Not Knowing the Answer?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Da Pittman

Shakyamunison
Lack of faith. They have to have answers, and they have to be right, because they do not have the faith needed to be comfortable with what they believe.

Da Pittman

Shakyamunison

DigiMark007
It's true that the "We don't know" answer seems to be used less than it should. Religious dogmatists are quick to attribute everything we don't know to god (the well-known "God of the Gaps" philosophy). And those opposed to such methods feel pressed to offer irrefutable facts rather than admitting we don't know for certain.

The logic is flawed, of course, but it is intuitively pleasing and comforting to those of religious or supernatural faith. So it is easy to see why it happens.

I see it a lot in the field of consciousness, where even cutting edge scientists in the field can't come to a consensus, though numerous credible theories exist, but none have been proven beyond a reasonable chance. Therefore, dualists (those that believe consciousness is separate from material reality) enjoy ascribing such a phenomenon to either a deity or to supernatural causes, rather than either seeing material causes as a possibility, or simply saying "we don't know."

Mindship
Although I would prefer more certainty about things, I have no particular problem with IDK because, in its own way, IDK is an answer. Or to put it another way, perhaps the final certainty is mystery (even from an empirical-scientific POV, since, ultimately, all we know are our perceptions, though they have--so far--proven reliable, if not necessarily valid). Mystery is the square one from which I've constructed my own personal reality map.

DigiMark007
I feel like framing it as Mindship does sort of undermines our ability to know the world around us via empirical data. It is technically true, so I won't refute it on factual principle, only in delivery and interpretation. Subjective reality is a convenient hiding spot for "mystery" or paranormalists, but since (as MS stated) all evidence points to the reliability of observed data and the scientific method, my feeling is that we can approximate reality to such a fine degree that the fact that it remains technically subjective becomes a moot point. It is such a small asterisk next to a reliably accurate approximation of reality that it can be effectively ignored so that we can pursue knowledge. Therefore, reality and observation remains falsifiable, as all good science must be, but is treated like a hard fact until evidence shows us otherwise.

WrathfulDwarf
I'd like to see the person that knows-it-all take a step forward and teach us. The Christians (including relatives of mine) say that the Bible is a guide for spirituality. Rarely do I hear them say it answers everything.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'd like to see the person that knows-it-all take a step forward and teach us.

I'd rather not...too much effort.

313

But seriously, who would that be? You'll have a billion different answers to this question depending on who you ask.

Devil King

Mindship
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I feel like framing it as Mindship does sort of undermines our ability to know the world around us via empirical data. It is technically true, so I won't refute it on factual principle, only in delivery and interpretation. Subjective reality is a convenient hiding spot for "mystery" or paranormalists, but since (as MS stated) all evidence points to the reliability of observed data and the scientific method, my feeling is that we can approximate reality to such a fine degree that the fact that it remains technically subjective becomes a moot point. It is such a small asterisk next to a reliably accurate approximation of reality that it can be effectively ignored so that we can pursue knowledge. Therefore, reality and observation remains falsifiable, as all good science must be, but is treated like a hard fact until evidence shows us otherwise.

Though I understand the sentiment, it is not my intention at all to undermine the demonstrable power of empirical science (that would be highly illogical and unrealistic). My only point is: if one is going for as close to certainty as possible, then one should not neglect the "far corner" of the emprical map, even if it's just acknowledged, nothing more (at least for the moment). I see it less as a convenient hiding spot and more as a reminder to keep us on our toes and not get too comfy with our own machinations.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'd like to see the person that knows-it-all take a step forward and teach us.

I think that most people have an inherent feeling that we shouldn't just be told the answer.

Through out history the idea that anyone with all the answers is unable to share them for one reason or another is recurrent. In SciFi most god-like aliens have a policy against giving information to less evolved species. Zen Koans are meant to lead a person to the answer rather than provide it. Mythic prophets are usually either cryptic (Delphi) or ignored (Cassandra).

