Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is quite a bit better however, than "faith" where you accept something based on no evidence at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Science is based on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, a scientific or rational belief is one based on quantity and quality of the evidence supporting it.

[ QUOTE ]

Seems kinda simple:

[ QUOTE ]

random

SYLLABICATION: ran·dom
PRONUNCIATION: rndm
ADJECTIVE: 1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Things that seem simple often are not. This is one of them. Certainly you are not naive enough to think that a laymen's dictionary is sufficient to settle questions about precise scientific meanings?


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It can be and it will be. And yet the macroscopic behavior will be the same.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? If so, how?


[/ QUOTE ]

By making measurements, and having others independently make the same measurements and arrive at the same results.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How do I know if evolution is "valid"?


[/ QUOTE ]

How can you know Christianity isn't?


[/ QUOTE ]

I do not waste my life making conjectures about the infinite number of things I cannot know about, for example if there are golden teacups orbiting pluto, if there are parallel universes that I cannot interact with, if there are leprachauns that are so wily that they can never be seen.

I prefer to use my life for more productive pursuits like learning about all the things I can know about.

[ QUOTE ]

You're the one who keeps bringing up emotion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in response to your repeated use of words like "meaning" and "validity".

It doesn't appear that you have any kind of objective criterion for your meaning of those words, so all I can imagine is that these are words that are being used to denote an emotional reaction.

eastbay

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

No, it's not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe "based on" is inaccurate. Science requires fatih would be better.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, you said on the first page that our "genes" make use choose between pancakes and waffles in the morning.


[/ QUOTE ]

The whole issue was about free will. If we are determined by nature we don't have free will. And no, I doubt many will take me seriously. Most people want to cling to free will and meaning in life. Like I said, faith is required.

Re: No one answered me question!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
many people have you figured as being among the elite of the on-line players. you have a website, and seem to be, at times, happy w/ and proud of your play. why? you are just a character in a movie---like the roll on a player piano. you make no decisions, so why should anyone give you credit for having 'talent'? and given your views, how could you make a fool of yourself by having a website? after all, any success you 'display' is not of your doing................b

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point seems to be that life is meaningless since we make no decisions. This is not the case at all. I take great pleasure out of my life. The fact that my life has been predertimened doesn't matter to me in the least. Why should it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Zee, I thought you were an atheist??? By-the-way, how do you define free will?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

No, a scientific or rational belief is one based on quantity and quality of the evidence supporting it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty fundamental that all humans operate on the basis of faith. I'm surprised you contest this. The very possibility of science requires an unprovable assumption that there is order in nature. No amount of reasoning or evidence will make it any less than an assumption.

[ QUOTE ]

Certainly you are not naive enough to think that a laymen's dictionary is sufficient to settle questions about precise scientific meanings?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pure cop-out for several reasons. You equivocate on the meaning of random then pull out the "expert" excuse.

[ QUOTE ]

By making measurements


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you measure the future?

[ QUOTE ]

I do not waste my life making conjectures about the infinite number of things I cannot know about, for example if there are golden teacups orbiting pluto, if there are parallel universes that I cannot interact with, if there are leprachauns that are so wily that they can never be seen.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about conjectures, but knowledge. The comparison of a religion that has affected the lives of billions of people to leprechauns is childish. And you apparently do waste you time on it, witness this dialogue.

[ QUOTE ]

Only in response to your repeated use of words like "meaning" and "validity".


[/ QUOTE ]

You really think those words are provoked by emotion? Really? You think all the philosophers were just emoting? You think all the attempts by science to establish validity were just expressions of emotion?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
Free will is only possible for finite beings if God does not exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty fundamental that all humans operate on the basis of faith. I'm surprised you contest this. The very possibility of science requires an unprovable assumption that there is order in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if I repeat myself, you won't ignore me again. You're being dishonest. You're trying to use one meaning of "faith" in a context different from which it is intended. Religious "faith" is a very different concept than scientific "confidence". From an inductive standpoint, we have 99.99999999% confidence that there is order in nature. THIS IS NOT the same concept as religious faith. DO NOT attempt to equate the two.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

BTW, keep it simple and define "random" as "an event whose outcome cannot be predicted".

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, keep it simple and define "random" as "an event whose outcome cannot be predicted"

[/ QUOTE ]

This definition does not make things easier (as most other "definitions" on this thread) since there are certain events which we can't predict (according to normal senses of the word), but we can assign accurate probabilities to them while STILL call them random (some of us even make money, _consistently_, using this process, that is - by being better than other people in predicting those random events).

Randomness is an extremely tricky concept.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

It's kinda splitting hairs semantically, but just refine the definition to say "an event whose outcome cannot be determined with 100% accuracy".

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe if I repeat myself, you won't ignore me again. You're trying to use one meaning of "faith" in a context different from which it is intended.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would quote the dictionary here but I don't want to give mantis 3 more reasons to post. So I'll give you my definition. Christians believe in God though we can't prove empirically 100% that He exists. Scientists believe in the order of nature even though they can't prove empirically 100% that it exists. You might want to check Hume on this and about a gazillion other philosophers. Both are faith positions.