South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 21, 2019, 23:02:11 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Atheist Kids (split)

 (Read 7769 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2010, 14:07:59 PM »

Dude, do you even know what dualism is? You must either be incredibly dense, or deliberatly dishonest, to claim that determinism doesn't pertain to dualism.

Quote
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.

Some arguing by assertion. I'm impressed!

Quote
Oh ok smarty pants.

Nope, you're projecting. I simply don't need to quote Wikipedia topic lists in order to make a point  Roll Eyes
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2010, 14:13:37 PM »

5) That must be some kind of record for seeing through Teleological’s agenda-suffused codswallop.

Really? Where is Mefi…
I’m right here, dearie, agog at your posturings.  Quantum indeterminism isn’t like most other physical laws in that it assigns probabilities to outcomes, rather than enumerating precisely quantifiable/determinable causal relations.  Indeterminacy seems to be a fundamental property of nature.  I thought that was clear enough.

ETA:  You write “What about the indeterministic nature of physics that drives chemistry?”  At the level of chemical interactions, the participating agglomerates of matter (atoms and molecules) behave largely deterministically as far as physics is concerned.

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 14:30:44 PM by Mefiante, Reason: Non-dualistic, determinist-materialist teleologisation » Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2010, 14:23:26 PM »

The problem with QI is that its apparent inherent randomness may or may not be true. This in turn leads to it being a very convenient piece of ammo for god-o'-the-gaps type arguments, like the existence of free will.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2010, 14:44:32 PM »

That on its own would be bad enough, but in reality it’s actually much worse.  Bits of QM are regularly abducted by poseurs of various stripes and subverted to “explain” and “prove” all sorts of twaddle and charlatanry, not just spun into quasi-religious claptrap.  QM appeals to our sense of the mysterious because it seems completely weird in terms of our usual experience of the world, its language is arcane mathematics and its role in explaining the universe is both central and fundamental.  It’s no wonder that it has become a target of just about every woo-woo merchant who aims to thrill an ignorant audience.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2010, 14:47:10 PM »

Dude, do you even know what dualism is? You must either be incredibly dense, or deliberatly dishonest, to claim that determinism doesn't pertain to dualism.
Humour me.

Quote
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.

Some arguing by assertion. I'm impressed!
Sell philosophical materialism and naturalism. Let's see if you know what it is and entails.

Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2010, 14:48:58 PM »

5) That must be some kind of record for seeing through Teleological’s agenda-suffused codswallop.

Really? Where is Mefi…
I’m right here, dearie, agog at your posturings.  Quantum indeterminism isn’t like most other physical laws in that it assigns probabilities to outcomes, rather than enumerating precisely quantifiable/determinable causal relations.  Indeterminacy seems to be a fundamental property of nature.  I thought that was clear enough.

ETA:  You write “What about the indeterministic nature of physics that drives chemistry?”  At the level of chemical interactions, the participating agglomerates of matter (atoms and molecules) behave largely deterministically as far as physics is concerned.

'Luthon64

Largely? So... you get fully deterministic processes, largely deterministic processes, minimally deterministic processes and indeterministic processes? Humour me with this assertion of "largely deterministically".
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2010, 14:54:14 PM »

Humour me.

Sure. I'm laffing my arse off.


Sell philosophical materialism and naturalism. Let's see if you know what it is and entails.

Nah. Can't be arsed. I guess you win, right? Here, have a cookie.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2010, 14:59:04 PM »

Largely? So... you get fully deterministic processes, largely deterministic processes, minimally deterministic processes and indeterministic processes? Humour me with this assertion of "largely deterministically".

I'm of the opinion that everything is deterministic, and remain unconvinced of QI, although I'm open to evidence of it (as opposed to mathematical models that subsume it). Our inability to predict particle behaviour at the quantum level doesn't imply that it's fundamentally unpredictable.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2010, 15:54:08 PM »

Humour me.

Sure. I'm laffing my arse off.
Just be clear on this. You are of the opinion the determinism is incompatible with dualism.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2010, 16:16:32 PM »

If one asserts that consciousness cannot be split from physical structure and functioning (which I do), then yes.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2010, 16:22:35 PM »

If one asserts that consciousness cannot be split from physical structure and functioning (which I do), then yes.
Define "physical structure" and what you understand it to be.
Define consciousness and what you understand it to be.
Give an explanation for everyday goal-directed behaviour by making use of your own terms and how you understand "physical structure".