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The Christians (including relatives of mine) say that the Bible is a guide for spirituality. Rarely do I hear them say it answers everything.

B-but isn't Christianity a monolithic conspiracy against free thought?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Mindship
Though I understand the sentiment, it is not my intention at all to undermine the demonstrable power of empirical science (that would be highly illogical and unrealistic). My only point is: if one is going for as close to certainty as possible, then one should not neglect the "far corner" of the emprical map, even if it's just acknowledged, nothing more (at least for the moment). I see it less as a convenient hiding spot and more as a reminder to keep us on our toes and not get too comfy with our own machinations.

Fair enough. You have a healthy outlook on subjectivity. My reaction to it is a bit hostile due to the fact that I've seen it used as the "hiding spot" I mentioned, where the person then invokes faith as the only way to know truth and is impervious (in their mind, at least) to any reasonable arguments against them.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'd like to see the person that knows-it-all take a step forward and teach us. The Christians (including relatives of mine) say that the Bible is a guide for spirituality. Rarely do I hear them say it answers everything.

Clearly you didn't watch teh Hugh Ross video.

stick out tongue

Da Pittman
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Clearly you didn't watch teh Hugh Ross video.

stick out tongue Not that again pitt_fist

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by DigiMark007
...Clearly you didn't watch teh Hugh Ross video.

stick out tongue

No one did, because if they had, they would have asked Jesus to be their savor before it was over. Only really evil people could withstand the full hour.


Oh, wait... you saw the video; didn't you? stick out tongue

Quiero Mota

Da Pittman

Mindship
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. You have a healthy outlook on subjectivity. My reaction to it is a bit hostile due to the fact that I've seen it used as the "hiding spot" I mentioned, where the person then invokes faith as the only way to know truth and is impervious (in their mind, at least) to any reasonable arguments against them.

Oh, absolutely, it gets misused time and time again, and even I often find it hard to have patience with someone who just plain hides behind the "apron of faith." At the very least, I would appreciate some critical thought as to why that person believes as he/she does.

Rogue Jedi
I used to be like that. "Where is God? Why cant I see him? SHOW me God."

Then I got faith, and my outlook on life has never been the same.

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I used to be like that. "Where is God? Why cant I see him? SHOW me God."

Then I got faith, and my outlook on life has never been the same. I would be the same, just take out the faith part.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Just because you don't know, why does that mean others can't?

There are some things that cannot be known.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are some things that cannot be known.

The "known unknowables" so to speak.

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "known unknowables" so to speak. Your not supposed to speak of such things whistling

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Your not supposed to speak of such things whistling

That was an unknown unknown!

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That was an unknown unknown! laughing

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "known unknowables" so to speak.

I don't know. confused laughing

BTW that hurt my head. eek!

Quiero Mota

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Let's pretend for a minute that god or an all-knowing designer does exist. Now why would he/she/it not reveal the answers to anyone?

Yet He gave us a subjective prism to view it through, making absolute knowledge impossible.

I don't deny that objective reality and truth might exist. It probably does. Not objective mroality and such, but objective in a material sense. Where the contention is that we can't know it through our subjective observations and interpretations.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I used to be like that. "Where is God? Why cant I see him? SHOW me God."

Then I got faith, and my outlook on life has never been the same.

Right, because faith doesn't require reason. It sustains itself. Faith begets more faith. And the less evidence (or even cotnrary evidence) the better, because the amount of faith needed is larger and thus promotes its own existence by its veracity.

Faith is quite the meme. I'd consider it a negative one, but meh.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Let's pretend for a minute that god or an all-knowing designer does exist. Now why would he/she/it not reveal the answers to anyone?

Mysterious ways an' shit?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Bardock42
Mysterious ways an' shit?

As in the stories of Moses and Mohammed. Why would he not have a select few, who he disclosed revelation with.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Let's pretend for a minute that god or an all-knowing designer does exist. Now why would he/she/it not reveal the answers to anyone?

