Re: What would science be like if intelligent design hadn't been a dishonest scam?

On 1 Sep, 08:59, "nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx"
<nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeah by no means is this decision theory my own, there are lots of
mainstream and influential scientists who believe likewise.

This is an out and out lie. It is your own personal 'theory' and one
you havnt actualy bothered to really think out properly. In my
discussions with you I have asked you to define your terms, you have
failed to do so in the few attempts you have taken to do that. You
have avoided using commonly understood terms like 'free will' that
would have helped your argument and instead invent new rather vague
terms.

Above all you have never provided a single reference of support for
any of your fledgling ideas. In one case you attempted to say that a
paper agreed with your idea of prediction but, reading through the
paper, it had nothing at all to do with your arguement and was talking
about something completely different (in addition it was an unproven
hypothesis in it's self, although in the correct form to be peer
reviewed).

If you want to talk about how the universe works you will need to
understand science. You will need to know what a scientific theory is.
It's not a subjective idea, it has to be objective - this is simply
because otherwise it's just anacdotal and anyone coult make up any old
rubibish, as they do in this newsgroup on a constant basis much to my
entertainment.

The same rules apply to you as anyone else - if you want anyone to
believe any of your ideas you need to do to do one thing - prove it.
Prove why you ideas are valid.

Proof is not..

Saying lots of people believe the same thing (in your case that is not
true anyway)
Saying X believes it (this is called an appeal to authority)
Saying you are all X so you are wrong (not sure the right name for
this, I call it demonising a mythical enemy)
Inventing up your own terms and repeating them by not defining them.
Claiming that the opposite view is 'unromantic' as you do very often.
The romantic view of something is not wrong but it does not exist in
isolution, the unromantic pragmatic view also exists.
Making up strawmen arguments like 'a science of love' that you attempt
to disprove. They bear no resemblance to what is being said to you.


So.....

The only way those scientists differ a bit from common knowledge

'Common knowledge' is a term that you made up and have not defined.
Your view of common knowledge is incorrect and a bad assumption on
your part. What i know average people to know is many times more than
you are aware of.


is in using the term randomness as equal to decisionmaking,

Concatenated words are part of German and part of Dutch at a guess.
It's an attempt to make up a new word with it's own meaning and says
volumes about your point of view.

seeing that the word
randomness reflects the fact that in the event one or the other of the
alternatives may become realized.

You view alternatives as 'out there', they are only in the extent they
are preceieved. Randomness and alternatives are about perception and
our view of the world. Alternatives are what we create based upon our
perception. The real world does not create alternatives and when we
talk about alternative outcomes it is based upon what we know.

When we talk about randomness it's because we are unable to determine
how something will turn out, like the flip of a coin. The dynamics of
the coin flipping system mean that the input to the system are very
likely to lead to two states, the coin reasting on one side or the
other. But the system it's self is not random, it's 100% cause and
effect. Every single atom in the coin flip adheres to the rules of the
universe, the rules we are aware of part of only. Unless we know each
and every interaction that goes on at all levels of that coin flip,
which is impossible, then we are estimating what the outcome will be.

The universe effectively calculates the state of it's self on a
constant basis through the interaction of a simply staggering amount
of particles, exchanges of energy and interactions.

You started with the concept of decision points. Well there's no
point you can place that 'point' and no need for it. The decisions are
made through simple interactions, not consciousness, not knowing the
future, not prediction, by cause and effect on a scale none of us can
comprehend and perceive.

Nando you don't understand science, I don't think you really
understand how small an atom is, how bit the universe is and how
unimportant we are in the big picture. Your problem is lack of
perception of the world around you and denial of basic information
that is, as far as I'm concerned, common knoweledge. That a grown man
can be alive in this world today and not know that emotions are part
of the brains activity is truely staggering to me, it's like if
someone told you the world was flat, you know it's not as it's
commonly known.

How much other stuff that is commonly known don't you know?

Stew Dean


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: group for photos
    ... There is probably a fine line between the common typo and misspelling ... I came to digital photography late in life and was amazed at the rich ... She loves Art. ... simulate by an algorithm which doesn't generate just randomness in its ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Atheists dying
    ... >> believed that the universe came from a state of ... > to account for the red shift evidence that most of the galaxies are ... ANYONES god the day he,she or it is powerful enough to gets it ... out all around the globe and seemed to have a common experience ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Atheists dying
    ... >> believed that the universe came from a state of ... > to account for the red shift evidence that most of the galaxies are ... ANYONES god the day he,she or it is powerful enough to gets it ... out all around the globe and seemed to have a common experience ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
    ... >> All communication requires the sender and receiver to share a common ... > - some environments ... work the same on compilers I'm likely to encounter -- Micro Focus, IBM, Fujitsu ... works the same on MF, IBM and Fujitsu, that's a universal truth in my universe. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... it is often the case that people see common ... it was always due to insufficient verified data ... Even in a steady state universe there is the question of when did it begin. ... That would be an interesting change to cosmology. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading