A Prerequisite To Discussing God - Page 5

Trantor · #41 10-09-2005, 01:33 PM

This is, in my view, simply absurd. However,I presume you are up to date with recent developments in the double slit experiments? What do you consider the most significant, in the last year say?

What is suprising to me is that you regard it as so important to yet you aparantly are inclined not to believe what all experiments to date demonstrate...or are do you believe that the hidden variable theory might turn out eventually to have experimental support? Your mind set in at least one previous post (to this one of mine..the predicting a coin toss) is one of prequantum mechanical, Newtonian determinism which doesn't even take into account classical chaos theory.

You obviously are entitled to a view but I would suggest a liitle less arrogance (so British that,,,what I really mean is with no arrogance). Why not explain why it is important in your view not assume that because you think it is it must be so?

David Sklansky · #42 10-09-2005, 03:37 PM

"Thats like saying that Aristarchus of Samos (270 BC), had no business debating/suggesting that the Earth revolve around the Sun because he didn't know about it's relationship to gravity (Sir Isaac Newton 1686 AD)."

No its not. I'll let others elaborate.

IronUnkind · #43 10-09-2005, 05:16 PM

But I assumed your statement was predicated upon the idea that consciousness causes collapse. If the role of consciousness is taken out of the equation (as it is in some interpretations of QM), then how is the experiment central to the discussion of God?

scalf · #44 10-10-2005, 02:32 AM

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] to try to find g*d
thru the intellect is; as mohammed suggested; like asking a donkey who is toting a sack of books to comment on their contents...

think about it.