Science and Randomness

[The Grand Nudger]

Generally those things have been deemed as unexplained, or unknown. Whether or not it's random (or seemingly random - whichever the case may be- would likely have less to do with whether or not the mechanism is unknown than it would with whether or not this unknown mechanism was predictable. Some scientists may hope that it's a temporary state, but there's no guarantee of that. It would be disappointing to find that some secret of the cosmos was forever locked to scientific inquiry, but not being an oracle or soothsayer how could this be ruled out? Science doesn't "believe anything, because science is a process. An individual scientist might believe that, sure, or they may not, or they may throw their hands in the air and say "I don't know". Some may hope that we could eventually -figure it all out- while believing that we probably wont. You're free to come up with as many juxtapositions as you please, we are talking about people here after all.

1 Random probably isn't the word you're looking for. Some things can be and have been (in many respects)complete unknowns - while not being random at all
2 I wouldn't know what scientists overall believe, or if they believe.
3 We've already found one huge area we may never be able to penetrate (and we have some compelling reasons for that suspicion- though they themselves could be argued to break down at this point as well).
4 There are already plenty of questions science can't answer, a great many of them have to do with things that are very well known. Depending on who you ask though, they might tell you that while science -could- answer this or that, the answer might be less than satisfying. For example, should I have crackers with my chili?

Before you can explore, You might want to seriously consider whether or not you're already laboring to smuggle in some magic.

[Mark 13:13]

Generally those things have been deemed as unexplained, or unknown. Whether or not it's random (or seemingly random - whichever the case may be- would likely have less to do with whether or not the mechanism is unknown than it would with whether or not this unknown mechanism was predictable. Some scientists may hope that it's a temporary state, but there's no guarantee of that. It would be disappointing to find that some secret of the cosmos was forever locked to scientific inquiry, but not being an oracle or soothsayer how could this be ruled out? Science doesn't "believe anything, because science is a process. An individual scientist might believe that, sure, or they may not, or they may throw their hands in the air and say "I don't know". Some may hope that we could eventually -figure it all out- while believing that we probably wont. You're free to come up with as many juxtapositions as you please, we are talking about people here after all.

1 Random probably isn't the word you're looking for. Some things can be and have been (in many respects)complete unknowns - while not being random at all
2 I wouldn't know what scientists overall believe, or if they believe.
3 We've already found one huge area we may never be able to penetrate (and we have some compelling reasons for that suspicion- though they themselves could be argued to break down at this point as well).
4 There are already plenty of questions science can't answer, a great many of them have to do with things that are very well known. Depending on who you ask though, they might tell you that while science -could- answer this or that, the answer might be less than satisfying. For example, should I have crackers with my chili?

Before you can explore, You might want to seriously consider whether or not you're already laboring to smuggle in some magic.

So would it be fair for me to place each individual random event as by their nature in to the category of unknown. Smuggling in magic mmh where could I put it as it doesn't exist in my philosophy any more than yours.

[Psykhronic]

Unknown does not automatically equal random and vice versa

[Mark 13:13]

Unknown does not automatically equal random and vice versa

Yep that why I ask; but maybe i need to say the outcome of a random event. not to say everything in the unknown box may be there from different causes.

[Aractus]

Can a true Scientist ever accept that at some point there will be a limit to their ability to use science to understand the mechanism of a particular event and that, that event or those events be deemed as random and from then on science will be the exploration of the patterns and laws the result from these random process." beyond this point there be monsters"

Science - ie Physics - is about theory and not about truth. To say we understand the points we have theories on is a stretch, because scientists are constantly working on new theories that will totally obsolete the old ones. I don't understand why you're apprehensive about science though? Everything has limits, even the Bible has limits.

[Mark 13:13]

Can a true Scientist ever accept that at some point there will be a limit to their ability to use science to understand the mechanism of a particular event and that, that event or those events be deemed as random and from then on science will be the exploration of the patterns and laws the result from these random process." beyond this point there be monsters"

Science - ie Physics - is about theory and not about truth. To say we understand the points we have theories on is a stretch, because scientists are constantly working on new theories that will totally obsolete the old ones. I don't understand why you're apprehensive about science though? Everything has limits, even the Bible has limits.

I better respond to this before others see it and skin you alive lol. I am not apprehensive about science oddly enough its my favourite subject and even more odd I love the physics even though I can't understand half the stuff as my knowledge of physics and maths wont do. But present day physics is going so deep into things and the more they find the more wonder I find in the Universe; i can now have a sense of wonder in what I can't see from earth. But in my mind science and religion are not mutually exclusive at least not for me and I would make an educated guess not for a large amount of Christians. But if Athiests claim that they arrive at or hold their position based on logic and science it would be kind of dumb for me not to explore that to see what it is they find compelling there and see if I can at least challenge that in time but even if I can't at least I will have a better understanding than I did before about their position. As well as that Just because they have some good cards in this end of the debate doesn't mean we don't either and if i don't look how can I find.

[pocaracas]

Science - ie Physics - is about theory and not about truth. To say we understand the points we have theories on is a stretch, because scientists are constantly working on new theories that will totally obsolete the old ones. I don't understand why you're apprehensive about science though? Everything has limits, even the Bible has limits.

I better respond to this before others see it and skin you alive lol.

You big mean man.... I wanted to skin him alive!!

[Faith No More]

ps whats FNM

Yours truly.

[Aractus]

I am not apprehensive about science oddly enough its my favourite subject and even more odd I love the physics even though I can't understand half the stuff as my knowledge of physics and maths wont do.

I'm going to stop you right there. I don't listen to a sermon I don't understand and think "wow this preacher really knows his stuff", nor do I do it - or should I do it - with science. There's no point in expressing a For or Against POV for something which you fail to understand. I'm not saying I fully understand physics - of course I don't - but what interests me, and what I find interesting and fascinating is the things I research and understand, not the things that nobody understands or the things that "I don't understand". I hope that makes my point clear.

But present day physics is going so deep into things and the more they find the more wonder I find in the Universe; i can now have a sense of wonder in what I can't see from earth. But in my mind science and religion are not mutually exclusive at least not for me and I would make an educated guess not for a large amount of Christians.

Most Xians - in fact most people and even most scientists aren't interested in physics to begin with, so it makes no difference to them. In the same way that I, personally, am really not all that interested in biology.

But if Athiests claim that they arrive at or hold their position based on logic and science it would be kind of dumb for me not to explore that to see what it is they find compelling there and see if I can at least challenge that in time but even if I can't at least I will have a better understanding than I did before about their position. As well as that Just because they have some good cards in this end of the debate doesn't mean we don't either and if i don't look how can I find.

Some of the top scientists are Christians - one of the world's top astrophysicists is a regular attending member of my church as I pointed out in a previous thread. Atheists and scientists in general don't appreciate theists who reject theories of science, like say evolution, on the basis that it conflicts with their religion (their world-view).

[The Grand Nudger]

Science - ie Physics - is about theory and not about truth. To say we understand the points we have theories on is a stretch, because scientists are constantly working on new theories that will totally obsolete the old ones.

Not strictly speaking accurate amigo. Newtonian physics dropped our probes on Mars. In fact, an accepted "theory" is a body of work so well attested that future discoveries would seem to be more likely to modify, rather than replace them (or make them obsolete).

Now, Mark...

But in my mind science and religion are not mutually exclusive at least not for me and I would make an educated guess not for a large amount of Christians.

Can you remember a time in which the contents of your mind did not actually match the contents of the world outside of your mind? That you and many others might believe that your faith doesn't continually beat its head against a wall doesn't actually mean that it doesn't.

As well as that Just because they have some good cards in this end of the debate doesn't mean we don't either and if i don't look how can I find.

It's not an issue of who holds better cards, but rather who is holding any cards. If you (or, to be blunt, magical thinking as a whole) held any cards whatsoever, they would have long since been on the table.

Smuggling in magic mmh where could I put it as it doesn't exist in my philosophy any more than yours.

A bold faced lie, though admittedly, you may have sold yourself on this whopper long before you ever tried it out on me. It's only your reasonable distaste for the subject of magic that leads you to attempt to distance yourself from it. Your magic, as we so often hear, is not magic.