I find this interesting. I bet if you asked 100 atheists if the stars and planets would be here if we weren't here to perceive them, all 100 would be absolutely sure that they would be. But this is totally 100% unfalsifiable, and those same atheists are always buggering Christians about falsifiability.
I generally don't like to talk about religion because I people always get pissy, even though if you were really 100% faihtful you would really just sit back and laugh. Anyways, I believe you mean falsifiable, not unfalsifiable. Tell me how God can be measured and how the planets can't be? Once you stop believing in God, He stops influencing your life. He stops having a measurable effect on your life, rather. Once you stop believing in the sun and the moon, the tides will still come and go, there will still be night and day, and there will be still be eclipses on occasion. Perception may be our only means to experience reality, but reality is not only our perception. The universe existed and will exist before and after we die.
Even the most advanced physics equations have uncertainties built into them. While it is true that we don't know everything about quantum mechanics or relativity, it's a logical leap to say that these uncertainties will necessarily be resolved into definite values as our understanding deepens. While it's certainly possible that everything is predetermined, we don't have the evidence to say whether it is or not with any certainty. A lack of evidence to prove a conclusion now in no way indicates a specific conclusion reachable in the future.
No, I meant unfalsifiable. Completely and utterly unfalsifiable. This is one of the most unfalsifiable propositions ever: The planets and stars would still exist even if we weren't here to perceive them. The "if we weren't here to perceive them" means that there is absolutely NO empirical evidence which could ever falsify this claim. So it's unfalsifiable. Perhaps occam's razor can be used here, though.
I love your response. I wish everyone who was arguing in this thread articulated their responses as well as you did here, including myself. I'm sorry, I must have gotten lost somewhere. I thought you were trying to say that it was able to be proven wrong.
Another instance where I wish there were a blushing smiley here... Thank you Dink, I've enjoyed your arguing style as well, along with your topic for this thread!
I think we actually do have evidence which suggests that everything is not predetermined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory. Not rock solid, though. I guess Bohm might have saved determinism, but apparently it's the position of most modern quantum physicists that there are no hidden variables.
Well, largely because of Bohm's theory, I'd guess. I don't understand quantum physics very well. To me it doesn't really matter, because whether the universe is deterministic or quantum-probabilistic, there's still no room for the traditional idea of free will. Like that video I linked talked about, whether you're a cog in a machine or some random swerving, you're still not "free" as we normally think about it.
What "traditional" idea? I bet the most standard idea in the past was less well-defined than what is considered standard today.
I actually have a hard time understanding what the traditional idea really is precisely. I'd really like some people who adhere to it to explain it to me. It's the sense of free will that we all have naturally, I think. It's what makes people get upset when you suggest the universe might be deterministic (they always go "No it's not! LOOK, I can raise my arm up, or not, I HAVE A CHOICE!").
That we all have naturally... Boy, big philosophical assumption for someone stressing that he wants to find the unvarnished, unbiased, objective truth. Seems to me that for most of humanity's history, we weren't "free".
I don't pretend to be an expert on physics (quite the opposite, actually), but based on that wiki: 1. There is no reason that there might not be physical phenomena beyond quantum mechanics, yet to be discovered, which might allow for hidden variables to exist. However, Bell's theorem is accepted by most physicists to preclude hidden variables. 2. Hidden variables are at present just another of many interpretations of QM. Time will tell which interpretations are borne out and which are not, but here and now there isn't much compelling evidence to abandon traditional QM. And as for why not all scientists agree, it's pretty rare for all scientists to agree on anything. Not all scientists agree on evolution, although the ones that don't are in a vast minority and the evidence (at present) seems to be well stacked against them. There are scientists on both sides, but at least one side has to be wrong.
Basically I just had a realization. Science and scientists are necessary both to give certain people things to do forever and also to make "new discoveries" and "accepted ideas" capable of justifying the transformations humanity desires to make within itself at each moment in time (or over time, if you're a continuum person). It seems like humans always need a reason to do anything, anyway. Otherwise, people say stuff like, "what's the point?" or "why?"
That's a very interesting framework to look at it through. I wish my t-break were over, I'd love to spend a session thinking on that one.
Indeed. Those cookies have gone through an incredibly complex manufacturing and distribution process, run by thousands and thousands of people, all just so you could pop them in your mouth without even thinking a second about it.
Yeah, but harder to get where I am. And more expensive! Whereas in 2 weeks I'll have my harvest finished, and plenty of weed.
That is a good thing I suppose. I can get my hands on $10/hit, 200 mcg blotters of LSD so I am not complaining, haha.