Even the 'law of causality' as that book calls it, has been questioned by physics. Look at quantum mechanics - the lines of 'cause and effect' are very blurred.
Last edited by localzuk; 10th August 2010 at 09:25 AM.
However, you would also be wrong in calling it 'quantum theory' as there are no scientific theories as yet relating to quantum mechanics. Instead, there are a large number of working hypotheses which are undergoing experimentation and refinement. It only becomes a theory once it has been proven, by observation and repeatable experimentation.
Also, it would depend on which interpretation of quantum mechanics I subscribed to. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation does rely somewhat on subjective reasoning, but the causal interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation both rely on empirical evidence.
Observation does not alter or decide the outcome - observation simply collapses the wave state into a single possibility, so that there is an outcome. There's still a lot of investigation going on into what makes up an 'observer'. There are a lot of misunderstandings about quantum theory and the role of the observer in the experiment. It is less important than pop science trash books try to make out.
localzuk - I have to say that the causal interpretation makes for the best science fiction, and the best headaches.
I've pointed out the blatant fallacy of your position and you have never addressed that - only bleating on repeatedly about empirical evidence that has always been NOT part of the subject that you are trying to address. You won't see the point and that's not uncommon.
I am prepared to respect your point of view. It seems your position denies you the opportunity to reciprocate. QED.
No, you've claimed that my position is false, and your only reason for it being so is because your belief should trump any scientific evaluation of evidence. I still contend that your religion, your beliefs, are no more valid than any other religion, and no more so than the theory of the great space teapot.I've pointed out the blatant fallacy of your position and you have never addressed that - only bleating on repeatedly about empirical evidence that has always been NOT part of the subject that you are trying to address. You won't see the point and that's not uncommon.
As has been said before - you don't seem to comprehend my point of view. I have no disrespect for religion, but I do for the idea that one religion is any more correct than any other belief structure based purely on assertions over evidence. Particularly when the main argument being presented for it is then that evidence is not required.I am prepared to respect your point of view. It seems your position denies you the opportunity to reciprocate. QED.
An assertion is not evidence in the slightest. I can assert anything I want to.An assertion, yes. I have no issue with that.
Incidentally it's quite obvious you don't understand what QED means.
Quod erat demonstrandum - which is to be demonstrated - i.e. that which is definitively proven by the evidence put forwards.
Last edited by jamesb; 16th August 2010 at 02:17 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)