Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    do you believe in god?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The fact that they can be made in the lab so easily using plausible conditions that would have existed on the early Earth suggests that the chances of this happening were not negligible.
    Sorry I wasn't clear earlier . I meant did YOUR human input in making these make a large difference in probability if they were made like this long ago. I was asking whether the DIFFERENCE in these probabilities were negligible.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Sorry I wasn't clear earlier . I meant did YOUR human input in making these make a large difference in probability if they were made like this long ago. I was asking whether the DIFFERENCE in these probabilities were negligible.
    I'm not sure this question even makes sense. How does what I do in the lab affect what happened in the past..?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I'm not sure this question even makes sense. How does what I do in the lab affect what happened in the past..?
    OK say when the first nucleotide was being made (just for explanations sake) the chances of the molecules needed to make it coming and reacting together was 1%.
    When you made the conditions for this to happen in the lab yourself it was a 10% chance of it forming in that lab because of your human input.
    There is quite a difference in the probabilities so isn't really representative.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    That point is irrelevant. Every single one of use makes those assumptions every moment of our lives. We can't actually prove that anything exists - including ourselves. We all just assume it does.



    Science doesn't argue that this knowledge is true. Doing so is just as unscientific as religion. Science acknowledges that we don't and will never know the absolute truth, but that we can at least get closer and closer to it. That's the distinction. Science and atheism are the honest approaches, religion just makes up a story and then claims it is true. The whole backbone of science is a complete lack of faith in anything. We don't have faith in our equipment no matter how accurate it is, because it will always produce slight errors in the results. We don't trust our theories because we can only base them on what we currently know. We don't trust what we currently know because we know that it's an approximation of the truth. The list goes on for quite a while.
    The backbone of science is empiricism. Surely the reason behind the use of and trust of empiricism is completely faith based.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    OK say when the first nucleotide was being made (just for explanations sake) the chances of the molecules needed to make it coming and reacting together was 1%.
    When you made the conditions for this to happen in the lab yourself it was a 10% chance of it forming in that lab because of your human input.
    There is quite a difference in the probabilities so isn't really representative.
    No not at all because the points is that to make them in the lab you use the same conditions that would have existed on the early Earth meaning it is representative, if it wasn't then it wouldn't be taken seriously by scientists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    But the proponent of of simultaneous causation doesn't say that the cause happened outside of the universe or outside of time. You've simply misunderstood. With regards to time, simultaneous equation would happen at the first moment of time.

    Now, you then move to appeal to a lack of cause and effect within quantum mechanics (you appeal to the break down of general relativity and how the relevant question of cause and effect, with regards to the origin of the universe, must be framed within the context of quantum mechanics). The problem is that it's far from clear that cause and effect does not apply at the quantum level. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, they all give exactly the same answer to every measurement. Now you say 'I am arguing science here. This is an argument from direct observation and suggestion by mathematical theory'. Then by your own parameters all interpretations of quantum mechanics are equally correct. Though, some interpretations are completely deterministic. By your own parameters of observation and mathematics, how do you argue 'cause and effect cease to exist on a tiny scale'?

    The notion of causation is studied within metaphysics. Of you want to talk meaningfully of causation, you're going to have to fashion a philosophical hat to use when you need it. Your example of Einstein vs Kant isn't really fitting, it's more like Hume which suits you. An ardent empiricist who cannot take causation to be real in any true sense. Hume argued that it was impossible for human beings to know that the cause and effect relationship is real in any "thick" or interesting sense. He said, first, that our only concept of causality is that of constant conjunction--that B always follows A. There was, according to Hume, no other kind of deep causality to be had, though he found this an unsatisfactory position. He thought he was stuck with it. Worse still, Hume argued that it was impossible to know even that B _would_ always follow A, since that inference was based on induction, and induction could not (Hume thought) be rationally justified. It rested, he thought, on a kind of bare posit of the uniformity of nature.

