(March 18, 2015 at 10:17 pm)Chuck Wrote: Again, straw man much?
I said nothing about scientists, QM, or any theory. What I said was I dismiss you based on your preachy and narrow minded doctrinarian view of what fiction ought and ought not to postulate as starting point for scenarios or stories.
Persistent yes, "preachy" no.
Scientific method is a tool, not a religion. Even ethical scientists challenge each other, if they are not, then they are not good scientists.
You jumped in on me in this thread because I equated si fi woo to religious woo. It is the same gap filling laypeople do either way.
Now as far as me, I suck at science, but I do listen to the experts and over the years understand that none of what I don't understand is a licence for me to gap fill. I do know that things that are considered universal knowledge in science are widely accepted and that which is not yet confirmed but working on those people will tell you not to jump the gun.
Neil Degrees Tyson long before his new series cosmos, had a lecture which may still be on Youtube somewhere.
He went through the history of scientists back to antiquity. Far too many would hit a wall and stop and go "god did it" only to have a future scientist explain what they were trying to get past in natural terms. Even in his COSMOS series he constantly reminds us it is ok to give up on bad claims.
I do know that things that are considered universal knowledge in science are widely accepted and that which is not yet confirmed but working on those people will tell you not to jump the gun.
My point is that if you reject rightfully the god Thor being required to explain lightening, that god would have to be conscious to cause that lightening. So if you rightfully reject that idea, and I hope you do, why would we need a computer programmer cognition to cause all this either?
Einstein is a common scientists the theists love to twist. He never believed in a personal god or a human like cosmic entity at all. He was using the word "god" as metaphor for the vastness and power of nature itself.
Si fi fans do the same thing. A scientist will say "we know how to "teleport" photons, and they jump in with Star Trek gap answers which is not what scientists mean by that in reality.
Now if I am being semantic "technically" about "all this" being caused by a cognition bigger than us, "technically" I don't know, but the likelyhood of this being a product of a program in probability terms are so fleetingly unlikely it is not worth dwelling on.
God or product of a cosmic Bill gates, if you don't want to call it a god, in which we are the software and program it still doesn't square with what we know today.
Whatever QM figures out to me, will only give us a better understanding of the bigger picture. I don't think a programmer or god will be needed to fill in that gap.
Stephen Hawking, "A god is not required", so why would any type of cognition be needed to cause all this either?
