in reply to Re^16: Who is your favorite scientist and why?
in thread Who is your favorite scientist and why?

a tyson quote about "this is a horror" isnt going to work...
This is a red herring because I didn't provide such a quote from Dr. Tyson. This is what I quoted:

But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence?

No mention of horror there. He shows evidence for the lack of intelligence in some natural designs. Is that hard for you to understand?
but what seems as "smart" particles popping into existence just because they were measured or observed is what intrigued me i guess

I agree that is intriguing. I'm not a scientist either so I must defer to their knowledge. Look at what these scientists say e.g. at 2:00 they mention: "Does a microscopic particle spontaneously clone itself in midair?". They admit that they don't know but that probably at the quantum level the particle can be in many places at once.

The honest answer is to admit we don't understand it fully yet. The easy answer is to say that the particles are smart or have awareness. I prefer the honest approach. It's important to not carry our biases into the quantum world and expect it to behave according to our macroscopic common sense.
  • Comment on Re^17: Who is your favorite scientist and why?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^18: Who is your favorite scientist and why?
by james28909 (Deacon) on Dec 19, 2017 at 02:29 UTC

    no the easiest answer is to say "there is no god/creator/existence". that is the easiest answer.

    the harder answer is ... well that is what these scientists are doing. which does not include anything "easy" and is right on par with my own beliefs.

    "Is that hard for you to understand?" understand what? a quote? his opinion? your opinion? what are the facts you/they are basing this opinion from? you have not provided me with any actual facts other than quotes. can you pull up ANY pertinent data related to the quote you just mentioned? or will that be another quote as well?

    for you to be persuaded, so easily, just by what someone has said, it makes me lose my sense of wonderment with you. ill continue though because i know that you are full of knowledge about these things you are trying to tell me.

    so here is your chance. tell me. and if not responded to with requested data i will not continue this conversation any further. do not quote anyone, i dont want any videos. dont attack my beliefs. i dont want your emotion. i want YOU to tell ME some FACTS/EVIDENCE that support YOUR CLAIMS that there is NO CREATOR. i want cold hard facts... nothing more nothing less.

    EDIT: also the link to the video you posted literally explains the answer to your question 52 more seconds into the video. 2:52 and is a corner stone of my beliefs. watch the whole video. it /should/ blow your mind once you grasp it. why and how does a particle propagate itself upon observation or being measured? the particle or wave itself seems "aware". i cannot say it IS aware, but it sure as hell seems like it. xD "thats the enigma". ALSO once you grasp this, watch quantum eraser and then delayed choice quantum eraser. it also changes its properties, "in the past", upon when and where they were observed or measured in the "present"...

    EDIT 2: also you should check out 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?. i also do not know if this universe is a simulation. it sure seems like some kind of mechanism though. and yes i am aware that i posted videos after asking you not to, but it is only in response to the question you asked abuot the video you posted, which also happened to answer that question (without you realizing it)

    EDIT 3: also, i want to add... that this double slit experiment was setup online as well for people around the globe to participate in. ill try to find it again, you can google it though. seems like the results did not deviate from what was expected. also check out james gates videos. those are purely theoretical though.

[reply]
      understand what? a quote? his opinion? your opinion? what are the facts you/they are basing this opinion from? you have not provided me with any actual facts other than quotes.
      There are many facts in the article containing the quote. I even gave you a link, but you seem to be too lazy to read it.
      and if not responded to with requested data i will not continue this conversation any further.
      Given the poor quality of your discourse so far, that would be a great kindness on your part :)
      dont attack my beliefs.
      Red herring. I don't really care about your beliefs. Believe whatever you want to believe. I care about your reasoning, your evidence, or rather lack of evidence in this case.
      i want YOU to tell ME some FACTS/EVIDENCE that support YOUR CLAIMS that there is NO CREATOR.
      Yet another red herring. I made no such claims. I only raised doubts about your claims that there is a creator.

[reply]

        Yet another red herring. I made no such claims. I only raised doubts about your claims that there is a creator.

        i asked you: "what made you stop believing?"

        your reply seems to lean heavily towards no creator:

        I realised that such belief was just wishful thinking. It was comforting but not based on any substantial evidence or reasoning. It was dishonest because it ignored allthe contrary evidence (e.g. for each wonder there is an equal horror).

        you cant even get your story straight. have a great life.
[reply]

In Section Past Polls