What if we are not smart enough? I know algebra, but I cannot teach it to a fish.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if we are not smart enough? I know algebra, but I cannot teach it to a fish.

So then god would explain in terms a human can understand.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
As in the stories of Moses and Mohammed. Why would he not have a select few, who he disclosed revelation with.

For a multitute of reasons, some I can imagine, some beyond my wildest dreams (I'd assume).

Seriously, even if God would think exactly like humans do, I wouldn't assume that he would without a doubt reveal himself. Now, hypothetically, being a super-uber being with mental capacities beyond everything, I wouldn't even begin to claim that I knew what such an entity would do.

But, on a different note, we can conclude that either humans are prone to making shit up about God (whether one is correct or not) or God (Gods) have an incredibly odd sense of humour in choosing to reveal themselves in the most different and oftentimes contradicting manners to different people at different times.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then god would explain in terms a human can understand.

Something that is unknowable cannot be known.

Quiero Mota
Why do you thinks its unknowable?

Devil King
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Let's pretend for a minute that god or an all-knowing designer does exist. Now why would he/she/it not reveal the answers to anyone?

how about why wouldn't he reveal it to everyone?

The answer is always that God works in mysterious ways. But, why does god work in mysterious ways for the 99.9% of the very people from whom he expects so much? How sadistic could a god be that operates like that? And I don't think god is sadistic, just that the people professing insight are insane!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why do you thinks its unknowable?

What is the "it" you are talking about? All I am saying is that there is parts of the universe/nature/God (you provide the name) that cannot be understood. That means there is something that we cannot understand. Maybe one day we will evolve into a being that can understand, but we are not there now.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Devil King
how about why wouldn't he reveal it to everyone?


Maybe not everyone is meant to?

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Maybe not everyone is meant to? So God would tell Bob the answer to life and everything, the greatest information ever told and God told Bob that it was just between the two of us. messed

Mindship
I always find this a useful analogy for "understanding" the unknowable aspect of God.

In a lucid dream, you can reveal yourself as the creator (of the dream) to others in the dream. However, as the creator who exists even when there is no dream (like when you're awake), how could a dream-person know you in that regard, ie, when there is no dream?

I hope that made sense.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That was an unknown unknown! Wouldn't that make it a known? Y'know: 2 negatives = a positive. shifty

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then god would explain in terms a human can understand.

How would you put algebra in terms a fish could understand?

Originally posted by Mindship
Wouldn't that make it a known? Y'know: 2 negatives = a positive. shifty

laughing out loud

No, no it wouldn't no expression

DigiMark007
Mota's premise seems to be that perhaps God has reveled his objective Truth to us, but we are unable to comprehend it due to our subjectivity. While it is logically possible for a deity to work in "mysterious" ways that, to our limited senses, are indistinguishable from chance, it seems to me like a last ditch effort to find justification for a philosophy that has no evidence to support it.

And if it is in terms we can understand, subjectivity remains, faith remains intuitive but unsubstantiated, and we have no other way of discerning objective truth.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Mota's premise seems to be that perhaps God has reveled his objective Truth to us, but we are unable to comprehend it due to our subjectivity. While it is logically possible for a deity to work in "mysterious" ways that, to our limited senses, are indistinguishable from chance, it seems to me like a last ditch effort to find justification for a philosophy that has no evidence to support it.

And if it is in terms we can understand, subjectivity remains, faith remains intuitive but unsubstantiated, and we have no other way of discerning objective truth.

Which begs the question, "Why would an omniscient being, who definitionally knows the limits of reason, disseminate objective truth in such an unclear way?"

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, "Why would an omniscient being, who definitionally knows the limits of reason, disseminate objective truth in such an unclear way?"

Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to answer that?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to answer that?

Eh, maybe, maybe not. The idea is that if he gave us objective truth but only a subjective prism through which to observe it, the objective truth part is worthless...or at best unrecognized. So if we assume a creator-deity for the sake of the argument, it would mean that the deity either doesn't want us to be able to ascertain objective truth or there was some very poor planning. Or some other race is "chosen" and we aren't.

