Are the laws of physics based on magic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fraggle Rocker said:
Why do you jump to the most preposterous conclusions instead of looking for the simplest one first? That's Occam's Razor in a nutshell, and you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. This is what bothers me most about you: You simply do not bother to THINK LOGICALLY. Your brain bounces around looking for the most attractive, fanciful stuff, and you ignore everything else because it just isn't enough fun.
Click to expand...
You don't know where the big bang came from. I am simply positing a hypothesis that makes the soul compatible with nature. Occam's razor doesn't apply because we're not asking for a researc grant.
Science is hard work, and you are not a hard worker. You want everything to be easy and fun.
Click to expand...
Don't get into insults with me. You have no idea how hard I work at my job.

Isn't it possible that the reason we can't define consciousness is that we just haven't studied it enough? We've only been able to map regions of the brain for a few decades, and only at a very high level. We're going to have to do a lot better than that before we can start following thoughts around in somebody's brain.
Click to expand...
Forget the Turing test. When you can makea machine that acts like C3PO, I'll be impressed.
 
spidergoat said:
Consciousness is information, channeled through a thinking system of sufficient complexity to be aware of itself.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, then computers would have consciousness. Computers could make decisions on their own, but they can't.
 
Mazulu said:
You don't know where the big bang came from.
Click to expand...

Notice how the childish mind tosses out an irrelevant remark in some vain attempt to make the other party appear to have a lack of credibility.

I am simply positing a hypothesis that makes the soul compatible with nature.
Click to expand...

So, you positing a hypothesis to show how something that has never been shown to exist is compatible with nature, even though it has never been shown to exist in nature. Hilarious.
 
Mazulu said:
If that were the case, then computers would have consciousness. Computers could make decisions on their own, but they can't.
Click to expand...

One could argue that we can't make decisions on our own either, unless we are programmed by our culture. Nevertheless, computers aren't yet self-aware. But they can make decisions.
 
spidergoat said:
One could argue that we can't make decisions on our own either, unless we are programmed by our culture. Nevertheless, computers aren't yet self-aware. But they can make decisions.
Click to expand...
Spidergoat, I am amazed that the simplest things are overlooked by academics. What about the simplest human drives for money, sex and power? If there is anything that might prevent free will, it is these basic 3 drives.
 
Mazulu said:
Spidergoat, I am amazed that the simplest things are overlooked by academics. What about the simplest human drives for money, sex and power? If there is anything that might prevent free will, it is these basic 3 drives.
Click to expand...
What is the simplest animal with consciousness?
 
spidergoat said:
One could argue that we can't make decisions on our own either, unless we are programmed by our culture. Nevertheless, computers aren't yet self-aware. But they can make decisions.
Click to expand...

One could argue anything but that would be a silly argument...not being able to make a decision without our culture.

Do you need "our culture" to help you make a decision to eat or to sleep? We know our culture might influence what we like to eat and when we typically have our meals but it's certainly not required for making the decision itself.
 
I am simply positing a hypothesis that makes the soul compatible with nature.
Click to expand...

So, you positing a hypothesis to show how something that has never been shown to exist is compatible with nature, even though it has never been shown to exist in nature. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Really , hilarious , a nieve perspective

Biological life is a form of energy as ligitimate and real as in-organic energy is
 
(Q) said:
Martyrdom, of course.
Click to expand...
But martyrdom for what cause or purpose? Who's going to deliberately die for the sake of something he knows is untrue? Not to mention, martyrs feel secure because they "know" that their god will be impressed and they'll be transported to a very nice wing of heaven the moment they die. Who's going to sign up for an early death, for a fraudulent cause, if they know that death is truly final?

Sure, I know that some people are simply wired wrong so we can't understand the motivation for their decisions. But the people who have volunteered to die for Jesus, Mohammed, and the more subtle differences between religions are legion. If there are that many crazy people on earth, then why are they all so crazy in the same way? Why aren't thousands of people going to war because they think baseball is better than football, or Fords are better than Chevys, or reggaeton is better than hip-hop, or Coke is better than Pepsi?

Seems to me that it's only the sports that actually generate a bit of that violent competition, and it pales in comparison to the violent competition among earth's religions. How many people are killed in soccer (European football) riots in an entire decade? Three hundred?

