Who throws the dice for you?

[Heywood]

Not an argument from ignorance.

Do you actually think saying "nuh uh!" is a rebuttal?

There was nothing to rebut. Your droning, "argument of ignorance" or "god of the gaps"...doesn't change my proposition into those things.

My proposition is that artifacts of our reality suggests the existence of God(or more accurately a supernatural element). How does that proposition appeal to ignorance? It doesn't.

It appeals to observations of quantum randomness. It appeals to the acceptance of a theorem which shows such observations cannot be explained by local physical hidden variables. We are not ignorant of either of these things.....both are accepted as facts of reality.

Perhaps instead of just droning "argument of ignorance" you can spell out why you think it is an argument of ignorance.

[Esquilax]

There was nothing to rebut. Your droning, "argument of ignorance" or "god of the gaps"...doesn't change my proposition into those things.

Believe me, I've read enough of your posts to know how happy you are to remain incorrect.

My proposition is that artifacts of our reality suggests the existence of God(or more accurately a supernatural element). How does that proposition appeal to ignorance? It doesn't.

Saying "science can never explain this," certainly does appeal to ignorance.

It appeals to observations of quantum randomness. It appeals to the acceptance of a theorem which shows such observations cannot be explained by local physical hidden variables. We are not ignorant of either of these things.....both are accepted as facts of reality.

This, right there: "we can't explain it yet, therefore we never can," is top to bottom an argument from ignorance. And I guarantee you that no scientific conclusion worth its salt would make such a blanket generalization as "such observations cannot be explained," without adding the caveat that this doesn't mean "can never be explained," which is what you wanted us to take from this.

Hence, argument from ignorance.

[Heywood]

There was nothing to rebut. Your droning, "argument of ignorance" or "god of the gaps"...doesn't change my proposition into those things.

Believe me, I've read enough of your posts to know how happy you are to remain incorrect.

My proposition is that artifacts of our reality suggests the existence of God(or more accurately a supernatural element). How does that proposition appeal to ignorance? It doesn't.

Saying "science can never explain this," certainly does appeal to ignorance.

It appeals to observations of quantum randomness. It appeals to the acceptance of a theorem which shows such observations cannot be explained by local physical hidden variables. We are not ignorant of either of these things.....both are accepted as facts of reality.

This, right there: "we can't explain it yet, therefore we never can," is top to bottom an argument from ignorance. And I guarantee you that no scientific conclusion worth its salt would make such a blanket generalization as "such observations cannot be explained," without adding the caveat that this doesn't mean "can never be explained," which is what you wanted us to take from this.

Hence, argument from ignorance.

When you say information can't travel faster than the speed of light is that an argument from ignorance?

Negative Esquilax it is not. It is a fact of reality.

When it is said that quantum randomness cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables it is not an argument from ignorance but something accepted scientifically as a fact of reality.

Quantum mechanics might be wrong. Bells theorem might be wrong. But if both are true(and they are accepted to be true), then it is a fact that some observations cannot EVER be explained by hidden local physical variables.

That's the way the world is.....Get over it and move on. Droning "argument of ignorance....or God of the gaps" isn't going to change reality.

[Esquilax]

When you say information can't travel faster than the speed of light is that an argument from ignorance?

Negative Esquilax it is not. It is a fact of reality.

When you make a blanket generalization about the entirety of a thing without knowing every variable of the thing, then yes, what you are using is an argument from ignorance. What you're saying is that your experience of a thing leads you to believe that this is true, and hence it definitely is true across every part of it, even the parts you are ignorant of.

When it is said that quantum randomness cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables it is not an argument from ignorance but something accepted scientifically as a fact of reality.

Quantum mechanics might be wrong. Bells theorem might be wrong. But if both are true(and they are accepted to be true), then it is a fact that some observations cannot EVER be explained by hidden local physical variables.

I guaran-fucking-tee you that the science on this does not say "cannot EVER be explained" by anything at all. That's because scientists aren't in the business of making unsupported assertions, like ideologically motivated theist fallacy-makers are.

That's the way the world is.....Get over it and move on. Droning "argument of ignorance....or God of the gaps" isn't going to change reality.

Gosh, that's such a blow to my position! "If I'm right, then I'm right!"

Heywood, we've talked before, and you've never once been able to recognize the fallacies in your arguments, so I'm under no illusions that you'll suddenly understand this one, but getting bitchy over your inability to comprehensively demonstrate a single facet of your assertions just makes you look like a spoiled toddler.

[Heywood]

When you say information can't travel faster than the speed of light is that an argument from ignorance?

Negative Esquilax it is not. It is a fact of reality.

When you make a blanket generalization about the entirety of a thing without knowing every variable of the thing, then yes, what you are using is an argument from ignorance. What you're saying is that your experience of a thing leads you to believe that this is true, and hence it definitely is true across every part of it, even the parts you are ignorant of.

When it is said that quantum randomness cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables it is not an argument from ignorance but something accepted scientifically as a fact of reality.

Quantum mechanics might be wrong. Bells theorem might be wrong. But if both are true(and they are accepted to be true), then it is a fact that some observations cannot EVER be explained by hidden local physical variables.

I guaran-fucking-tee you that the science on this does not say "cannot EVER be explained" by anything at all. That's because scientists aren't in the business of making unsupported assertions, like ideologically motivated theist fallacy-makers are.

That's the way the world is.....Get over it and move on. Droning "argument of ignorance....or God of the gaps" isn't going to change reality.

Gosh, that's such a blow to my position! "If I'm right, then I'm right!"

Heywood, we've talked before, and you've never once been able to recognize the fallacies in your arguments, so I'm under no illusions that you'll suddenly understand this one, but getting bitchy over your inability to comprehensively demonstrate a single facet of your assertions just makes you look like a spoiled toddler.

You're failing here Esquilax.

You are claiming that I am saying that my proposition must be right because Quantum Mechanics and Bells theorem have yet to be proven wrong.

But I have never said that. If did, then you should be able to find a quote of me saying that.

In fact I have said Bells theorem or Quantum mechanics could be wrong. I even tendered Bohmian mechanics(which is completely deterministic) as an alternative to Quantum mechanics.

Either you just aren't following along or you're so incredulous in your belief that any suggestion of a supernatural element must be God of the Gaps or Argument of Ignorance that you subconsciously cherry pick only parts of the discussion.

Edit: If you want to keep Quantum Mechanics and Bell's theorem but eliminate quantum randomness, you can always accept Hugh Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as an explanation for the observance of randomness.....that's another possibility.

[Esquilax]

You're failing here Esquilax.

You are claiming that I am saying that my proposition must be right because Quantum Mechanics and Bells theorem have yet to be proven wrong.

No, I'm saying that anyone saying that X can never be explained by Y, without knowing what the explanation for X actually is, is committing an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how Y would explain this, therefore it can't," is the subtext of that.

Since you're saying that quantum mechanics and Bell's theorem state that a given thing can never be explained, and my contention is that you've either misunderstood the actual science, or you're overselling the conclusions it came to to reach your desired conclusion. No scientist worth their salt, leastways where accepted theories are concerned, would make a statement like you're characterizing it.

And if you're actually saying that these two things could be wrong, then you haven't really got much of an argument there. You literally would be saying "if I'm right, then I'm right!"

So you're either saying wrong things, or saying nothing at all. Enjoy picking which you wanna go with, there.

[Heywood]

No, I'm saying that anyone saying that X can never be explained by Y, without knowing what the explanation for X actually is, is committing an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how Y would explain this, therefore it can't," is the subtext of that.

Why does not knowing the explanation of X preclude you from eliminating Y as a possibility? I don't know who killed Bob but I know it wasn't Alice because she was sleeping with me at the time of the murder. You're saying it doesn't matter that I know Alice didn't commit the murder...as long as I don't know who did then I must consider the possibility that it was Alice. That's ridiculous. Bell's Theorem tells us that the cause of quantum randomness is not the existence of hidden local physical variables. So while I don't know what the cause of Quantum randomness is....I can eliminate hidden local physical variables from consideration.

Since you're saying that quantum mechanics and Bell's theorem state that a given thing can never be explained, and my contention is that you've either misunderstood the actual science, or you're overselling the conclusions it came to to reach your desired conclusion. No scientist worth their salt, leastways where accepted theories are concerned, would make a statement like you're characterizing it.

If you want to make the argument I misunderstood the science then learn the science and make it. You cannot just claim I misunderstood the science and expect that to be a persuasive counter argument if you are unable to show how I misunderstood the science. You're making a blind assertion which is a waste of time.

And if you're actually saying that these two things could be wrong, then you haven't really got much of an argument there. You literally would be saying "if I'm right, then I'm right!"

Negative....its more along the lines of if your premises are true then your conclusion is true.

[Cato]

No, I'm saying that anyone saying that X can never be explained by Y, without knowing what the explanation for X actually is, is committing an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how Y would explain this, therefore it can't," is the subtext of that.

Why does not knowing the explanation of X preclude you from eliminating Y as a possibility? I don't know who killed Bob but I know it wasn't Alice because she was sleeping with me at the time of the murder. You're saying it doesn't matter that I know Alice didn't commit the murder...as long as I don't know who did then I must consider the possibility that it was Alice. That's ridiculous. Bell's Theorem tells us that the cause of quantum randomness is not the existence of hidden local physical variables. So while I don't know what the cause of Quantum randomness is....I can eliminate hidden local physical variables from consideration.

Jesus tits Heywood, where do I begin, oh yeah....you're full of shit!

Let's recap: You cite Bell's Theorem and supporting experiments to conclude that there are no local hidden variables. MOTO (master of the obvious), this is a well accepted position in QM land. Next you go back to the EPR paradox to then state that if there are no local hidden variables then we get Einstein's "spooky action at a distance". Again, I'm with you; there are no surprises here.

This is where you come off the rails. We understand superposition and we know what entanglement is; however, nobody understands what the mechanism is.....nobody!!!! But wait, our savior is here. Without any evidence you come swooping in (insert triumphant horn blasts) to tell us God makes it happen. Textbook argument from ignorance. Whether you admit it or not is irrelevant.

I did find it highly amusing that you used Bob and Alice for your murder mystery. For those that don't know, Bob and Alice are the ubiquitous actors in quantum mechanics thought experiments. I'll submit this as evidence that you are scouring QM internet sites/discussions hoping to find a job for your unemployed God.

So, while real quantum physicists are designing experiments to use photons from distant quasars to eliminate that last logical loophole in Bell's Theorem type experiments you are claiming God. Care to bet on who gets published? Let me guess, you'll answer 'NEGATIVE' and complain that there is a conspiracy/persecution that prevents your hypothesis from being taken seriously.

[Heywood]

Jesus tits Heywood, where do I begin, oh yeah....you're full of shit!

Let's recap: You cite Bell's Theorem and supporting experiments to conclude that there are no local hidden variables. MOTO (master of the obvious), this is a well accepted position in QM land. Next you go back to the EPR paradox to then state that if there are no local hidden variables then we get Einstein's "spooky action at a distance". Again, I'm with you; there are no surprises here.

This is where you come off the rails. We understand superposition and we know what entanglement is; however, nobody understands what the mechanism is.....nobody!!!! But wait, our savior is here. Without any evidence you come swooping in (insert triumphant horn blasts) to tell us God makes it happen. Textbook argument from ignorance. Whether you admit it or not is irrelevant.

I did find it highly amusing that you used Bob and Alice for your murder mystery. For those that don't know, Bob and Alice are the ubiquitous actors in quantum mechanics thought experiments. I'll submit this as evidence that you are scouring QM internet sites/discussions hoping to find a job for your unemployed God.

So, while real quantum physicists are designing experiments to use photons from distant quasars to eliminate that last logical loophole in Bell's Theorem type experiments you are claiming God. Care to bet on who gets published? Let me guess, you'll answer 'NEGATIVE' and complain that there is a conspiracy/persecution that prevents your hypothesis from being taken seriously.

Cato,

I positively love the way you write...but on to the discussion. You have a hypothesis. You hypothesize that I have been scouring QM internet sites/discussions. You then go on to claim that my use of Alice and Bob suggests that your hypothesis is true. You are not making an argument from ignorance.

There is a hypothesis that God exists. I claim that the fact we know quantum randomness cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables suggests that the God hypothesis is true. I am not making an argument from ignorance.

An argument of ignorance requires one to conclude something is true on the basis that it hasn't been proven false. Neither you or I make that fallacy.

Last, I am not looking to get published. If I was, I would just write a book and have it published.

[Cato]

There is a hypothesis that God exists. I claim that the fact we know quantum randomness cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables suggests that the God hypothesis is true. I am not making an argument from ignorance.

An argument of ignorance requires one to conclude something is true on the basis that it hasn't been proven false. Neither you or I make that fallacy.

I agree that you have never claimed your God hypothesis is true simply because I can't disprove it; however, making the assertion with absolutely no evidence that God is complicit in entangled particle state value causality is essentially the same thing. Absent evidence I can replace 'God' in your statements above with The Man from Atlantis, Sasquatch, or the Easter Bunny and the argument remains the same. You give us absolutely no reason to accept your claim other than we can't prove it to be false. This is why some of us have been so adamant in labeling your claim 'an appeal to ignorance'.