corrections.

You talk like you are serious. Yet your world is only a dream world, or at best, a world of ignorance.

I totally accept any of you science fiction reality deniers to not respond to me. There are enough science fiction stories out there that are way more interesting than you kids are.

Smiley

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
deisik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1120


WOLF.BET - Provably Fair Dice Game


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 08:34:49 PM
Last edit: June 08, 2015, 09:13:55 PM by deisik
 #710

Your link leads nowhere
-snip-
I guess you pretty much don't know. And by your arrogance it is easy to guess that you don't know much overall
It was just a 'let me google that for you' link that I've fixed. Notable genes.
I pretty much know as much as you do. Our design is flawed; why use less "wires" (can't figure out a correct analogy to computers/scaling) that have more functions, when you can use more?
More is less right? Roll Eyes

If I had been some sort of superior creature that was doing the designing, I would have done a better job that this. However you should stop going off topic. If you want to discuss DNA, start your own thread.

Now you are obviously trying to backpedal this matter, blaming me of going off topic. But I have to remind you that my post was not about DNA at all, I wasn't the one who raised this issue, and it was actually you who went wild with joy from it ("excellent example" and all that nonsense). Furthermore, you arrogantly asked me about my credentials (I guess the latter directly concerns the thread subject), but you evidently failed to realize that my credentials (whatever they might be) don't matter a thing here, since I didn't say anything new, extraordinary or out-of-the-way. In fact, what I referred to is actually a sort of a widely known "argument from ignorance", a fallacy which your "scientists" were allegedly making...

Though it was obvious right from the start that it had been nothing more than just your folly. Arrogance added to this made you a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome victim

.WOLF.BET.
▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀
  ▀ ▀▀▀
 ▄ ▄▄▄  
  ▄ ▄▄▄
▄  ▄▄▄▄▄▄
        ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▄▄
    ▄███▌        ▀▀▄
  ▄▀   ▐█████████▄  ▀▄
 ▄▀  ▄█████████████▄  █
 ▌  █████████████████  █
▐  ████████████████ ▄█
█  █████████████████████▌
▐  ██████████████████ ▀█▌
 ▌ ▐█████████████████▌ ▐▀
 █  ██████████████▀ ▄▀
  █   ███████████▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄▄██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄▀
     ▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀
▄███████████▄
███████    ████████████▄
███████    ███████   ▀██
██████████████████    ██
██    ██████████████████
██    ███████    ███████
█████████████    ███████
███████    █████████████
███████    ███████    ██
██████████████████   ▄██
██        ▀███████████▀
██
██
      ▄█▄         ▄█▄
 ▄██ ███ ███████ ███ ██▄
▐███▄ ▀ ▄███████▄ ▀ ▄███▌
▐█▌▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▐█▌
▐█▌   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄        ▐█▌
▐█▌   ████████        ▐█▌
▐█▌       ███     ▄▄▀▀▀██▄
▐█▌      ███    ██▀      ▀█
▐█▌     ███    ███         █
▐█▌    ███     ███          █
 ██▄           ███▄         █
  ▀█████████████████▄     ▄█
                  ▀▀█████▀▀

████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████


.AFFILIATE PROGRAM.
   ...FREE FAUCET........
..CHAT RAIN.............
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1010



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 08:42:50 PM
 #711


No problem, and good clarification. I think the problem that bugs me the most, is that this "margin-of-error" attached to conclusions derived from the Scientific Method is inherently impossible to calculate (as far as I can tell).

I agree that certain things can be proven absolutely, I suppose certain mathematical proofs would be examples of a priori knowledge, and could be proven logically with no need for inductive reasoning? When I said "nothing can ever be proven" I meant things based on inductive reasoning (lazy writing from me).

The margin-of-error can only be calculated based upon the number of trials.  If I've been alive for 3,000 days and the sun hasn't exploded yet, then based upon 3,000 "trials" I can predict with very high statistical confidence that the sun will not explode tomorrow due to a very small margin-of-error.  Of course, that confidence does no good if the sun goes nova tomorrow.  The margin-of-error exists specifically because you always have access to a limited data set.  The margin-of-error could be eliminated completely if you somehow had knowledge of all trials that ever were, are, and ever will be, but obviously we don't have this ability.