Buddhists don't even wait for a confrontation, they just set themselves on fire!

Mazulu said:
Don't get into insults with me. You have no idea how hard I work at my job.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that makes your manager happy. But you do not work very hard here. The general level of your posts is far below your chronological age. You write as though you genuinely have no idea what we're talking about, and furthermore, that you're not interested in finding out.

Maybe after having it explained three or four times you finally understand Occam's Razor. But you obviously don't yet understand the Rule of Laplace. This makes you a complete outsider in a scientific discussion, because you simply don't grasp the importance of evidence in various circumstances.

If we have to explain everything to you four times, that doesn't speak well for your aptitude for something as complex as science. You basically can't keep up!

If that were the case, then computers would have consciousness. Computers could make decisions on their own, but they can't.
Click to expand...
Computers are programmed, but so are we, by the instincts passed down in our DNA and the rest of our biology.

In any case, computers are steadily becoming more autonomous. It's not clear that consciousness is a prerequisite for autonomy.

And as I noted earlier, for all we know "consciousness" may merely be a convenient word we coined because it makes sense from our perspective.
 
Magical Realist said:
Time effects material objects. Is IT material too?
Click to expand...

MR, were you trying to say that "Time (affects) material objects"?
Really doesn't matter, because time is not material. The passage of time does allow for material things to have an effect on other material things - but is not, in and of itself the affecting agent.
For instance, oxidation - it does take time for oxidation to occur, as in the rusting of iron - but it is still the oxidation producing the affect, not time.

Mazulu said:
Why sure MR! I have a gram of time right here! Har har har!!! I'm just kidding, but your point is solid and indisputable.
Click to expand...

Mazulu, MR's point was not solid, nor indisputable. It would seem that your choice of acolytes is right on par with your inane ability to "...only pick fights that you can win..."!

Mazulu...you preach...

Mazulu...you fail...

Mazulu...you repeat...
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
I'm sure that makes your manager happy. But you do not work very hard here. The general level of your posts is far below your chronological age. You write as though you genuinely have no idea what we're talking about, and furthermore, that you're not interested in finding out. Maybe after having it explained three or four times you finally understand Occam's Razor. But you obviously don't yet understand the Rule of Laplace. This makes you a complete outsider in a scientific discussion, because you simply don't grasp the importance of evidence in various circumstances.

If we have to explain everything to you four times, that doesn't speak well for your aptitude for something as complex as science. You basically can't keep up! Computers are programmed, but so are we, by the instincts passed down in our DNA and the rest of our biology. In any case, computers are steadily becoming more autonomous. It's not clear that consciousness is a prerequisite for autonomy. And as I noted earlier, for all we know "consciousness" may merely be a convenient word we coined because it makes sense from our perspective.
Click to expand...

So I can't keep up, huh? I'm just not buying what you atheists are selling. I am happy to be a lazy dumb atheist, because I don't think it's anything worth learning. Spiritual happiness is a form of wealth unto itself. Atheist dogma has too little value to me. We are told to "have faith" that science will figure out how to create consciousness, but atheists will play a trick on humanity. Atheists will devalue consciousness, cheapen it, until one of their cheap copies is identical to it.

Atheist play a similar trick on humanity with regard to the big bang and creation of the universe. After all (sarcastic tone) a computer model is the same as the real think, right? Wrong. When you atheists can create a real universe from nothing, then you can expunge God. In the meantime, all you can do is brainwash weak minds.
 
By the way, some parts of reality are still non material, non-physical. No matter how much brain washing or bullying you apply, you cannot change that fact.
 
Given some of these hokey scientific theories like time travel, many worlds and a lattice of identical universes (Michio Kaku), I believe there are Jerry Springer shows with audience members who have better ideas about reality than the scientific community does.

(sarcastic tone) Hey maybe the universe is a holograph! Ya know, like a movie projected onto a movie screen? (sarcasm off) But that idea doesn't go anywhere either because causality is all happening on the screen, not the source of the projection.

This cat should be a cosmologist.

funny-pictures-cat-will-do-science.jpg
 
Mazulu said:
Time, wave-functions, physics constants, gravity, space-time continuum, dark matter...
Click to expand...

Wave functions are qualities of material objects at a quantum level. Physical constants are descriptions of how materials act, they are abstractions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top