Re: Dawkins for president


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
You will probably say that "darwinism" recognizes decisions or
probability as originatin from a deterministic causative schema, or
that there are no "decision points."

Yes.

This is not true. Quantum
randomness research is a completely separate field from evolutionary
biology. Prior to the decision of a quantum event, there is no way to
tell what the decision will be, and the decision is not, according to
current models, decided in advance. It is random, and the point of
decision is the point at which loss of superposition takes place.

You are the sole Darwinist here who temporarily recognizes a point of
decision, which you never have before, i guess. When I not put you
under pressure, you will not acknowledge any point of decision anymore.

Flatly untrue. I have never refused to recognize quantum randomness in
this or any other usenet thread. I never intend to, unless my
understanding of the evidence behind them radically changes. Can you
cite examples of scientists on this NG doing so?

I'm merely the only one charitable enough to see quantum theory from
your point of view. I'm not charitable enough to allow you to say that
the TOE opposes the existence of quantum randomness. If this is so,
why have you failed to point out any evidence this is so? Why do you
appear to be the only person in the world who thinks so?

In that limited sense, you're right. Where you're wrong is in its
relation to the TOE. There is none.

Try and be reasonable huh. One can surely easily see in this thread the
engrained opposition of Darwinists towards any science of free
behaviour.

We see them opposing your "science" because you refuse to enumerate it
or state its theories in a way which allows testable predictions.

I went above and beyond politeness and started writing your theory for
you. I'd really like to see you finish it.

In any case when we follow through on the science of free behaviour, we
will arrive at various decisionpoints, which increased and decreased
the probability of, for instance, makind appearing. That is the basic
creationist mindset on how to think about origins. There is a decision
from whence it appears. This decision is owned by a spiritual being.

You're trying to attribute quantum randomness to a conscious
intelligence? As far as I am aware, this is impossible to support.
Unless you can produce a predictive algorithm for "random" quantum
events which has a high rate of success, the only novel component of
your theory will be untestable and hence religious in nature.

I suggest you address your fellow Darwinists to convince them of a
science of free behaviour. So that we may counterbalance our scientific
understanding of human beings acting in terms of genes, with scientific
understanding of them acting as free agents, so that we don't become
scientific racists. And that we may counterbalance our understanding of
the universe in terms of natural forces, with an understanding of the
universe in terms of unique decisions, so that we may not become
atheists.

I will do no such thing. Your "science" is incomplete, its novel
components are untestable, and its testable components find universal
agreement. You have much more to do before you will have a scientific
theory.

The TOE does not imply physical determinism, and neither it nor PD
imply racism. Human beings are free to act as they will, or behave
like they are, and their genes are not sufficient to laud or condemn
them. I'm surprised that you would think they could be, given the
amount ov variation even within families. Certainly no one else is in
danger of this fallacy.

There are two problems with your last comment. Most christians see no
problem with the TOE, and are able to reconcile their Theism with
science. I'm not sure about the Muslims in the world, but I have a
feeling it's the same story. A recent POTM would seem to say so.

Also, I have no immediate need to shape my understanding of science
around the prevention of Atheism. I see nothing wrong with Atheism or
Atheists. Also, Science is what it is regardless my preferences. I
hate Apple juice, and would love if it was proved cancerous, but if I'm
ever running a study on apple juice, it's my duty to accurately report
the results, regardless my feelings. You'll find that most people on
the group feel the same way.

I want to say that I really value our discussion. It's been
entertaining and informative, and your ideas about quantum theory,
while purely religious, are among the most novel and intriguing
religious ideas I've heard in a long time.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Ari Allyn-Feuer.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Everything Is Moving
    ... The concept of Randomness is founded on the assumption of absolute ... Quantum Mechanics assumes that quanta are building ... it is also logical that within a static collection of members ... While relativity is littered with a mixture of verifiable true ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Does anybody have any evidence that all evolutionary events are
    ... Non-epistemic randomness is unpredictability due to the fact that the ... Quantum phenomena, in particular quantum wavefunction collapse, ... Planets are hold in one piece by gravitational and chemical binding ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Universal determinism and science
    ... In other words randomness is useful at the ... science but something scientists can use. ... There is always noise. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Does anybody have any evidence that all evolutionary events are
    ... Non-epistemic randomness is unpredictability due to the fact that the ... Quantum phenomena, in particular quantum wavefunction collapse, ... Planets are hold in one piece by gravitational and chemical binding ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: anti-biotic resistance theory false?
    ... > know the outcome of randomness in a human brain, ... and not pretend that the weather is solely *caused* ... > inhibit science in any way. ... > not say Jews should be killed, and you may not say Jews are hateful ...
    (talk.origins)