The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[Anomalocaris]

Let's drill down a b, then. What do you mean by the term 'mechanism'? In what sense does QM provide a mechanism?

What QM does is allows the calculation of probabilities. When macroscopic samples are being dealt with, those probabilities have a small enough spread (standard distribution) to allow very precise calculation of overall behavior.

For example, to be a mechanism, is it required that there be little particles bouncing off each other? Or is a collection of rules for calculating probabilities enough? The first is clearly excluded by QM and the second is exactly how QM describes things. Does a mechanism have to be deterministic? If so, are you assuming determinism is true in spite of the contrary evidence?

It seems to me that the fact that we can build cell phones shows that we *do* understand how things work (mechanism or not). I'm still not clear what difference there is between that and knowing 'what something is'.

As for Bell's inequalities (and related results), QM perfectly describes what is going on. There are correlations that travel at less than the speed of light. When a measurement happens, the correlation is revealed.

I didn't say QM provides a mechanism.  I said, to me, it shows that there is a mechanism for space/time at it fundamental level.  If anything, QM shows that we do not know what the mechanism is.  which we do not.

you seem to be saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, that there are no mechanisms.  I am saying that I think there are mechanisms.  All i am saying is that because we make predictions with QM that I think there is a mechanism to it.  we do not know what that mechanism is tho.

I don't agree with you about using QM and Gravity.  Just because we can use it doesn't mean we know what it is.  My wife has no idea 'what a car is", she only knows how to use it.  the same thing goes for QM and gravity.

Lets clear that bit up first before we go to "something".  ok?

What is the basis of your thinking there is a mechanism?  Other than some conviction that any behavior must have a mechanism?

Let's say, hypothetically, it is in principle correct that any behavior must have underlying mechanism, so there must be underlying mechanism beneath QM.   Would each component of that mechanism in turn requires yet more granular sub-mechanism to justify the behavior of the mechanism?    So do you postulate an infinite stack of mechanisms, like a building that has no foundation because its basement goes down infinitely deep?  Or do you accept at some level the stack stops, because the entire stack of mechanism can in fact be supported on some ultimate discernible foundation beneath which there are no further mechanisms?