There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.

[Cardinal Carminative]

as referred, extremist point of view -

View attachment 657988

howabout the fly ... all beings are conscious. simple as that.

I assume consciousness is on a siding scale with variation across the animal kingdom

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

But according to QM it could.

Not really.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Where do you believe the energy came from to create the universe?

I don’t know. Neither do you or all the earths QM experts.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Because those are the only two states.

You misunderstood. The cat itself is never really in a quantum superposition state. It is either dead or alive, not awaiting you to open the box. This is an analogy meant to deal with the two slit experiment, not a vet school test

 

[ding]

There is no comprehensible way for you express that meaningfully without it being effectively word salad that just sounds deep but isn’t.

I think what you are really saying is that you don’t have an intelligent response so you’ll just throw a little mud on it.

So let me repeat it again because this really is proof that everything is mind stuff.

if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

 

[Cougarbear]

Yawn. In fact, the Catholic Church had approved Bibles in most of the major languages. True, the Church wouldn't give approval for every translation. If an author/publisher wanted their version approved by the Catholic Church, there were exact standards to be met.

The Catholic Church also felt that the Bible should be taught by those who had studied the Bible and also one or two of the original languages of the Bible. There was none of the blase, oh, read it and figure it out for yourself.

Each Church has teachers with their interpretations. As a passage says, it's not for private interpretation. You can read a passage one day and get a different understanding a year later if life changes happen. Happens all the time. Individuals can be inspired.

 

[ding]

You misunderstood. The cat itself is never really in a quantum superposition state. It is either dead or alive, not awaiting you to open the box. This is an analogy meant to deal with the two slit experiment, not a vet school test

The cat simultaneously exists in both states until observed.

Scientists Prove Schrodinger's Cat Can Be in Two Places at Once

A bunch of Yale physicists decided to give Schrodinger's cat not one but two boxes. And that, strangely enough, could eventually prove handy for quantum computing.

science.howstuffworks.com

 

[Meriweather]

You can read a passage one day and get a different understanding a year later if life changes happen.

Yes.

 

[ding]

Not really.

Quite the opposite.

But if you like the idea you should enjoy it.

It’s not an idea. It’s reality. And quite powerful too. You’d be hard pressed saying how not believing that you are more than just matter makes your life better. As near as I can tell the best you can hope for is to suffer life without complaint. That doesn’t sound like quite the opposite to me.

 

[ding]

Not really. Physicists don’t always get philosophy right.

They weren’t discussing philosophy. They were discussing the pervasive relationship between consciousness and matter. They were discussing science. Science is mind stuff.

 

[Cougarbear]

prove what - the example is self explanatory ... for at least a person of average - i q.

- as the reactionary, century repetitive response of the desert religion adherents and their incapacity to formulate a coherent understanding for any logical conclusion ...

cougarbear is the alternate example to the one given if any doubt might still remain.

Personal attacks are a sign of lack of intelligence and knowledge. To quote truth, one has to have an IQ of at least 100 in which doesn't exists in your posts. Just answer the questions. You can't.

 

[ding]

But either way since it is all just pure 100% conjecture and unfalsifiable it doesn’t much matter

Science is mind stuff. There’s your verification. For all you know you are an algorithm in a computer program. Which is mind stuff.

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's a disagreement, not a conflict.

Well, I think you're starting to argue semantics now.

The Catholic Church says that Jesus was born to Mary, and that Mary was a virgin.

Science tells us that's simply not possible.

That is a conflict, especially when the tenets of the Catholic Church have a strong foothold on the idea of a virgin birth...

 

[ding]

I am as qualified to establish what “reality” is as they are.

Pure conjecture without a basis in falsifiability

Ummmm…. No. You aren’t.

Again… science is mind stuff. There’s your proof.

 

[ding]

Does the shape of the puddle magically match the shape of the water in the puddle?

No. If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

But in no way does any of that negate that reality only becomes manifest through consciousness.

 

[ding]

How is it dishonest?

You remove the context. It’s a common tactic used by people who can only argue what they don’t believe. It’s not used by people who can argue what they believe.

 

[ding]

Not really. It’s an extension of QM but not necessarily warranted or accurate

George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli would disagree with you.

 

[ding]

And none of what you quoted was falsifiable so it was pure conjecture on their part. I am as correct as they are

Again…. Science is mind stuff. There’s your proof. Everything can be expressed In mathematical terms which is mind stuff.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Again…. Science is mind stuff.

Once again I disagree. Science is a process by which observation is coupled with hypotheses and testing.

The phrase "mind stuff" seems more like a garbage can term for anything you want it to mean. Again, not useful in the present conversation.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

George Wald, Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker and Wolfgang Pauli would disagree with you.

I don't actually care at all. This is PHILOSOPHY, not Quantum Mechanics.

QM is SUPER LOUSY when it comes to applications in Philosophy because it is so abstract and so technically nuanced that any supposed "philosophical application" runs the risk of just being more new age hogwash. No offense if this is your faith, but it is just that.

We see all sorts of New Age charlatans foisting off QM as somehow describing a reality at the macro level. Doesn't really work that way.

While I respect the QM work of many of these folks you like, when they get off into philosophy it isn't their area. They are free, just as you are, to hypothesize any fanciful thought that comes through their heads, but that doesn't mean it is really accurate.

And when the question is: what is the nature of reality? the answers fall into two categories:

RELIGIOUS
EMPIRICAL

Neither one can be adequately tested to be more correct than the other, but at least with empirical one doesn't tend to overextrapolate the implications.

In other words: what good does it do to explain the universe as "mind stuff" and then pile on a giant word salad that doesn't really have technical meaning?

What really IS "mind stuff"? And how does "mind stuff" cause my toe to hurt when I bump it on the bedpost at night?