It gets pretty nutty with trying to work it out logically, and steps dangerously toward paradox. Best not to think of such things, imo, fun though they may be.

leonheartmm
before, i used to be scared and intimidated by not having the answers to things. now,{as long as the thing doesnt concern my well being directly or those of others or direct emotional attachements} after accepting it, i find it refreshing, not having to question everything, wonderous and one of the main things which makes us get up in the morning utside of duty. mystery is always nice, if you arent obsessed with uncovering everything.

Devil King
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Maybe not everyone is meant to?

So, god works in mysterious ways.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Devil King
So, god works in mysterious ways. I do vaguely remember someone saying this already in this thread.

inimalist
hold on...

isn't the "lets assume God exists" argument against the nature of the thread?

Isn't the point that it is impossible to know if he does? Questioning the motives of a non-existant being is rather futile...

and lets be honest "God doesn't exist" is a much more satisfactory answer than "God works in mysterious ways", so, if we are going to make assumptions about the things we cannot verify (again, for some reason people seem to think non-falsifiability is mysterious and amazing) shouldn't we be making the most likely assumptions?

Why would god do X? pobably better (and more interesting imho) to ask, why do people think X is attributable to God?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
hold on...

isn't the "lets assume God exists" argument against the nature of the thread?

Isn't the point that it is impossible to know if he does? Questioning the motives of a non-existant being is rather futile...

and lets be honest "God doesn't exist" is a much more satisfactory answer than "God works in mysterious ways", so, if we are going to make assumptions about the things we cannot verify (again, for some reason people seem to think non-falsifiability is mysterious and amazing) shouldn't we be making the most likely assumptions?

Why would god do X? pobably better (and more interesting imho) to ask, why do people think X is attributable to God?

People need something to blame. Also, a god gives people a perceived power over the things in their lives that are out of their control.

I believe that humans don't like the answer "I don't know". It is comforting to think that all things can be known, and troubling to think that there is something beyond our ability to ever know.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People need something to blame. Also, a god gives people a perceived power over the things in their lives that are out of their control.

I believe that humans don't like the answer "I don't know". It is comforting to think that all things can be known, and troubling to think that there is something beyond our ability to ever know.


I agree, though entire volumes could be written on the social/psychologocal/evolutionary purposes for God and religion.

Its essentially what lead me to ask the question. Once we assume that God exists or not, it isn't a question of "I don't know" but of rationalizing the current state of the world under those views. Assuming God exists does not answer anything about why people can't accept the answer "I don't know", but in fact changes the conversation to talking about God, which coincidently enough, just lets christians have a pulpit to propogandize from. Much like our numerous creationism and geocentrism threads.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by inimalist
hold on...

isn't the "lets assume God exists" argument against the nature of the thread?

Isn't the point that it is impossible to know if he does? Questioning the motives of a non-existant being is rather futile...

and lets be honest "God doesn't exist" is a much more satisfactory answer than "God works in mysterious ways", so, if we are going to make assumptions about the things we cannot verify (again, for some reason people seem to think non-falsifiability is mysterious and amazing) shouldn't we be making the most likely assumptions?

Why would god do X? pobably better (and more interesting imho) to ask, why do people think X is attributable to God?

Against the original intent of the thread, maybe, but we had diverted to a slightly different question: if a God exists, how would he impart objective truth to us and/or why would he bother if we can't perceive it?

But I agree. It's a large logical jump to begin with.

Devil King
Originally posted by Bardock42
I do vaguely remember someone saying this already in this thread.

I seem to recall that as well.

inimalist
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Against the original intent of the thread, maybe, but we had diverted to a slightly different question: if a God exists, how would he impart objective truth to us and/or why would he bother if we can't perceive it?

but, for people who claim to have the privilage of knowing the intentions of God, those aren't I don't know questions. I don't see it as a slightly different question, but an entirely different issue.

