Page 5 of 20 [ 306 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 20  Next

BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

03 Aug 2017, 6:44 am

Lintar wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Human beings aren't special.


Except we are special. Don't you see yourself as being special? At all?

If we really are apes, then why do atheists get so offended when you call them one? Shouldn't they be flattered?

Because people don't mean it as a literal ape, but as an expression.



beady
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 896

03 Aug 2017, 6:57 am

I like logic. Evolution wasn't created out of the clear blue but followed specific concrete discoveries. It would be nice to believe in the fantasy of religion, or that religion makes people better, or that this series of posts actually cared about the welfare of its audience but none of those have been facts in my life.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

03 Aug 2017, 7:23 am

naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
So physicists can show that Newton's Laws of motion fail at the molecular-level.

This has been know for decades.

This was a breakthough in 2013.

In 2013, Physicists Smash Record For Wave-Particle Duality
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... 2c39db8e7b

"The problem is that few large molecules can survive this process. Eibenberger and co solve it by creating tree-like molecules that have a porphyrin core with perfluoroalkyl chains added on. This molecule has the nominal formula: C284.H190.F320.N4.S12".

0_equals_true wrote:
you are not being profound

Another user on this topic said quantum on the molecular level is not possible; that's what I cited it.

0_equals_true wrote:
Newtonian physics works, it not a perfect model neither is the standard model of quantum physics. In fact the standard model is known as a kludge. Newtonian physics is more than adequate for most purposes. It is not disproved. it is correct based on the physical POV it is used under. it works and we relay on every day. Engineers depend on it.
Newton's equations are not imperfect purely on the quantum level, there is classical mechanics of Newton and relative mechanics of Eisenstein. Just like there is quantum mechanic and quantum field theory.
We need to understand relative mechanic to do certain thing such as satellite technology. It doesn't make classical mechanics wrong, it simply makes it less accurate or unsuitable on it own to deal with certain problems.

First, Newton's laws appear to fail. That's the whole point of the "double slit experiment".

Newton's laws say that motion is deterministic, while the "double slit experiment" shows us that motion is probabilistic.

You can't sweep this distinction under the rug without some fantastic explanation.

Einstein didn't like it either.

Your argument that "engineers get good approximate answers sometimes" is not seeing the big picture.

If reality is probabilistic then, classical deterministic formulas are usually wrong.

That's where we're headed.

Building ever-bigger macro-world quantum objects, and showing that classical formulas are wrong in the macro-world.


Actually you're right.

Scientists always make mistakes.

And then later those mistakes are always corrected. And the folks responsible for making those corrections are always...Fundamentalist preachers.

Newton created the theory of Gravity, and then centuries later a Fundie preacher had a revelation. The revelation was that there is no gravity, its warped space. That Fundy preacher was Albert Einstein.

They used to think that the sun went around the earth, but a fundy preacher talked to a burning bush and and the bush told him that its really the earth that goes around the sun. So science was corrected by a Holy Roller snake handling preacher named Galileo.

And so on.

Yep, if it weren't for Fundy preachers correcting those scientists we would all up a creek.

That wouldn't be bad, if science-minded people didn't expect you to swallow their bull-crap.

However, intelligent people like Socrates, "All I know is I know nothing", are few in the science world.

Science needs more humility.

Of course, that wouldn't pay the bills.

So, they turn speculation into "facts".

That's arguably worse than religion.

That's nefarious behavior.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

03 Aug 2017, 8:16 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
So physicists can show that Newton's Laws of motion fail at the molecular-level.

This has been know for decades.

This was a breakthough in 2013.

In 2013, Physicists Smash Record For Wave-Particle Duality
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... 2c39db8e7b

"The problem is that few large molecules can survive this process. Eibenberger and co solve it by creating tree-like molecules that have a porphyrin core with perfluoroalkyl chains added on. This molecule has the nominal formula: C284.H190.F320.N4.S12".

0_equals_true wrote:
you are not being profound

Another user on this topic said quantum on the molecular level is not possible; that's what I cited it.

0_equals_true wrote:
Newtonian physics works, it not a perfect model neither is the standard model of quantum physics. In fact the standard model is known as a kludge. Newtonian physics is more than adequate for most purposes. It is not disproved. it is correct based on the physical POV it is used under. it works and we relay on every day. Engineers depend on it.
Newton's equations are not imperfect purely on the quantum level, there is classical mechanics of Newton and relative mechanics of Eisenstein. Just like there is quantum mechanic and quantum field theory.
We need to understand relative mechanic to do certain thing such as satellite technology. It doesn't make classical mechanics wrong, it simply makes it less accurate or unsuitable on it own to deal with certain problems.

First, Newton's laws appear to fail. That's the whole point of the "double slit experiment".

Newton's laws say that motion is deterministic, while the "double slit experiment" shows us that motion is probabilistic.

You can't sweep this distinction under the rug without some fantastic explanation.

Einstein didn't like it either.

Your argument that "engineers get good approximate answers sometimes" is not seeing the big picture.

If reality is probabilistic then, classical deterministic formulas are usually wrong.

That's where we're headed.

Building ever-bigger macro-world quantum objects, and showing that classical formulas are wrong in the macro-world.


Actually you're right.

Scientists always make mistakes.

And then later those mistakes are always corrected. And the folks responsible for making those corrections are always...Fundamentalist preachers.

Newton created the theory of Gravity, and then centuries later a Fundie preacher had a revelation. The revelation was that there is no gravity, its warped space. That Fundy preacher was Albert Einstein.

