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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    Why do I have to trust them?
    You don't have to, but what reason would you have to distrust them, they have nothing to gain by lying and it's not down to their opinion anyway, but genetic information that proves the link.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Lol sorry? I was making a reference to something of Feynman's?
    You asked about how molecules form no? Quantum Electrodynamics is the theory of of how light interacts with matter and explains the formation of molecules and explains much of what you see around you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You don't have to, but what reason would you have to distrust them, they have nothing to gain by lying and it's not down to their opinion anyway, but genetic information that proves the link.
    Okay, but why do I have to trust the idea that genetic information could prove/disprove the link?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Not sure you're in the right thread....
    Unfortunately s/he is... I think this was something proposed by Islam apologist (comedian) Hamza Tzortzis (I-ERA). IIRC, this was an argument for the status quo and hence religion and god... he goes on to say that the only thing most people need is assurance from other people that your mother is indeed your mother. Thus this is an argument that testimony can be trusted and status-quo is always a good thing...?

    What he doesn't realise that one thing is testifiable (and falsifiable)... and the other isn't?

    A simple form of meme theory really.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Anyway its all spiritual and multi dimensional, you won't get it looking at it in one-dimension.
    Everything is multi-dimensional. I don't think it's really possible to look at something in one dimension.

    What do you mean "spiritual"?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    Okay, but why do I have to trust the idea that genetic information could prove/disprove the link?
    Because of all the centuries of scientific experimentation that has tested this and confirmed it. If you wanted to you could do a biology degree then conduct these experiments yourself and see.

    What you seem to be getting at is an issue which is no longer relevant to the specific question you asked, now you're just moving towards the general "why can we trust anything?". While this may theoretically be an interesting issue the reality is that there are things we have to take for granted and as assumptions in our day to day life so as not to be driven mad by the questioning of everything. Your "why do I have to trust this" can be extended to virtually any scenario from the trust that your car brake cables are intact before driving to the trust that the food your mum's serving you for dinner isn't poisoned.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Happy Thor Day for yesterday! X
    Aw thanks! You know, I went to the DIY shop and treated myself to a shiny new hammer in celebration.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    So you base everything on unproven stuff.
    And you don't? Mr Pot, allow me to introduce you to Mr Kettle.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Because of all the centuries of scientific experimentation that has tested this and confirmed it. If you wanted to you could do a biology degree then conduct these experiments yourself and see.

    What you seem to be getting at is an issue which is no longer relevant to the specific question you asked, now you're just moving towards the general "why can we trust anything?". While this may theoretically be an interesting issue the reality is that there are things we have to take for granted and as assumptions in our day to day life so as not to be driven mad by the questioning of everything. Your "why do I have to trust this" can be extended to virtually any scenario from the trust that your car brake cables are intact before driving to the trust that the food your mum's serving you for dinner isn't poisoned.
    You got it. There's no way to actual prove anything. You just gotta have trust and believe (faith).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    You got it. There's no way to actual prove anything. You just gotta have trust and believe (faith).
    Not really. The general religious faith is in something for which there is zero evidence whatsoever, the mundane every day to day faith that my car brake cables are intact and the food my mum serves me isn't poisoned is based mostly on probability and the point is that we could actually test for these things if we wanted to. I could actually get down and look at the brake cables or test my food for particular toxic substances. God is something for which even many theists say there is no physical evidence.

    And maybe I can flip the question on you. Why do I have to trust that we have to trust and have faith?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    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?
    But you didn't argue that there could anything outside of time and space. You just asserted it (or perhaps I missed the argument?) notice that this isn't just to do with God if your point is nothing can exist outside of time and space. You seem to be arguing for nominalism by extension. That's just a consequence for your argument.

    I find your previous scientific points intriguing with their implications for simultaneous causation. There certainly could be wriggle room to argue against it. However, that doesn't settle the contention, remember, though I brought up simultaneous causation and one specific example the main point was to highlight that there is currently no consensus on the directionality of causation. You'll find many a contemporary scientist and philosopher arguing against the basic cause precedes effect. That was my main point. That you need to be aware of the current literature on causation when confidently describing it the way you did.

    Do you think there is some cause and effect in quantum mechanics then? Causality isn't necessarily tied with Newtonian determinism.

    I said that there certainly are interpretations of quantum mechanics which are deterministic. I didn't say that you said all interpretations are correct. I said that they all give the correct answers to measurements and in that sense are equally correct (with regards to verification and falsification). The central point is that, contrary to 'talk meaningfully of the physical world
    , you will need to fashion yourself a scientific hat', you will not be able to use the central tenants of science to discover the true interpretation of quantum mechanics. Your shelf is going to need to make room for a philosophical hat to wear when it comes to physically interpreting QM. Similarly, you absolutely are going to need metaphysics when talking meaningfully of causality. It seems to argue others is to either side with Hume's restricted, empirically based idea of causation or somehow use science (or empiricism) to argue against it. Hume's idea of causation has been brutally attacked with good reasons to reject it. That leaves the latter option, though it seems tough how you could use empiricism to argue against a position which goes only as far as empiricism allows.

