I'm so glad you said that before that post of mine where I went into the same thing (reply to Bushido.)

Just one problem: so what if it's an idea/game? Labeling it idea or game doesn't change what it is. (Although it may change one's own attitude or perspective toward it - which may or may not be beneficial depending on the person.)

This is ultimately why I started pressing you about this topic.

Scientists do indeed admit that they don't know everything and that some things don't add up. That's what science is all about ... admitting what you don't know and doing what you can to figure it out! Sometimes admitting a 'folly' is just a step in the discovery process.

I guess since religion itself is a 'folly' it would be hard for a religous organization to admit the same. Might lose some followers (money/power/control) to real evidence-based lifestyles.

And quantum mechanics does not leave anything open to mystical explantions. There are rational explanations that are not yet discovered. Science isn't an ultimatum handed down by some sky-fairy ... its a continously changing body of knowledge.

Hrm, let's scan a bit-

"You can't expect the young greenhorns to comprehend this kind of wisdom" = inexperienced fool
"believes that he's a sack of atoms that's not playing any game" sort of= shallow fool
"If you ever grow up" = foolish child
"filling people full of your pseudo-science nonsense" = stupid fool

In two pages you've devalued people four times, or three if that first one wasn't part of the meaning in what you were saying. My personality analysis of you in all this time says that you probably meant that subconsciously but I can't say for sure so I'll make the numbers nicer and say three.

But hey, three is practically the same as zero compared to infinity right?

Most of the people that call something deep can't understand anything greater than "ankles deep."

You certainly call it a failure a lot for being aware of that.

Yet you won't tell us what subject you taught or give any of that sort of information.

It looks suspiciously like (read: is clearly) you're just saying this so you can sound like an authority and then just feed up appeals to authority nonstop.

Of course, if you're not just baiting us you can share a little bit of that information. We're no asking for your social security number or anything after all~

A bit nitpicky but I wouldn't say the entire cities were destroyed. With conventional bombs we lit up a city in the middle east (sorry, I don't recall the name and search results are too loaded with terrorist bombings,) for about three days and killed about 1/2 as many people as either of the nukes we dropped (averaged.) My memory is, unfortunately, really fuzzy here.

Anyway, we chose big urban areas that a 3 mile wide circle would devastate but avoided smaller targets for fear that they might be able to recover a dud bomb and reverse engineer it.

However you might just be using the term "destroy" loosely in which case I'm only clarifying that you meant basically the same as devastate.

That's always how it has to be before people give any ground in "God matters."

Quite a ways back saying that Pi was an irrational number was too offensive to people's beliefs but today it's undeniable. No creator seems a similar belief, though significantly less violently enforced, and years and years down the road people won't be able to deny the things that don't fit it.

I don't see how this is a good transposition. As an atheist I seem to be asking a lot of questions and saying that we know an awful lot. This is rather opposed to "you can't know the will of God" and related ideas.

I've even suggested that our actions could be deterministic which means that if you can just get a proper snapshot of the universe for a single moment you automatically know everything, so long as you have the computing power to handle it.

What coin are we talking about?

You're an annoying pest. Attacks on character are not valid arguments any more than ad hominem so please deal with the topic dumbass.

He'd imagine us to have someone to fight.

But really what's meant there is clearly that abra is dellusional and living in his own little fantasy world cut off from the reality the rest of us reside in. Talking to him is much like arguing with a brick wall.

Every decent scientist understands that you can't tell laymen the whole story because they won't understand it. You've got to keep it simple so they have some indication of how important different concepts are.

We're all of the understanding that we don't give a shlt if you prove things exist. On the assumption that our world does exist we can prove lots of things.

Explain to me how you can tell that Pi is not a rational fraction and I'll let you talk about how much we actually know. Before then (or similar subject,) you're only allowed general concepts because you twist things out of context so much.

How so?

argument from ignorance fallacy, if you pursue that as an actual reason for any of that mysticism to be valid.


Show us that you comprehend the hinges of this door before you talk about it's position.

It's close to interchangeable with "perfect" in the etiquette sort of way. "Impeccable timing" being the sort of thing where you manage something at exactly the right moment so impeccable words would basically just be perfectly clear.

Unfortunately scientific terms are not recognized by layman so we have to spend a lot of time explaining them in simpler words (just to have abra lie to me about already knowing. He's vaguely familiar at best.)

The very reason scientists are looking for a single unified theory to describe all of the interactions from the micro to the macro is becuase currently we have lots of little tools that do not work the same describing different scales of reality.

Then you add the very empirical fact, the well studied observations that quantum behavior does not occur at the macro level, and that the mathematical probabilities once you involve millions(no less the billion trillion's that are really involved at real levels) of particle interactions it shows that the time it would take to have a reasonable chance of a macro quantum effect such as tunneling to occur would be many many many orders of magnitude a greater length in time then the current age of the universe.

If brain states are all nothing more then entangled states from some spirit realm then it defies the math without some kind of mechanism to account for it, so its easy to sit here and ask for the mechanism, much harder to produce it, however who would think they know anything about it without that mechanic being understood?

Apparently abra, he thinks its reasonable to explain poorly documented phenomena (paranormal ect) <--(thats me being generous btw) with quantum phenomena that cannot be said to occur in the way it would need to in order to be the explanation he wishes.

Thats fine, as long as we are all clear on that missing part that turns miracle into science.



But oh wait it gets better instead of choosing just rather easy paranormal events lets try to cram an intelligent creator into that mechanism. Forget Consciousness, free will, the paranormal that's easy sauce, cram an eternal intelligent creating designing all knowing non physical spirit being into that gap. Now not only do we have a missing mechanic that makes the math go from improbable bordering on the never, we have no positive language to identify this designer to compare our mechanic to for a confirmation.

That is what is really being discussed here, just thought id make that plain.

So we need a mechanic and a link to this crevice where this designer resides at least to say QM supports design.

Fun stuff.

If you had half the experience you claim you'd know that science only deals with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," much like our court system.