    Even if we focus in on the question of quantum mechanics and causation, it's a fascinating question that we haven't answered yet. The boring answer most give is a kind of middle ground - the belt of causation is loosened at the quantum level, but exists nonetheless. But this is most likely a way to sit on the fence and accept for sides of the argument. What you need to realise, is that any appeal to quantum mechanics to weaken the causal principle has to argue philosophical notions along with the science. If the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are true, then causation is not affected. But even if the indeterminant ones are true, the causal principle is only weakened if the indeterminacy has ontological significance. If the indeterminacy only has epistemological significance, it affects the causal principle little. For example, if Heisenberg's indeterminacy is understood not as describing the events themselves but rather our knowledge of the events, the Causal Principle still holds.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    My initial argument was that cause cannot exist outside of our universe, because some believe that God is this cause and that he is conveniently undetectable because he is outside of our universe.

    I have not misunderstood. Simultaneous causation does not exist, wherever you try to place it. It is only argued over by philosophers, as scientists have abandoned the idea of simultaneity and superior frames of reference. 'Atomise' that ball resting on a cushion and rethink the idea down to the quantum level of the electron.

    No, I do not say there is no cause and effect in quantum behaviour. I say that you cannot expect Newtonian determinism on such a small scale because it doesn't exist on that scale. You've misquoted me a little there.

    In what way is quantum mechanics deterministic?

    No, I do not say that all interpretations of QM are correct. This literally makes no sense.

    Metaphysics is not a science. If you are going to talk meaningfully about the physical world, you will need to fashion yourself a scientific hat.

    You cannot be seriously comparing Einstein to Hume?! The latter lived IN NEWTON'S TIME. The world had only just been introduced to determinism! Laws were approximations! Inertial mass and gravitational mass were two separate things and we were assuming superior frames of reference and other inaccuracies such as.... simultaneity!

    We do not need to include ideas of philosophy in conversations regarding QM. They are only a distraction.

    I think you have a misunderstanding of the concept of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, can you expand on what you mean by this in this instance?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    OK say when the first nucleotide was being made (just for explanations sake) the chances of the molecules needed to make it coming and reacting together was 1%.
    When you made the conditions for this to happen in the lab yourself it was a 10% chance of it forming in that lab because of your human input.
    There is quite a difference in the probabilities so isn't really representative.
    Get Richard Fenyman's QED out of the library. I'm reading it to!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Or Matthew and the swine with Sea of Galilee (8:28)
    I haven't looked into the other geographical errors to a great extent, but the one found at Matthew 8:28 is indeed a rather minor one and the similarity between the names might explain how the issue arose.

    In codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, Matthew 8:28 mentions a place called Gadarenes (the area of Gadara). The original location is thought to be Gergesa which is on the Sea of Galilee and fits perfectly well with the narrative. However, such a small village is obviously not well known, hence the region of Gadara being referenced instead. One who wasn't familiar geography would have found this all confusing and would have been liable to make a mistake, hence we see Luke and Mark mention the large and well known city of Gerasa (now known as Jerash)

    Offline

    17
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Get Richard Fenyman's QED out of the library. I'm reading it to!
    I have this!
    Will read it over the summer when I'm done with my exams.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    How do you prove that your mother is actually your mother?
    Not sure you're in the right thread....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    I have this!
    Will read it over the summer when I'm done with my exams.
    I love Fenyman! Literally like in the romantic sense, ahhhhhhh
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Not sure you're in the right thread....
    Its says a Q and A, and so I asked a Q.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    Its says a Q and A, and so I asked a Q.
    Can you rephrase, just to help keep the thread relevant?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    How do you prove that your mother is actually your mother?
    I assume you could compare the mitochondrial DNA to find out whether your mother is your actual mother?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Get Richard Fenyman's QED out of the library. I'm reading it to!
    Lol sorry? I was making a reference to something of Feynman's?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    No not at all because the points is that to make them in the lab you use the same conditions that would have existed on the early Earth meaning it is representative, if it wasn't then it wouldn't be taken seriously by scientists.
    Finally! OK thanks I'll look more into how that works.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I assume you could compare the mitochondrial DNA to find out whether your mother is your actual mother?
    I do not know how to do it, neither do I have the tools. So what can be done about it??
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    I do not know how to do it, neither do I have the tools. So what can be done about it??
    You personally don't need to be a genetics scientist, you can submit a DNA sample to one of these clinics and they will do it for you...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You personally don't need to be a genetics scientist, you can submit a DNA sample to one of these clinics and they will do it for you...
    Why do I have to trust them?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.