Who throws the dice for you?

[Anomalocaris]

God is now a non-local hidden variable in QM. If anything, that's an argument I haven't heard before.

Think of it as god of the gaps diminished in stature from something roughly the size of solar system to planck scale.

It seems like science has forced god to undergo something like a cosmic inflation in reverse.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Would have been easier to just invent a new gap. But I guess that would involve the god thesis being at the forefront of scientific (and human) advancement, which it hasn't been for many hundreds of years.

[Tobie]

God is now a non-local hidden variable in QM. If anything, that's an argument I haven't heard before.

Think of it as god of the gaps diminished in stature from something roughly the size of solar system to planck scale.

I foresee someone coming along and using a Schrodinger's cat style situation as an argument for the existence of a god.

[Heywood]

I'm glad you agree that science suggests there must be elements of reality that are inaccessible. The observable natural world isn't all there is.

---

No, I do not agree.

Observable natural world may or may not be all there is. But the fact that it is in principle unobservable means in its broadest sense whatever may or may not be there has no detectable impact in principle and is thus totally indistibguishable from not being there.

So assertion that there must be something worth asserting there is as good as a petulent fart in polite company.

You can't ever know it is there, so don't pretend it is there.

Chuck, do you tell the string theorists not to believe extra dimensions or other physicists not to believe in multiple universe?

I think its become very difficult to construct a coherent world view with out employing the need for elements of reality to exists outside the observable.

When did I ever claim that I experience events at the quantum level? I only claimed that in my experience randomness is a subjective experience resulting from ignorance of all the elements which cause a particular outcome of an event.

Then your experience is irrelevent. Appending it to description of quantum event is at best a non sequitar, at worst a conscious duplicity.

Randomness is not a consequence of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics doesn't say what randomness is.

If you don't think I should rely on my personal experience to determine what randomness is you need to give me something else.

[smax]

People like you undoubtedly dream baselessly of some kind of eternally blissful afterlife. But if we are both being honest, no compelling evidence of such a thing exists. Well, that is, except for the notion that we will all eventually transform back into pure energy. Perhaps there is bliss in that.

Negative Smax

I doubt you will ever see me argue the existence of an afterlife.

Apparently, we cannot be certain.

[Anomalocaris]

Chuck, do you tell the string theorists not to believe extra dimensions or other physicists not to believe in multiple universe?

I think its become very difficult to construct a coherent world view with out employing the need for elements of reality to exists outside the observable.

No, string theorists hypothesize there to be extra dimensions. This means they propose how these dimensions can in principle be detected so the hypothesis can eventually be distinguished using observation from a fart in the wind.

A world view is only coherent if it coheres to what can be observed. If it is difficult to construct a coherent world view then work harder and observe more. It does not do to usurp observation with wishthinking.

Then your experience is irrelevent. Appending it to description of quantum event is at best a non sequitar, at worst a conscious duplicity.

Randomness is not a consequence of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics doesn't say what randomness is.

If you don't think I should rely on my personal experience to determine what randomness is you need to give me something else.

No. It is okay to say, and it is possible to determine, known principles don't apply, without having determined what principles do apply.

The local mechanistic simulation of randomness do not appear to apply to quantum uncertainty. We don't know what applies. As yet we can not exclude the possibility that randomness is a fundamental property without deeper mechanism. It so happens this randomness disappears statistically on any scale we were evolved to detect, therefore we are lacking in basic circuitry to grasp this intuitively and must bow to best fit math solutions.

[Tobie]

No, I do not agree.

Observable natural world may or may not be all there is. But the fact that it is in principle unobservable means in its broadest sense whatever may or may not be there has no detectable impact in principle and is thus totally indistibguishable from not being there.

So assertion that there must be something worth asserting there is as good as a petulent fart in polite company.

You can't ever know it is there, so don't pretend it is there.

Chuck, do you tell the string theorists not to believe extra dimensions or other physicists not to believe in multiple universe?

I think its become very difficult to construct a coherent world view with out employing the need for elements of reality to exists outside the observable.

No self-respecting physicist would claim to believe in extra dimensions or parallel universes. Also, who says extra dimensions etc. are unobservable? A theory doesn't become part of "standard science" (stuff that is generally accepted in the scientific community) unless it is at the very least an observable phenomenon.

[Heywood]

God is now a non-local hidden variable in QM. If anything, that's an argument I haven't heard before.

Think of it as god of the gaps diminished in stature from something roughly the size of solar system to planck scale.

It seems like science has forced god to undergo something like a cosmic inflation in reverse.

Negative Chuck,

A god of the gaps argument requires a gap in our understanding. This is not the case as we understand there are no local physical hidden variables behind the randomness at the quantum level. This is a case of scientific understanding that is consistent with a theistic world view.

[Anomalocaris]

Think of it as god of the gaps diminished in stature from something roughly the size of solar system to planck scale.

It seems like science has forced god to undergo something like a cosmic inflation in reverse.

Negative Chuck,

A god of the gaps argument requires a gap in our understanding. This is not the case as we understand there are no local physical hidden variables behind the randomness at the quantum level.

There is a gap in our understanding. We do not know what, if anything of any type, is there behind quantum behavior. So you insert "god" when a variety of other conjectures, including "nothing", based on our best understanding, serves just as well and vastly more economically.

But the difference is most of those other conjectures would likely be attended by falsifiable predictions and is thus subject in principle to observation and will honorably admit defeat and leave the field when falsified. God is too dishonest a principle to ever admit defeat when falsified and the minds of the faithful will exercise their meager juices to construct an infinite number of fallback trenches behind the current front line for god to retreat to.

[Ryantology]

In my experience randomness is not something objective. Randomness is just ignorance.

In my experience, you can replace the word 'randomness' with the phrase 'religious faith' and construct a more accurate statement.