The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[comet]

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 is true. for sure.  All i did was give reason as to why I lean toward QM having some mechanism.  lmao, Yes, the QM model is woefully incomplete.  Many people do not understand that. 

thanks for the link.

---

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.

---

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.

well, you calling rubbish is the red flag.  but lets compare your claim to them side by side. Also my conviction is exactly the same as your conviction. I think it looks like there is a mechanism. when I see dta that doesn't suggest one I will change my opinion. I don't really care if there is a mechanism or not, I only think it looks like there is one. thats all.

The claims.  

mine: I think QM has a mechanism 
your claim: QM doesn't have a mechanism.

My evidence: due to the math model making predictions and (modified to remove absolutes) everything we understand has a mechanism I lean toward a possible mechanism over no mechanism.

Your evidence to why there is no mechanism: 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. And You also stated that not everything we see has a mechanism you pointed to QM.

we can see that your statement(s) is very accurate and true.  we also see that it is not actually a piece of evidence that says there is no mechanism. let me explain:

a) You stated "QM defies any reasonable explanation." thats true. Its just not evidence for no mechanism.
b) The part about me sayig "everything we see has a mechanism" is wrong is ok. I change it to "the standard model is based on mechanisms so i think QM has a mechanism." be that as it may .. QM not having a mechanism is not evidence, thats what we are talking about and isn't evidence.

conclusion, until you offer evidence to why you don't think there is no mechanism I still lean (thats lean toward) QM having a mechanism.

Do you have any other piece of evidence to offer?