And correct, mathematical proofs are fully abstract, internally consistent, and (at least) to that extent, sound.  Whether or not (and how) they actually apply to physical reality is another issue.  But regardless, they constitute 'a priori' knowledge and are knowable at a 100% level of confidence, without any margin-of-error.

This is interesting stuff. I'd be lying if I said I understood it all, but I would like to question your final point.

I think I agree on everything up to that. If I'm understanding correctly, metrics are inherently abstract because they rely on perception to exist. Even if you had a perfect machine which used the binary metric to ask whether something existed or not, the result must be perceived by a "mind", so even this binary metric is abstract.

On to your last paragraph. Now, I agree that "metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an intelligent mind, and that all real definition is a product of these metrics", but why should that mean that "Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined."?

Why is it not possible that, for example, reality always existed, and the metrics that we use to define it are of our own making? Or in other words, why should our logical definition of reality have anything to do with how it was created? Just because we need metrics to understand reality, why does that mean that said reality has to have an Intelligent Designer using the same metrics?

(sorry, finding it hard to explain myself...  Undecided)

Yes, your understanding is basically correct, and also correct about the "perfect machine."  Sensory technology seems to function as a 2nd-order observer.  In the double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics, the suggestive collapse of the wave function occurred in the presence of both human and technological observers.

Your question about whether Intelligent Design is the "necessary" mechanism by which reality is created/defined is fantastic.  You are correct to imply that conclusion didn't necessarily follow.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

That being said, could reality have "always existed," independent of metrics?  From an empirical perspective, maybe, but there's no possible way to know without introducing some unnecessary assumptions.  This actually gets right back to the Positivistic Universe assumption, as your question yields to the same impossible means of empirical falsification, i.e. you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics.  What we do know, however, is that the data suggest that in 100% of cases where reality has been affirmed to exist, perception and metrics were present, and in exactly 0 cases has reality been affirmed to exist in the absence of perception and metrics.  That's why the Positivistic Universe assumption exists in the first place; it's as practical to adhere to this assumption as it is to assume the sun won't go nova tomorrow.

From a philosophical perspective, no lol, reality could not have existed independent of metrics.  One reason is we have the sameness-in-difference tautology of logic to turn to, which states that all relational entities must necessarily reduce to a common medium.  Because what is real and unreal are relational entities, it follows they, too, reduce to a common medium.  Metrics axiomatically create the distinction between real and unreal according to a simple difference metric (i.e. 1 vs. 0).  No metric --> no distinction between what's real and unreal.

Just found your post, I'll try to reply as best I can.

Regarding the margin-of-error, we are on the same page here. I understand that more trials = higher statistical evidence. It's just that, as you say, we can never have complete knowledge. This means that it is possible, for example, that every single trial ever done was influenced by an alien race from a parallel universe and they "tweaked" the outcome of every trial to affect our understanding of reality. My point was that, if something like this had happened, we would have no way of knowing. We also don't have any way of measuring how likely this is because it would be beyond our empirical understanding of reality. Such a scenario is logically possible, but is totally impossible to provide evidence for, due to the faults in inductive reasoning. That's what bugs me.

Regarding the double-slit experiment, I suppose you're right in saying that observation is 2nd order. But the reason the experiment works, is that when observing anything on the quantum scale, we have to interact with it. Whether it is a human interacting, or a sensor, we have to measure photons that have bounced off the particles we are trying to measure, and these photons must have influenced the particles. In normal day-to-day life, we don't need to worry about these interactions because we humans are not sensitive to anything on the quantum level, and photons do not affect anything that we interact with in this way. So although all observation is inherently 2nd order and not 1st order, I think it makes more sense to falsely treat our own human-specific observations as 1st order.

So there is no "mystical" element of the result. (I'm not insinuating that you said this, it's just that it's a common misconception. Many people think that the experiment is evidence of magic or some shit...)

