Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re^14: Who is your favorite scientist and why?

by james28909 (Deacon)
on Dec 16, 2017 at 00:15 UTC ( #1205632=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^13: Who is your favorite scientist and why?
in thread Who is your favorite scientist and why?

what made you stop believing?
  • Comment on Re^14: Who is your favorite scientist and why?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^15: Who is your favorite scientist and why?
by Arunbear (Prior) on Dec 16, 2017 at 13:07 UTC
    I realised that such belief was just wishful thinking. It was comforting but not based on any substantial evidence or reasoning. It was dishonest because it ignored all the contrary evidence (e.g. for each wonder there is an equal horror).

    Somehow I realised that it was possible to let go of such belief, and still be at some level of peace. But I know how hard it is to let go.

      there is a key difference in the knowledge between me and you. if you are atleast semi fluent in quantum mechanics ( i am no genius or scientist, i just like reading and watching stuff about it) then we are atleast some what on the same page. therefore there is a key piece of information that you are not sharing with me. a tyson quote about "this is a horror" isnt going to work. HORROR IS A HUMAN EMOTION. take the human out of the equation. stop basing the things off of your feelings. look at the facts. i once was atheist, i laughed at people who even contemplated a god or creator. but now i do believe the universe was created. for what reason, i have no idea... no person does. but what seems as "smart" particles popping into existence just because they were measured or observed is what intrigued me i guess. how could a piece of matter have awareness? anyways... maybe you have a different view on it, and i wish you would elaborate even further on your views. it may enlighten me or any future readers.
        a tyson quote about "this is a horror" isnt going to work...
        This is a red herring because I didn't provide such a quote from Dr. Tyson. This is what I quoted:

        But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence?

        No mention of horror there. He shows evidence for the lack of intelligence in some natural designs. Is that hard for you to understand?
        but what seems as "smart" particles popping into existence just because they were measured or observed is what intrigued me i guess

        I agree that is intriguing. I'm not a scientist either so I must defer to their knowledge. Look at what these scientists say e.g. at 2:00 they mention: "Does a microscopic particle spontaneously clone itself in midair?". They admit that they don't know but that probably at the quantum level the particle can be in many places at once.

        The honest answer is to admit we don't understand it fully yet. The easy answer is to say that the particles are smart or have awareness. I prefer the honest approach. It's important to not carry our biases into the quantum world and expect it to behave according to our macroscopic common sense.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1205632]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (6)
As of 2020-04-10 07:19 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    The most amusing oxymoron is:
















    Results (49 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?