    You are right, I didn't compare Einstein to Hume. I said it would be more suitable to compare your position to Hume rather than Einstein.

    I'll just appeal to authority here and use a quote to explain my point:

    'It is true that, given Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, we cannot precisely predict individual subatomic events. What is debated is whether this inability to predict is due to the absence of sufficient causal conditions, or whether it is merely a result of the fact that any attempt to precisely measure these events alters their status. The very introduction of the observer into the arena so affects what is observed that it gives the appearance that effects occur without sufficient or determinative causes. But we have no way of knowing what is happening without introducing observers into the situation and the changes they bring. In the above example, we simply are unable to discern the intermediate states of the electron's existence. When Heisenberg's indeterminacy is understood not as describing the events themselves but rather our knowledge of the events, the Causal Principle still holds'

    And to address you point about not needing philosophical ideas when talking of QM, I guess you could give some reason that would show Einstein and Bhor to be unnecessary in discussing the philosophy of QM?

    'Einstein rejects the probabilistic interpretation of Born and insists that quantum probabilities are epistemic and not ontological in nature. As a consequence, the theory must be incomplete in some way. He recognizes the great value of the theory, but suggests that it "does not tell the whole story", and, while providing an appropriate description at a certain level, it gives no information on the more fundamental underlying level:'

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr–Einstein_debates

    Furthermore, it's just undeniable that to actually understand the quantum physics, more than simply to the standard of representing it on the language of equations, you're going to need philosophical notions. Here's a good, short response on the these philosophical questions, with a teasing conclusion:

    'For all these and other reasons, I tend to be skeptical of ontological interpretations of probabilistic propositions and QM. Subjective epistemological interpretation of probabilities and QM is more coherent with all standard models of reality. Many thinkers in a wide range of fields tend to embrace "ontological indeterminacy" as if it frees them from the language games of logic and vindicates their certainty about free-will and moral agency, none of which are actually related. "Ontologically indeterminacy" is at best ill-defined, and attempts thus far to define it have resulted in contradictions and paradoxes.'

    It's the reply by Quinn Rusnell

    https://www.quora.com/Theoretical-Ph...or-ontological


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Not really. The general religious faith is in something for which there is zero evidence whatsoever, the mundane every day to day faith that my car brake cables are intact and the food my mum serves me isn't poisoned is based mostly on probability and the point is that we could actually test for these things if we wanted to. I could actually get down and look at the brake cables or test my food for particular toxic substances. God is something for which even many theists say there is no physical evidence.

    And maybe I can flip the question on you. Why do I have to trust that we have to trust and have faith?
    You don't have to. Everything you believe is based on trust and testimony. Even the fact that light exists.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    You don't have to. Everything you believe is based on trust and testimony. Even the fact that light exists.
    In the largest sense, yes, but not really a helpful worldview to live by. And that doesn't mean that all things are subject to blind faith as the physical world proves that we can test and confirm certain things while we can't others (disregarding the fact that you could say we don't even know the world exists because then you can't say anything exists which means you cannot even say your religion or god is the right one because technically with that mindset you can't even prove you exist let alone God).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    God is spirit not form. That's why we have Jesus.

    Jesus is God in bodily form, accessible to us.

    Anyway its all spiritual and multi dimensional, you won't get it looking at it in one-dimension.
    You really should stop making all the silly unproved or unevidenced claims and expecting people to buy into it. If you are going to make such claims, at least provide evidence for your beliefs.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    You don't have to. Everything you believe is based on trust and testimony. Even the fact that light exists.
    I can test for light, which has measurable quantities... what is the test for god?
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    In the largest sense, yes, but not really a helpful worldview to live by. And that doesn't mean that all things are subject to blind faith as the physical world proves that we can test and confirm certain things while we can't others (disregarding the fact that you could say we don't even know the world exists because then you can't say anything exists which means you cannot even say your religion or god is the right one because technically with that mindset you can't even prove you exist let alone God).
    The point isn't whether we don't know if the world exists. The point is we have faith that the world exists.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by chemting)
    I can test for light, which has measurable quantities... what is the test for god?
    You can make empirical tests for light. The trust in empiricism is faith based
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumzaAsad97)
    The point isn't whether we don't know if the world exists. The point is we have faith that the world exists.
    Again, extending this viewpoint, as well as being ultimately unhelpful is not actually the same faith as having faith in God. Whether the world is objectively real or not, we can see it, touch it, and conduct tests and experiments on it. Even in this possibly fictitious world we cannot see, touch or experiment on God and so the two, which I feel some people on here are trying to conflate, are different.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    I can test for light, which has measurable quantities... what is the test for god?
    But you have to trust your senses and instruments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    You asked about how molecules form no? Quantum Electrodynamics is the theory of of how light interacts with matter and explains the formation of molecules and explains much of what you see around you.
    Ummm I don't think so. My original question was how was the first cell brought about rather than all of matter. I just assumed the chance of the right molecules reacting to form one nucleotide as a result of nature would be really small let alone a whole cell.
 
 
 
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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.