I totally agree with your definition of an optimum model, and with your point about it not being possible to know if reality "always existed", due to the limitations of inductive reasoning. You rightly say that, to know this "you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics." (Great line, it pretty much sums up my feelings on philosophy and why I both love it and hate it  Grin, kinda links back to my point about the interfering alien race)

I have to admit, I'm finding your final paragraph hard to understand (when I google sameness-in-difference I get loads of obscure philosophical papers about feminism and racism). From what I do understand though, it seems to me that you're providing a valid and compelling case for agnosticism, but not for the existence of an intelligent designer.

Responding in to paragraphical order:

1)  Regarding "we would have no way of knowing" whether evidence is manipulated by some superior alien race (or by some other empirically unknowable phenomenon), this may actually be of total irrelevance -- or, rather, it may be of total irrelevance depending on what it is we're exploring, or what questions we're looking to answer.  Such a phenomenon may permanently inhibit us from knowing any number of things, e.g. the accuracy of perception, etc.  However, it doesn't prohibit us from exploring the fundamental nature of reality in terms of the human mind and of the logic we use.  That is, it is irrelevant to our use of logic whether some empirically unknowable phenomenon manipulates data collection or even our use of logic itself.  The point is that the use of logic is our only means of reason, and cognitively we are totally limited to it and it alone.  We just have to use the tools we are given to create the best models we possibly can.  There seems to be no alternative when it comes to theorizing about reality.

2)  To clarify, I was stating that "technological observation" is a 2nd-order means of perception whereas direct human observation is 1st-order.  I would also add that a possible explanation for why the [suggestive] effects of observation on reality can be evidenced a quantum level, but not a macro one, is that the observer and what is observed are progressively homogenized at greater scales, up to total homogeny.

3)  Agreed, no mysticism here.

4)  Nothing to contend, here.

5)  On sameness-in-difference:

https://books.google.com/books?id=N9IMz_YP5IkC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=sameness+in+difference+greek&source=bl&ots=kcbtdCTyCw&sig=q0RbCGgoFm9gCjK2Y2UmFj0gOSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9fZ1Vc-pBcjRsAWguoGgCQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=sameness%20in%20difference%20greek&f=false

Quote
"At the conclusion of [Plato's] proof that 'not-being is one kind of being among the rest..."

http://individual.utoronto.ca/lpgerson/Plato_On_Identity_Sameness_And_Difference.pdf

Quote
The answer to the objection that we could specify identity and have nothing left
over for sameness is this. The attempt to identify, let alone re-identify, an existent with
divisible identity requires the inclusion of its divisible essence. That is, it is by using
divisible essence as a criterion that we identify something. For example, we determine
that this man has the same height today that he had yesterday. The divisible essence
cannot itself be constitutive of the existential identity. In the above frames (2) and (3), to
identify A1 or A2, we have to cognize it as something, as having some structure or other.
We have to cognize its divisible essence, regardless of our theory of what essence is
exactly or how we cognize it. The only way that the sameness of A1 and A2 could be
made impossible is by claiming that the identity of each is utterly uncognizable. Since
we do cognize divisible essence, the impossibility of sameness among different selfidentical
things is refuted, which is all Plato really needs to do. For the nominalist
objections do not amount to a quibble about this or that case of sameness; they typically
rest on the denial of the very possibility of sameness among self-identical things.36

Quote
What we are saying in all these cases is,
basically, that two or more things that appear to be different in some way or another
really are identical or one.39 In Platonic terms, we are saying that a diversity of essence
rests upon an identity.

I introduce the sameness-in-difference principle as a rule to reduce mental and physical reality to a common medium, and to also imply that any Creator and its creation would also reduce similarly.  It is implied through this rule that physical reality reduces to a common medium that embodies the rules of abstraction and mind.

jaysabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1023


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 02:50:28 PM
 #712

When you post garabage about your common law fantasy, you look even sillier than when you're trying to keep all your religious nonsense straight.

Is this related to that "Freeman on the Land" garbage I've seen when people make complete fools of themselves in court and post it on YouTube as a win?

Possibly. BADecker is on some thing about how all you have to do is challenge the jurisdiction of the court by telling them to define certain magic words and then you COMMON LAW VICTORY WIN or something wholly ridiculous. (While I am intentionally making it sound dumb, ask him for the official logic of it, and then you'll see my intentional misrepresentation isn't actually more absurd, and has the added benefit of humor, whereas the people who believe they have discovered a magic 'get out of jail free card' are entirely serious.)

There are many common law wins and defeats (obviously, if somebody wins, somebody else loses). Many small claims court "trials" are common law, because they are person to person. If a Judge makes the decision, then his decision is based on the evidences and facts that the people bring in their claims at the Small "CLAIMS" Court.

Wake up and see that the position of government official can't do anything without a man holding that position, or subordinate positions. Thus, if the government official position harms or injures you, it wasn't the position (governmental office) that harmed or injured you. It was the man who did it.

Now this guy who harmed you, does he put his pants on right leg or left leg first? That is, is he a man or a god? And if he is a god, you are a god just as much as he, because you have the right to put your pants on any way you want.

If the guy harms you, and if you don't deserve the harm he did to you, and especially if he does that harm in ways that his governmental position says he is not supposed to do, then honorably sue the biggest bucks out of him as you can.

Smiley

I'm going to say this as plainly as possibly so maybe you can understand it: Common law does not mean person to person.

"Common law" refers to laws that come into effect through the judiciary rather than the legislature. That has nothing to do with any of the nonsense you post, because you're not using the term properly.
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2015, 04:19:51 PM
 #713

Richard Feynman on scientific integrity and the proliferation of pseudo-science

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
saturn643
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 11, 2015, 11:51:50 PM
 #714

For the same reason some religious people hate other people who don't share their views
blablahblah
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 775
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 13, 2015, 10:59:55 AM
 #715

Some of this is correct.

We don't know as fact where the universe came from.
We don't know as fact regarding how it came into being.
We also know that we are also tied to cause and effect in everything so that true random essentially doesn't exist.
We know that people's minds and thoughts are products of the causation of cause and effect.

We know by observation of how everything operates that everything is intelligently designed.
We know that stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere without a cause.

In other words, science knows very little about the basics. But what it DOES know suggests that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Smiley

But what if you've got it backwards?
"Cause and effect" are ideas in our minds, which we've somehow acquired in trying to explain the world. Our senses provide us with data about the world, and we use our reason to figure out what we're looking at.

And funnily enough, you might be unwittingly throwing away a huge piece of evidence which supports the possibility of a god. I.e.: randomness.
Take quantum randomness for example. Radioactive decay or photons mysteriously picking a definite but random-looking path, etc. This is actually hopeful for non-atheists because it's something atheists can't explain with a purely causal universe. As far as science can tell, nothing "causes" radioactive decay, it just happens all by itself.

And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.
deisik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1120


WOLF.BET - Provably Fair Dice Game


View Profile
June 13, 2015, 11:19:14 AM
Last edit: June 13, 2015, 11:58:47 AM by deisik
 #716

But what if you've got it backwards?
"Cause and effect" are ideas in our minds, which we've somehow acquired in trying to explain the world. Our senses provide us with data about the world, and we use our reason to figure out what we're looking at.

And funnily enough, you might be unwittingly throwing away a huge piece of evidence which supports the possibility of a god. I.e.: randomness.
Take quantum randomness for example. Radioactive decay or photons mysteriously picking a definite but random-looking path, etc. This is actually hopeful for non-atheists because it's something atheists can't explain with a purely causal universe. As far as science can tell, nothing "causes" radioactive decay, it just happens all by itself.

And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.

Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...

Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)

.WOLF.BET.
▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀
  ▀ ▀▀▀
 ▄ ▄▄▄  
  ▄ ▄▄▄
▄  ▄▄▄▄▄▄
        ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▄▄
    ▄███▌        ▀▀▄
  ▄▀   ▐█████████▄  ▀▄
 ▄▀  ▄█████████████▄  █
 ▌  █████████████████  █
▐  ████████████████ ▄█
█  █████████████████████▌
▐  ██████████████████ ▀█▌
 ▌ ▐█████████████████▌ ▐▀
 █  ██████████████▀ ▄▀
  █   ███████████▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄▄██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄▀
     ▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀
▄███████████▄
███████    ████████████▄
███████    ███████   ▀██
██████████████████    ██
██    ██████████████████
██    ███████    ███████
█████████████    ███████
███████    █████████████
███████    ███████    ██
██████████████████   ▄██
██        ▀███████████▀
██
██
      ▄█▄         ▄█▄
 ▄██ ███ ███████ ███ ██▄
▐███▄ ▀ ▄███████▄ ▀ ▄███▌
▐█▌▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▐█▌
▐█▌   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄        ▐█▌
▐█▌   ████████        ▐█▌
▐█▌       ███     ▄▄▀▀▀██▄
▐█▌      ███    ██▀      ▀█
▐█▌     ███    ███         █
▐█▌    ███     ███          █
 ██▄           ███▄         █
  ▀█████████████████▄     ▄█
                  ▀▀█████▀▀

████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████


.AFFILIATE PROGRAM.
   ...FREE FAUCET........
..CHAT RAIN.............
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1010



View Profile
June 13, 2015, 02:05:28 PM
 #717

But what if you've got it backwards?
"Cause and effect" are ideas in our minds, which we've somehow acquired in trying to explain the world. Our senses provide us with data about the world, and we use our reason to figure out what we're looking at.

And funnily enough, you might be unwittingly throwing away a huge piece of evidence which supports the possibility of a god. I.e.: randomness.
Take quantum randomness for example. Radioactive decay or photons mysteriously picking a definite but random-looking path, etc. This is actually hopeful for non-atheists because it's something atheists can't explain with a purely causal universe. As far as science can tell, nothing "causes" radioactive decay, it just happens all by itself.

And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.

Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...

Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)
 

Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy.  Self-determinancy or self-configuration is a 3rd option.

deisik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1120


WOLF.BET - Provably Fair Dice Game


View Profile
June 13, 2015, 02:29:02 PM
 #718

And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.

Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...

Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)
 

Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy.  Self-determinancy or self-configuration is a 3rd option.

So things get even more complicated than that. Though, personally, I doubt that what you call "self-determinancy" (or "self-configuration") cannot be further reduced to either of the first two. You should prove otherwise (for it to be a "3rd option")...

Or, at least, make a strong case in favor of your assumption

.WOLF.BET.
▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀
  ▀ ▀▀▀
 ▄ ▄▄▄  
  ▄ ▄▄▄
▄  ▄▄▄▄▄▄
        ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▄▄
    ▄███▌        ▀▀▄
  ▄▀   ▐█████████▄  ▀▄
 ▄▀  ▄█████████████▄  █
 ▌  █████████████████  █
▐  ████████████████ ▄█
█  █████████████████████▌
▐  ██████████████████ ▀█▌
 ▌ ▐█████████████████▌ ▐▀
 █  ██████████████▀ ▄▀
  █   ███████████▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄▄██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄▀
     ▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀
▄███████████▄
███████    ████████████▄
███████    ███████   ▀██
██████████████████    ██
██    ██████████████████
██    ███████    ███████
█████████████    ███████
███████    █████████████
███████    ███████    ██
██████████████████   ▄██
██        ▀███████████▀
██
██
      ▄█▄         ▄█▄
 ▄██ ███ ███████ ███ ██▄
▐███▄ ▀ ▄███████▄ ▀ ▄███▌
▐█▌▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▐█▌
▐█▌   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄        ▐█▌
▐█▌   ████████        ▐█▌
▐█▌       ███     ▄▄▀▀▀██▄
▐█▌      ███    ██▀      ▀█
▐█▌     ███    ███         █
▐█▌    ███     ███          █
 ██▄           ███▄         █
  ▀█████████████████▄     ▄█
                  ▀▀█████▀▀

████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████


.AFFILIATE PROGRAM.
   ...FREE FAUCET........
..CHAT RAIN.............
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1010



View Profile
June 13, 2015, 02:40:35 PM
 #719

And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.

Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...

Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)
 

Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy.  Self-determinancy or self-configuration is a 3rd option.

So things get even more complicated than that. Though, personally, I doubt that what you call "self-determinancy" (or "self-configuration") cannot be further reduced to either of the first two...

