Topic: Do you believe in the wave-particle duality? Do you have faith in it? (Read 2262 times)

  • Avatar of Terrorantula
  • It's Me, Picasso
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 7, 2009
  • Posts: 1083
Sorry. 
Everyone has the right to be himself; wise men know how to,when, and whether to navigate the boundary between their rights and those of others when they collide.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5537
I don't care if you believe in god. This thread isn't about god or science, this is a dead horse. go away.
Stop posting forever.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5537
Honestly I trust science and believe in God;I think the two can complement each other. Scientific fact can tell us how this world exists, but we, through religion, morality, and ethics have to find our own answers to WHY it exists and what our purpose is here on Earth.  If you actually look, many scientists were also deeply religious; it does not have to be a contradiction. I prefer to believe that there's a purpose to this universe, but I suppose that's a matter of choice.   Both science and religion are among the many tools for viewing and exploring the world; in the long run, neither may be sufficient alone. I in fact hope that the universe, and those within it, will always continue to surprise our heart, mind, and soul.
I don't think there's anything controversial about what you said and it puzzles me why the so-called "new atheists" get angry at things like this. Their view is that religion should always be combated regardless of context because it's inherently bad.

But like you say, there's nothing contradictory about believing in the scientific method and also in some higher purpose such as religion. There are those that say they're incompatible, but that's only true under certain narrow interpretations. Like you said, a lot of scientists (though disproportionately few) have some religious belief; it's just that few literally believe that humans used to be hundreds of years old, or that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or that the global flood from Genesis actually happened and that it wasn't just a moral story but an accurate description of an event.

Whenever I read articles from a typical "new atheist" hangout like /r/atheism I can't for the life of me figure out why these people are so concerned with fairly trivial things.
  • Avatar of tuxedo marx
  • Fuckin' A.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 21, 2005
  • Posts: 4143
new atheism is anti-intellectualism bizarrely masquerading as intellectualism. rather than thinking rationally about the meaning behind these things, the details of a very literal reading are taken and used as a stick to beat religious people with. i was going to write more about this but the complete lack of self-awareness / dignity of it is infuriating me and i think i need to lie down
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5537
new atheism is anti-intellectualism bizarrely masquerading as intellectualism. rather than thinking rationally about the meaning behind these things, the details of a very literal reading are taken and used as a stick to beat religious people with. i was going to write more about this but the complete lack of self-awareness / dignity of it is infuriating me and i think i need to lie down
stupfid itidot shut up this topic i sonly about string particles????
  • Avatar of fuckcrypt
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Feb 24, 2012
  • Posts: 129
new atheism exists just to lay the ideological groundwork for western imperialism in muslim countries
  • Avatar of Terrorantula
  • It's Me, Picasso
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 7, 2009
  • Posts: 1083
Mince, just because you start a thread doesn't mean you're always able to control where it goes.
 I guess my point is that, for me, "faith" is an emotional, spiritual concept that transcends logic and  reason, whereas science, is, in general, founded on logic, so I'd never say I "have faith in" a scientific idea. That would be saying I blindly and unreasoningly believe in a logical idea, which is nonsense.

Everyone has the right to be himself; wise men know how to,when, and whether to navigate the boundary between their rights and those of others when they collide.
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jun 29, 2011
  • Posts: 366
i taped an ipad to my chest and now i'm posthuman.  fuck g*d.
  • Avatar of Terrorantula
  • It's Me, Picasso
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 7, 2009
  • Posts: 1083
Enjoy!  :P
Everyone has the right to be himself; wise men know how to,when, and whether to navigate the boundary between their rights and those of others when they collide.
  • None of them knew they were robots.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Nov 5, 2006
  • Posts: 3242
Yeah go on, turn an interesting thread about interesting scientific facts proven to be true into a boring 2006-esque debate about religion vs science
Play Raimond Ex (if you haven't already)


I'll not TAKE ANYTHING you write like this seriously because it looks dumb
  • Avatar of fuckcrypt
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Feb 24, 2012
  • Posts: 129
Yeah go on, turn an interesting thread about interesting scientific facts proven to be true into a boring 2006-esque debate about religion vs science
The flourth dimension9 is both time and space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 30, 2005
  • Posts: 2533
the problem with these so called atheists are that they aren't merely atheist but are anti theists. There's a huge diference between the two. Also I had been to different churches (all christian) and I just couldn't get into it, I consider myself an agnostic.

EDIT: I jsut realized my avatar is relevant. Carl Sagan is also an agnostic, so even scientists wouldn't completely dismiss any existence of 'god' or the form of god of various religions.`

  • Avatar of fuckcrypt
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Feb 24, 2012
  • Posts: 129
Spacetime is really just a cellular automaton
  • Avatar of Biggles
  • I know your secrets
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 5, 2005
  • Posts: 688
^probably
  • Avatar of fuckcrypt
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Feb 24, 2012
  • Posts: 129
^probably
The multiverse theory is like there being different rules that generate different behaviors in cellular automata. Some universes have complex behavior that gives rise to the existence of organisms, other have repetitive fractal/crystal-like behaviors.
  • Avatar of Biggles
  • I know your secrets
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 5, 2005
  • Posts: 688
I think that the CA hypothesis is closer to the idea that since all possible usable models (or the usable facets of models) are to the best of our knowledge operable entirely bu turing computable functions, we should adopt a model based on computationally efficient operations for how the universe works. CA happens to be a visually appealing representation. It's been stated very differently to sound sensational but that's the crux of it.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5537
Yeah go on, turn an interesting thread about interesting scientific facts proven to be true into a boring 2006-esque debate about religion vs science
Did I say stop posting forever yet because that.
  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 30, 2005
  • Posts: 2533
What's the CA hypothesis?

Also do we have an actual physicist or scientist around here. I only completed basic physics and chemistry subjects.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5537
I think that the CA hypothesis is closer to the idea that since all possible usable models (or the usable facets of models) are to the best of our knowledge operable entirely bu turing computable functions, we should adopt a model based on computationally efficient operations for how the universe works. CA happens to be a visually appealing representation. It's been stated very differently to sound sensational but that's the crux of it.
I've never heard of this, do you mean the Church-Turing hypothesis? That's not a TOE though.
  • Avatar of Biggles
  • I know your secrets
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 5, 2005
  • Posts: 688
What's the CA hypothesis?
Spacetime is really just a cellular automaton
which is equivalent to the hypothesis that spacetime is a turing computer or a lambda calculus program or a P-System or conway's game of life or a computer program etc. i guess it also entails the idea that cellular automata are a good way of investigating it. it does not entail that the universe is a digital electric computer. just that physics consists of symbolic transformation. its primary advocate is stephen wolfram, and most of the other people that advocate is are theoretical computer scientists of some description, usually also with a physics background. to the best of my knowledge, it is considered by physicists to be a fringe theory. it is my conjecture that this is because they believe that discarding the real line would result in a lot of additional work, and because (if i recall correctly) several current physical theories predict uncomputable quantities to exist in the universe.

of course, once you pick up that most if not all mathematics that currently exists can be done on the computable reals instead of the reals, it sounds a lot less dramatic.