In this, it is making the logical argument that God, should he have created life, is a bumbling idiot. He didn't make people able to understand him, he isn't able to impart objective knowledge to people, why would he even make people without the ability to know things objectively etc. All things that logically disprove the who omnipotent and omniscence concepts

like, I agree. I think the found empirical evidence shows that God probably didn't create things, and if he did there was certainly no inteligence in his designs. However, comming up with an assumed answer is nothing close to not knowing the answer. And christians/whoever will always have memes to throw around to counter any logical argument. Saying "Why would God..." might seem like a logical and fool proof question to you, but to a christian, it is an opening for preacing; "This is why God would..."

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But I agree. It's a large logical jump to begin with.

thats not even my point. I'm really interested in discussing the cognitive dissonance associated with uncertainty, and how that leads people to create patterns and stories. I'm really uninterested in hearing a christian yet again describe unfalsifiability as msyterious as if it actually is a valid argument. I'd rather not participate in an excersize of special pleading...

again...

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that humans don't like the answer "I don't know". It is comforting to think that all things can be known, and troubling to think that there is something beyond our ability to ever know. Thus the source of Einstein's famous, "God does not play dice with the universe." He did not like the Uncertainty Principle, a pillar of quantum mechanics.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
Thus the source of Einstein's famous, "God does not play dice with the universe." He did not like the Uncertainty Principle, a pillar of quantum mechanics.

Ya, I don't like that ether. Too many people use it as an excuse to say (Insert absurdity here) is true because of the Uncertainty Principle.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by inimalist
but, for people who claim to have the privilage of knowing the intentions of God, those aren't I don't know questions. I don't see it as a slightly different question, but an entirely different issue.

In this, it is making the logical argument that God, should he have created life, is a bumbling idiot. He didn't make people able to understand him, he isn't able to impart objective knowledge to people, why would he even make people without the ability to know things objectively etc. All things that logically disprove the who omnipotent and omniscence concepts

like, I agree. I think the found empirical evidence shows that God probably didn't create things, and if he did there was certainly no inteligence in his designs. However, comming up with an assumed answer is nothing close to not knowing the answer. And christians/whoever will always have memes to throw around to counter any logical argument. Saying "Why would God..." might seem like a logical and fool proof question to you, but to a christian, it is an opening for preacing; "This is why God would..."



thats not even my point. I'm really interested in discussing the cognitive dissonance associated with uncertainty, and how that leads people to create patterns and stories. I'm really uninterested in hearing a christian yet again describe unfalsifiability as msyterious as if it actually is a valid argument. I'd rather not participate in an excersize of special pleading...

again...

laughing out loud

Interesting points. I misunderstood you, is all. But thanks for clarifying. It's a refreshing way of viewing the problem of subjectivity from a religious standpoint.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, I don't like that ether. Too many people use it as an excuse to say (Insert absurdity here) is true because of the Uncertainty Principle.

Oh, absolutely. Quantum mechanics is rife with abuse from non-scientists trying to justify their beliefs. There's a lecture I heard once that explains how quantum mechanics doesn't really justify anything supernatural, and fits perfectly well into a causal materialistic setting. Lost the link, but I have the name of the guy somewhere. I'll try to find it.

Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm really interested in discussing the cognitive dissonance associated with uncertainty, and how that leads people to create patterns and stories.
You sound like a psychologist. wink

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by DigiMark007
...Oh, absolutely. Quantum mechanics is rife with abuse from non-scientists trying to justify their beliefs. There's a lecture I heard once that explains how quantum mechanics doesn't really justify anything supernatural, and fits perfectly well into a causal materialistic setting. Lost the link, but I have the name of the guy somewhere. I'll try to find it.

eat I can't wait.

ushomefree
A powerful statement has been made in this quote, and you need to elaborate on such. Bring life to your perspective! Refrain from making "blanket statements." Yes, I am being critical, but I am not being unfair. Level with me; help me understand.