You should prove otherwise (for it to be a "3rd option")

The set of Reality contains that and only that which is real.  If there were something 'real enough' outside of Reality so as to be able to affect it, then obviously it wouldn't be outside of Reality, but rather inside.

Accordingly, there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it.  There is no need to look for an infinite regression in a self-contained system.  Reality must embody the rules of self-configuration because there is nothing external to it which is real enough to configure it.

Edit:  Think of self-determinancy or self-configuration as a synthesis of determinancy and indeterminancy.  Note that logic is self-determinant or self-configuring, i.e. "sound logic is soundly logical according to sound logic."

deisik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1120


WOLF.BET - Provably Fair Dice Game


View Profile
June 13, 2015, 03:00:14 PM
Last edit: June 13, 2015, 03:21:30 PM by deisik
 #720

And if randomness happens all by itself, it could legitimately be a kind of back door for creative interference. Tinker a little in the right places, and you get a causal cascade. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and we're actually in agreement on this? People often seem to have this idea that randomness has some special property of being truly random. It doesn't have to "be" random at all, all we know is that we call something random if it looks random. There are plenty of examples where encoded messages have a white noise spectrum if you're not the intended recipient.

Thereby all "randomness" can potentially be reduced to just a pure lack of knowledge (or faith, for that matter), right? I mean that you (or scientists) cannot prove that there is "true" randomness at all, be it quantum randomness or whatever else sort of randomness (the hypothesis of the "hidden variables")...

Ultimately, you are still stuck with the Primary Cause (and the cause of that, wtf)
 

Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy.  Self-determinancy or self-configuration is a 3rd option.

So things get even more complicated than that. Though, personally, I doubt that what you call "self-determinancy" (or "self-configuration") cannot be further reduced to either of the first two...

You should prove otherwise (for it to be a "3rd option")

The set of Reality contains that and only that which is real.  If there were something 'real enough' outside of Reality so as to be able to affect it, then obviously it wouldn't be outside of Reality, but rather inside.

Accordingly, there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it.  There is no need to look for an infinite regression in a self-contained system.  Reality must embody the rules of self-configuration because there is nothing external to it which is real enough to configure it.

This doesn't prove that your "Reality" is either deterministic or random (let alone a "synthesis" of both), since there is nothing that would forbid the "causes" for both determinacy and indeterminacy (whichever you choose to stick with) to be this Reality's attributes, i.e. inherent properties...

And, I guess, what is meant by "self-guidance" has nothing to do with that synthesis, which is not possible per se (since as soon as you allow some randomness, the world ultimately becomes indeterministic)

.WOLF.BET.
▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀
  ▀ ▀▀▀
 ▄ ▄▄▄  
  ▄ ▄▄▄
▄  ▄▄▄▄▄▄
        ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▄▄
    ▄███▌        ▀▀▄
  ▄▀   ▐█████████▄  ▀▄
 ▄▀  ▄█████████████▄  █
 ▌  █████████████████  █
▐  ████████████████ ▄█
█  █████████████████████▌
▐  ██████████████████ ▀█▌
 ▌ ▐█████████████████▌ ▐▀
 █  ██████████████▀ ▄▀
  █   ███████████▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄▄██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄▀
     ▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀
▄███████████▄
███████    ████████████▄
███████    ███████   ▀██
██████████████████    ██
██    ██████████████████
██    ███████    ███████
█████████████    ███████
███████    █████████████
███████    ███████    ██
██████████████████   ▄██
██        ▀███████████▀
██
██
      ▄█▄         ▄█▄
 ▄██ ███ ███████ ███ ██▄
▐███▄ ▀ ▄███████▄ ▀ ▄███▌
▐█▌▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▐█▌
▐█▌   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄        ▐█▌
▐█▌   ████████        ▐█▌
▐█▌       ███     ▄▄▀▀▀██▄
▐█▌      ███    ██▀      ▀█
▐█▌     ███    ███         █
▐█▌    ███     ███          █
 ██▄           ███▄         █
  ▀█████████████████▄     ▄█
                  ▀▀█████▀▀

████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████


.AFFILIATE PROGRAM.
   ...FREE FAUCET........
..CHAT RAIN.............
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 ... 444 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!