RE: The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence
July 30, 2019 at 12:49 am
(This post was last modified: July 30, 2019 at 12:53 am by Anomalocaris.)
(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)comet Wrote:(July 29, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: 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?
one thing at a time. lmao at conviction. like your conviction to no mechanism? but ok, lets look.
I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.
1) QM has made correct predictions every time. that means our math model seems to be correct. Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s). Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.
2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see. Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.
Those two are good enough, Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now. So many others, much smarter than me, think so too. Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT. Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.
what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?
It is not conviction. It is being open to the most logically straight forward, albeit counterintuitive, explanation for a large body of evidence.
Your basis of “we see mechanisms in everything else we see” is in fact wrong. We do not see mechanism in everything. More and more of what we see at quantum level exhibit evidence of defying even notion explanation as the effect of even some theoretical cause. This is why I think the possibility has to be taken seriously that what we see is actually at, or at least very near, the most granular possible level of reality. There is what reality is. There is no deeper reason for it or smaller operation behind it. However the property of this the most fundamental level of reality causes the emergence of the appearance of causation any less granular level.
(July 29, 2019 at 10:33 pm)Sal Wrote:(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)comet Wrote: one thing at a time. lmao at conviction. like your conviction to no mechanism? but ok, lets look.
I have a choice "possibly a mechanism" and/or 'possibly no mechanism". lets apply a little common sense.
1) QM has made correct predictions every time. that means our math model seems to be correct. Our math being correct means there is some type of predictable pattern(s). Patterns imply possible mechanisms for me.
2) we see mechanisms in everything else we see. Since I see mechanisms everywhere, I predict a mechanism for QM too.
Those two are good enough, Toss in the fact that science is looking for the mechanism right now. So many others, much smarter than me, think so too. Nail in coffin ... the standard model as represented by the PT. Thats is why I lean towards a mechanism.
what is your evidence for holding to your conviction of no mechanisms?
QM model seems accurate, if you base it on the probability math behind it. Doesn't mean there are competing models, one that springs to mind is the Pilot Wave model.
It's not like we haven't had accurate mathematical models, but which were based of misconceptions before, like the whole epicircle model of planetary motion.
As to which model is more accurate, IDK.
Lee Smolin had a 1-hour lecture about why QM is incomplete and a 15 minute Q&A:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L690pQhuo
This rubbish. the notion that there may in fact be no deeper level of reality that creates the behavior modeled by math is not founded on the fact that the empirical math describes observation at this level very well. It is founded on the fact that observation shows occurrences at this level defied any possible framework of causation.