A powerful statement again! But you need to put things into perspective, young man. The end of this quote, leaves the audience uninformed. Communicating with persons who agree with you is one thing. Perhaps, elaboration is not necessary? You need to think about other members of the forum when make such statements. This quote, should have been followed with: "For example...."



Don't you understand, that all man, have "bias" views? And that, it is only the will of man to control them, in order to be as objective as possible? Naturalists are not Saints and/or victims! I understand your point; but it applies to all man, regardless of views. Humans are humans!



I doubt, that you have confused anyone. All understand. Good post!

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by ushomefree
Level with me; help me understand.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I doubt, that you have confused anyone.

confused

Originally posted by ushomefree
A powerful statement again! But you need to put things into perspective, young man. The end of this quote, leaves the audience uninformed. Communicating with persons who agree with you is one thing. Perhaps, elaboration is not necessary? You need to think about other members of the forum when make such statements. This quote, should have been followed with: "For example...."

The concept that people need meaning in life is extremely simple and does not need elaboration whether one agrees or not. You come across as unable or unwilling to address his point.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Don't you understand, that all man, have "bias" views? And that, it is only the will of man to control them, in order to be as objective as possible? Naturalists are not Saints and/or victims! I understand your point; but it applies to all man, regardless of views. Humans are humans!

He said that.

ushomefree
Thank you, "Da Pittman!"

Symmetric Chaos
You're welcome

-- Da Pittman

ushomefree
wounded2

Symmetric Chaos
Didz ur hed asplode?

ushomefree
For whatever reason, Da Pittman is not available for comment; for all I know, he is out with a hotty or playing Bingo. You have participated in this thread extensively. Perhaps, you can post your main point (and we can continue from there)?

ushomefree
I was not trying to sharp-shoot Da Pittman or Symmetric Chaos. Point is, my questions, comments, and/or concerns were directed towards Da Pittman; he made the statments, not Symmetric Chaos. And yet, Symmetric Chaos felt the need to offer his opinion--which is cool, by the way! But, he spoke "over" Da Pittman. For whatever reason, he--Da Pittman--is not available, and either is Symmetric Chaos. Can anyone on the forum (who shares the views of Da Pittman and Symmetric Chaos) bring me up to speed on things, simply by presenting their primary point?

ushomefree
C'mon guys... what's up?

chickenlover98
Originally posted by ushomefree
C'mon guys... what's up? chuck norris. in every direction you can look.

ushomefree
confused

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ushomefree
For whatever reason, Da Pittman is not available for comment; for all I know, he is out with a hotty or playing Bingo. You have participated in this thread extensively. Perhaps, you can post your main point (and we can continue from there)?

Add him as a friend and we will see when he is on.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by ushomefree
C'mon guys... what's up?

This was posted 4 minutes after the previous post of yours. It's a discussion board, not a chat room. Did you really expect a response by then?

Also, you sound high.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by DigiMark007
This was posted 4 minutes after the previous post of yours. It's a discussion board, not a chat room. Did you really expect a response by then?

Also, you sound high. thumb up laughing laughing laughing

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
eat I can't wait.

Quantum Quackery: Physics, Metaphysics, and Flapdoodle by Dr. Victor J. Stenger, physicist.

That's the particular lecture I heard, and it's probably google-able. It's good, but there's plenty of other legitimate places where one can seek information as to how quantum mechanics don't justify most (or any) supernatural beliefs, despite the myriad attempts to do so.

Mindship
There are those who do try to justify the supernatural with QM. But even the "conscientious" transcendent maps will point out why this is wrong. Basically, it collapses the reality hierarchy: it confuses the deep structure of the physical world with the overall Big Picture.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
There are those who do try to justify the supernatural with QM. But even the "conscientious" transcendent maps will point out why this is wrong. Basically, it collapses the reality hierarchy: it confuses the deep structure of the physical world with the overall Big Picture.

And that is what some people are trying to do. wink

DigiMark007
QM is great for pseudo-science and paranormalists, because a lot of people know a little bit about science and physics...enough to feel a sort of privileged enlightenment trying to find connections between science and spiritualism, but they don't know enough to debunk such claims as the nonsense that they are.

Even I, and othes like me, can say I don't believe in it, but part of it is an appeal to authority and knowing where to look for proper scientific answers, because my own limited knowledge on the subject isn't nearly enough to debunk such claims alone. Though in having to debate quantum exploitationists, one does start to become versed in most of the basic principles, and ways in which QM is normally perverted to serve the beliefs of others. The most common being the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, in which we "decide" the outcome of quantum superpositions by observing them....and thus is such alleged telekinetic prowess pushed to serve all sorts of nonsensical beliefs.

xmarksthespot
Firstly...Originally posted by inimalist
Why would god do X? Because I'm just that good.

Now onto the question at hand...

(Putting aside the fact that I'm of the general opinion people en masse are stupid and that such stupidity derived from organized religionism results in idiotic opinions like cdesign propentsism which undoubtedly this thread as all others will degenerate into)

There are in my opinion three general approaches to questions that at some point have seemed unanswerable... why is the sky blue, what makes apples fall... the inquisitive, the complacent and the apprehensive.

The inquisitive seek actual answers using my beloved empirical method, while the complacent don't really care as long as apples keep falling and the sky remains blue. Meanwhile the apprehensive afraid the blue sky will one day fall, pray to a false god to keep holding it up, in hopes that piety will cleanse them of alien Body Thetans so that one day their own Thetan will be lead back to the parallel Theta Universe.

Telling people to hurry up and respond from Mr "Hold one... let me get back to this." ...you can call me Sir Lulzalot.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Firstly... Because I'm just that good.

Now onto the question at hand...

(Putting aside the fact that I'm of the general opinion people en masse are stupid and that such stupidity derived from organized religionism results in idiotic opinions like cdesign propentsism which undoubtedly this thread as all others will degenerate into)

There are in my opinion three general approaches to questions that at some point have seemed unanswerable... why is the sky blue, what makes apples fall... the inquisitive, the complacent and the apprehensive.

The inquisitive seek actual answers using my beloved empirical method, while the complacent don't really care as long as apples keep falling and the sky remains blue. Meanwhile the apprehensive afraid the blue sky will one day fall, pray to a false god to keep holding it up, in hopes that piety will cleanse them of alien Body Thetans so that one day their own Thetan will be lead back to the parallel Theta Universe.

Telling people to hurry up and respond from Mr "Hold one... let me get back to this." ...you can call me Sir Lulzalot.

lmao

thumb up

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that is what some people are trying to do. wink Indeed. But even some well-intentioned and very intelligent people mistakenly make this call (or at least, allude to it). Fritjof Capra comes to mind.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
Indeed. But even some well-intentioned and very intelligent people mistakenly make this call (or at least, allude to it). Fritjof Capra comes to mind.

You can always tell because they like to use the word "Quantum". laughing

Like...

bla bla bla Quantum bla bla bla bla Quantum bla bla Quantum.

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can always tell because they like to use the word "Quantum". laughing

Like...

bla bla bla Quantum bla bla bla bla Quantum bla bla Quantum.
The sly ones may slip in "nonlocality" or "entanglement." And the really, Really clever ones may throw Bell's theorem at ya.

Deja~vu
NlONLOCALITY SOUNDS LIKE WHERE I'VE BEEN...LOL

Mindship
Originally posted by Deja~vu
NlONLOCALITY SOUNDS LIKE WHERE I'VE BEEN...LOL Yeah, I think I saw you there...or was it over here...maybe both...

Storm
Personally, I don' t want to have all the answers. I' m a limited and fallible human being, so I know I won' t have all the answers and I am comfortable with that.

Mandos
Who in the hell wants to know everything? That is a burden I'll leave to God, if ever he exists.

Charmed_Phoebe
Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, I think I saw you there...or was it over here...maybe both...
zeah, that stuff happens sometimes...

Mindship
Originally posted by Charmed_Phoebe
zeah, that stuff happens sometimes... Especially at KMC.