They used to think that the sun went around the earth, but a fundy preacher talked to a burning bush and and the bush told him that its really the earth that goes around the sun. So science was corrected by a Holy Roller snake handling preacher named Galileo.

And so on.

Yep, if it weren't for Fundy preachers correcting those scientists we would all up a creek.

That wouldn't be bad, if science-minded people didn't expect you to swallow their bull-crap.

However, intelligent people like Socrates, "All I know is I know nothing", are few in the science world.

Science needs more humility.

Of course, that wouldn't pay the bills.

So, they turn speculation into "facts".

That's arguably worse than religion.

That's nefarious behavior.


You demonstrate how science corrects itself. And then you use the fact that science corrects itself to...discredit science. I still don't follow your seemingly ass backward "reasoning".

Does the fact that religion doesn't correct itself make it better?



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

03 Aug 2017, 9:15 am

naturalplastic wrote:
I wouldn't talk about "nefarious behavior" if I were you.

You admit to playing a charade of pretending to be an atheist when you are actually a Fundy ( you never deny that you do it everytime I ask you about it, so in effect that's a tacit admission that you do it).

Your ad hominem argument is pointless.

Maybe I'm a Cardassian infiltrator, masquading as an ASD person, only to gain intelligence that I can report back to my commander at the Obsidian Order? Hmm.

naturalplastic wrote:
But, main point: you demonstrate how science corrects itself. And then you use the fact that science corrects itself to...discredit science. I still don't follow your seemingly ass backward "reasoning".

Does the fact that religion doesn't correct itself make it better?

No.

The truth of reality is ultimately unknowable to humans.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,533
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

03 Aug 2017, 9:24 am

There's a lot that we have no mechanism to know because once we get to ultimate end-points we lose nearly all of our capacity for making analogies or 'getting at' or under something. About all we can say is that we might be able to get under some of these things with enough tricks but, beneath those things, we likely will find things too abstract to get at.

The problem is that the exact thing we need with the delicate and nuanced stuff, ie. humility, is exactly the opposite of what our core programming seems to be these days which is dog-eats-dog destructive competition. I do worry about that and how it'll impact science as things go on because we seem to be getting more crass as a culture in this regard.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


rick sanchez
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 185

03 Aug 2017, 10:04 am

Lintar wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Human beings aren't special.


Except we are special. Don't you see yourself as being special? At all?

If we really are apes, then why do atheists get so offended when you call them one? Shouldn't they be flattered?



I am an atheist and I do not get offended by being called an ape. In my experience it is the religious folk who are offended by that comparison, because they are of a "higher" order than the beasts.


_________________
Peace among worlds!


rick sanchez
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 185

03 Aug 2017, 10:09 am

Quote:
Science needs more humility.


Because when we think of humility, we think of religion.

Image

Image


_________________
Peace among worlds!


Marknis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,960
Location: The Vile Belt

03 Aug 2017, 10:40 am

rick sanchez wrote:
Lintar wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Human beings aren't special.


Except we are special. Don't you see yourself as being special? At all?

If we really are apes, then why do atheists get so offended when you call them one? Shouldn't they be flattered?



I am an atheist and I do not get offended by being called an ape. In my experience it is the religious folk who are offended by that comparison, because they are of a "higher" order than the beasts.


Exactly. They don't even want to be thought of as animals, period.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

03 Aug 2017, 10:22 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
That wouldn't be bad, if science-minded people didn't expect you to swallow their bull-crap.


If you think that "science-minded people" are full of bull-crap, then I strongly suggest you stop using the internet. And cars, modern medicine, telephones, computers in general, and so on ad infinitum, because ALL of those developments are THANKS to "science-minded people" and their "bull-crap".

Yes, you're welcome.

Then I would suggest you take an elevator to the top of a very tall building, because, after all, Newton's laws don't work anymore since they were superceded by relativity and Q.M. (according to a previous post of yours) and jump off. As an experiment, you know. Just to see what the result would be.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

03 Aug 2017, 10:25 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
The truth of reality is ultimately unknowable to humans.


So... we should just therefore give up in our attempts to understand it? It's all too hard, so let us not even bother?



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

03 Aug 2017, 10:29 pm

beady wrote:
I like logic. Evolution wasn't created out of the clear blue but followed specific concrete discoveries. It would be nice to believe in the fantasy of religion, or that religion makes people better, or that this series of posts actually cared about the welfare of its audience but none of those have been facts in my life.


Fair enough. We don't get enough comments here that are as reasonable as this, and yes, that does include many of the ones that I leave (my volatile emotions tend to get in the way :cry: ).



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,667
Location: Right over your left shoulder

04 Aug 2017, 12:00 pm

The theory of evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life that exists. If any other non-supernatural hypothesis is proposed it should be held to a similar level of scrutiny. Supernatural explanations always seem to fall apart in the face of even the slightest scrutiny and can't be considered as valid or reasonable.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
They have a name for Nazis that were only Nazis because of economic anxiety or similar issues. They're called Nazis.


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

04 Aug 2017, 12:06 pm

No, the biggest lie ever told was, "You can be anything you want to be if you just try hard enough."

Huge crock of shiite.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,533
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

04 Aug 2017, 12:35 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
No, the biggest lie ever told was, "You can be anything you want to be if you just try hard enough."

Huge crock of shiite.

With "Johnny Manziel's a great draft pick!" as a close second.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

05 Aug 2017, 10:04 am


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson