Nondualism vs Dualism

[Jehanne]

I never claimed that.  What I have claimed is that a scientific understanding of the Universe is based upon the Conservation Laws.  If a single instance of a macroscopic violation can be repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions, 

All you have shown is the laws are maybe false or  .... Why posit a God? You are replacing a mystery with a bigger mystery.

The time to consider a God is when you can show it is even possible.  Argument from incredulity

This is a "bridge" that neither of us will ever encounter, let alone cross; it's all a disagreement over a nonexistent hypothetical:

“If it turns out that there is a God...the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.”
― Woody Allen

[madog]

All you have shown is the laws are maybe false or  .... Why posit a God? You are replacing a mystery with a bigger mystery.

The time to consider a God is when you can show it is even possible.  Argument from incredulity

This is a "bridge" that neither of us will ever encounter, let alone cross; it's all a disagreement over a nonexistent hypothetical:

“If it turns out that there is a God...the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.”
― Woody Allen

Amen to that 

[Simon Moon]

How you know a God is even possible, that even if such existed it could effect the natural world is just a faith position  ... 

While you maintain your position that anything you can't understand is God, I'm done 

I never claimed that.  What I have claimed is that a scientific understanding of the Universe is based upon the Conservation Laws.  If a single instance of a macroscopic violation can be repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions, such is proof, for me at least, of something non-physical in the Cosmos.  Call such an entity what you will; I would call such a being "God".

Do you have a verifiable example of a "single instance of a macroscopic violation can be repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions"?

If there were, I believe it would be pretty newsworthy. Maybe even Noble worthy.

By the way, I think that AC Clarke was wrong.  Any advanced civilization would still be subject to the Conservation Laws.  Faster-than-light travel is a physical impossibility, no matter how "advanced" a civilization might be.

I believe you may be misinterpreting Clarke's famous quote here. There is nothing in his quote concerning advanced civilizations being subject to the laws of the universe, yet still being perceived as magic to less advanced civilizations.

[Peebothuhlu]

By the way, I think that AC Clarke was wrong.  Any advanced civilization would still be subject to the Conservation Laws.  Faster-than-light travel is a physical impossibility, no matter how "advanced" a civilization might be.

 That... wasn't the poiont I was trying to make.

Also, if I am understanding it correclty, the Alcubierre drive actually will alow for FTL speeds.

What I was trying to explain is that just because something exhibits properties that we don't currently understand does not make them/it a diety.
 CHeers.

Not at work.

[Jehanne]

I never claimed that.  What I have claimed is that a scientific understanding of the Universe is based upon the Conservation Laws.  If a single instance of a macroscopic violation can be repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions, such is proof, for me at least, of something non-physical in the Cosmos.  Call such an entity what you will; I would call such a being "God".

Do you have a verifiable example of a "single instance of a macroscopic violation can be repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions"?

If there were, I believe it would be pretty newsworthy. Maybe even Noble worthy.

By the way, I think that AC Clarke was wrong.  Any advanced civilization would still be subject to the Conservation Laws.  Faster-than-light travel is a physical impossibility, no matter how "advanced" a civilization might be.

I believe you may be misinterpreting Clarke's famous quote here. There is nothing in his quote concerning advanced civilizations being subject to the laws of the universe, yet still being perceived as magic to less advanced civilizations.

A.C. was not a scientist, but he was a futurist. IMO, any civilization a billion years ahead of us would still have computers that were at most several times faster than we what got. Moore's Law is dead, and quantum computing is a pipe dream, kind of like renewable nuclear fusion.

[Rahn127]

Quantum computing isn't that difficult a concept. Another 50 years and we'll have it.

As far as a more advanced civilization goes, there is so much more for us to discover.

Imagine a transporter device like they use in Star Trek that would produce people it needed after a probe had landed on a habitable world.

You wouldn't have to send people into space. All you need to do is send the information to recreate a human once the probe lands.

Given enough time, we'll be teleporting around the Galaxy.

Or perhaps civilizations stop moving and simply become content with a humble life of living in harmony with nature.

Who knows

[Peebothuhlu]

A.C. was not a scientist, but he was a futurist. IMO, any civilization a billion years ahead of us would still have computers that were at most several times faster than we what got.  Moore's Law is dead, and quantum computing is a pipe dream, kind of like renewable nuclear fusion.

 Clarke was both a Mathematician and a Physicist.

He was the first to come up with the idea of syncronised, geostationalry communications satelites. So he was practical as well as 'Futuristic'.

Again, my point is trying to show that if some one/thing presented strange and esoteric behaviour we would first have to rule out a LOT of things before we start throwing terms such as 'Magic' and 'Miracle' about.

Moore's law is not quite as dead as you postulate. We've just gotten cleverer at working around the constraints.

As for fusion? The reasons for its time of development are many and varied... the main of which is that it's obviously quite hard to tame a stellar function. Our physicists can make a freakin' shape charge out of a fiussion explosion. Taming fusion is another puzzle they are beavering away at solving.

Just because man was never ment to fly didn't prevent people from launching themselves off the ground untill a couple of fellows figured out how to miss comming back down.

Civilizations a billion developmental years ahead of us might use mechanical, nano sized gear driven Babbage analog computing systems instead of electronic digital computers for all we know of how things develope technologically.

More years still doesn't mean folks will come across the same ideas as one another, regardless of both aving the same undelying physicss beneath them.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Jehanne]

Quantum computing isn't that difficult a concept. Another 50 years and we'll have it.

As far as a more advanced civilization goes, there is so much more for us to discover.

Imagine a transporter device like they use in Star Trek that would produce people it needed after a probe had landed on a habitable world.

You wouldn't have to send people into space. All you need to do is send the information to recreate a human once the probe lands.

Given enough time, we'll be teleporting around the Galaxy.

Or perhaps civilizations stop moving and simply become content with a humble life of living in harmony with nature.

Who knows

Your post is excellent; I could not disagree more.

[Angrboda]

Do you have a verifiable example of a "single instance of a macroscopic violation can be repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions"?

If there were, I believe it would be pretty newsworthy. Maybe even Noble worthy.


I believe you may be misinterpreting Clarke's famous quote here. There is nothing in his quote concerning advanced civilizations being subject to the laws of the universe, yet still being perceived as magic to less advanced civilizations.

A.C. was not a scientist, but he was a futurist. IMO, any civilization a billion years ahead of us would still have computers that were at most several times faster than we what got.  Moore's Law is dead, and quantum computing is a pipe dream, kind of like renewable nuclear fusion.

I seem to recall how people around the end of the 19th century were predicting the end of science and things discoverable. You seem to be displaying hubris in place of actual fact and argument.

[Jehanne]

A.C. was not a scientist, but he was a futurist. IMO, any civilization a billion years ahead of us would still have computers that were at most several times faster than we what got.  Moore's Law is dead, and quantum computing is a pipe dream, kind of like renewable nuclear fusion.

I seem to recall how people around the end of the 19th century were predicting the end of science and things discoverable.  You seem to be displaying hubris in place of actual fact and argument.

Apples & Oranges.  As I am not a scientist, I cannot possibly be accused of any "hubris".  Every scientist that I have ever read and/or heard is in agreement that some things are impossible, period.  For instance, some chemical reactions are impossible, and so, things like the Pauli Exclusion Principle are not mere "hunches" or "feeling", but rather, the way Nature has come to be.  (Reality would not exist otherwise.)  Ditto for FTL ("Faster-than-light") travel and/or communication.

As for the 19th-century hubris on the part of some physicists, they were mostly right -- Newton & Maxwell have done a very good job of explaining much, if not most, of what goes on in our World.