Deja~vu
It's those damn dimensions that keep getting in the way and cloud our perceptions, or our levels of perceptions. mad stick out tongue

Non-locality makes since to me with the studies I've read which opens up many other questions to ponder.

Mindship
Originally posted by Deja~vu
It's those damn dimensions that keep getting in the way and cloud our perceptions... smokin'

...yeah, those damn dimensions...

leonheartmm
there is a difference between not knowing the answer, and there actually being no answer. if there truly is no answer, then more often than not, it reflects on the false nature of the question itself, or perhaps on out limitations as humans of not being able to understand the answer.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mandos
Who in the hell wants to know everything?

I would

chithappens
why would you want to know everything?

inimalist
why wouldn't you?

like, there is a level of knowledge you would be content with that is less than "everything"?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
I would

Why hello Doctor Faustus.

chithappens
Originally posted by inimalist
why wouldn't you?

like, there is a level of knowledge you would be content with that is less than "everything"?

No point.

I continue to learn everyday and I am good with that. I am not content with what I know now, but what the hell would you give a damn about if you knew everything?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why hello Doctor Faustus.

Good ol' Hubris

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why hello Doctor Faustus.

'Resolve me of all ambiguities'

Originally posted by chithappens
No point.

that appears to be a value based judgement

Originally posted by chithappens
I continue to learn everyday and I am good with that. I am not content with what I know now,

that would be my opinion as well. I can't imagine ever being satisfied less there were nothing else to learn, ergo, i want to know everything

Originally posted by chithappens
but what the hell would you give a damn about if you knew everything?

I'll cross that bridge once I'm there

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
'Resolve me of all ambiguities'

"Oh Faustus leave these frivolous demands."

inimalist
wait, things work out for Faustus in the end right, thats the moral?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
wait, things work out for Faustus in the end right, thats the moral?

Not quite. The moral is something along the line of: The last result of wisdom stamps it true; He only earns his freedom and existence Who daily conquers them anew.

chithappens
Ummm, he was physically torn apart at the end (I forget who did it but that is what happened).

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not quite. The moral is something along the line of: The last result of wisdom stamps it true; He only earns his freedom and existence Who daily conquers them anew.

Originally posted by chithappens
Ummm, he was physically torn apart at the end (I forget who did it but that is what happened).

I remember performing the monologue where he awaits the return of mephistopheles, and I know he turns out to be a fairly tragic character, but I don't remember the actual end

needless to say, I realize your point and was trying to be a bit sarcastic, I'll be sure not to sell my soul for magic powers, thanks for the tip :P

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
I remember performing the monologue where he awaits the return of mephistopheles, and I know he turns out to be a fairly tragic character, but I don't remember the actual end

needless to say, I realize your point and was trying to be a bit sarcastic

I figured but just wanted to show off.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll be sure not to sell my soul for magic powers, thanks for the tip :P

Remember kids: knowing is half the battle.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...Remember kids: knowing is half the battle.

What's the other half? confused

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I figured but just wanted to show off.

lol, no, me too, you just did a better job

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Remember kids: knowing is half the battle.

holy shit! pork chop sandwiches

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What's the other half? confused

Hurting people that look different from you.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hurting people that look different from you.

eek! What do you look like?

chithappens
I'm a gremlin

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Remember kids: knowing is half the battle. Yo Joe!!! stick out tongue

chithappens
Go Joe?

Deja~vu
Originally posted by inimalist
why wouldn't you?

like, there is a level of knowledge you would be content with that is less than "everything"? But then you would get depressed knowing that everyone else is really stupid and you still had to talk to them. You'd probably start killing everyone cause we're so damn dumb and can't help i t. sad

Da Pittman
Originally posted by chithappens
Go Joe? Blow Joe??? messed

inimalist
Originally posted by Deja~vu
But then you would get depressed knowing that everyone else is really stupid and you still had to talk to them.

you assume I don't already have that problem

chithappens
laughing out loud Oh that's great

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.