I am also not sure you know what dualism (just like philosophical materialism and naturalism) is. Perhaps you can describe it in your own words just so that we can both understand each other and be on the same page.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2010, 16:50:49 PM »

Largely? So... you get fully deterministic processes, largely deterministic processes, minimally deterministic processes and indeterministic processes? Humour me with this assertion of "largely deterministically".
Yes.  That’s because quantum indeterminacy is scale-dependent.  More exactly, it’s state- and (mass-)energy/time dependent.  As a result, we conjecture virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and not, say, actual fully-formed ignoramuses who somehow manage to persist through space and time far beyond the limits set by the Uncertainty Principle… Roll Eyes



I'm of the opinion that everything is deterministic, and remain unconvinced of QI, although I'm open to evidence of it (as opposed to mathematical models that subsume it). Our inability to predict particle behaviour at the quantum level doesn't imply that it's fundamentally unpredictable.
I suggest having a good look at Bell’s Theorem.  The important points to note are (a) that it applies to all QM models independent of particular mathematical formulations (just as Gödel incompleteness applies to all axiomatic formal systems above a certain minimal complexity); (b) that it has been experimentally validated (though some challenges remain), and (c) that there’s therefore good reason to believe that indeterminacy can only be removed by introducing one or more global variables into QM systems.  Some hitherto unknown communicative aspect of spacetime could be the global variable.  Or, as some mystically-minded start-gun-jumping thinkers would have it, maybe it’s a (deistic) god… Roll Eyes

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2010, 17:03:40 PM »

Largely? So... you get fully deterministic processes, largely deterministic processes, minimally deterministic processes and indeterministic processes? Humour me with this assertion of "largely deterministically".
Yes.  That’s because quantum indeterminacy is scale-dependent.  More exactly, it’s state- and (mass-)energy/time dependent.  As a result, we conjecture virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and not, say, actual fully-formed ignoramuses who somehow manage to persist through space and time far beyond the limits set by the Uncertainty Principle…

Thanks. So what do you have to say about the largely, fully or minimally deterministic or indterministic nature of particle decay and radioactive decay and would you compare those two? I am not sure in which category you would put it. Is there a cause to it or are these acausal features of reality? Would you put it in the same scientific manner as rwenzori does... tada "sh|t happens?

And what are your opinions on Bohmian mechanics?


« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 17:17:46 PM by Teleological » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2010, 20:44:00 PM »

It depends on how many decay-prone particles one is considering.  One cannot predict when, or even if, any one particular particle will decay.  Nor is there any known force or influence that one can subject it to in order to produce, hasten or delay a decay event.  On the other hand, if one considers a large collection of similar decay-prone particles, there are simple statistical laws that govern the collection, the principal parameter of which is the so-called half-life.  This quantity tells us how long it takes for half the particles in the sample to decay, but not which ones they are.  These laws become more and more certain as the number of particles in the sample increases, and, conversely, less and less certain as their number diminishes.  When the sample is down to a few tens of particles, the statistical half-life formulation is practically unusable and unreliable.  The situation is somewhat akin to tossing a fair coin: the more flips one does, the closer the relative heads-to-tails ratio will approach 50:50, but you can’t predict the outcome of any one specific toss with any certainty — just as you cannot predict with any certainty the specifics of how your words are going to get twisted by some predatory, axe-grinding ignoramus who can’t help being an unpleasant creep, as per certain ShoutBox entries…

De Broglie-Bohm theory doesn’t have the explanatory range or elegance of quantum field theory (or gauge field theories, generally).  Several and ongoing attempts to extend it thus have been unsuccessful.

'Luthon64
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2010, 08:18:49 AM »

If one asserts that consciousness cannot be split from physical structure and functioning (which I do), then yes.
Define "physical structure" and what you understand it to be.
Define consciousness and what you understand it to be.
Give an explanation for everyday goal-directed behaviour by making use of your own terms and how you understand "physical structure".

I am also not sure you know what dualism (just like philosophical materialism and naturalism) is. Perhaps you can describe it in your own words just so that we can both understand each other and be on the same page.

Nah. Can't be arsed. I guess you win, right? Here, have another cookie.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.906 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 23, 2019, 10:39:41 AM
Privacy Policy