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

[ding]

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.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Mind stuff is consciousness. It’s the only thing which can exist outside of space and time because it is no thing. Things can’t exist without creating space and time. Consciousness has no such limitation.

It’s like I’m free guy trying to explain to an npc that he’s an npc. Your reality doesn’t exist. It only exists as part of an alternate reality which we call the universe.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No.

HOpefully you got the point, though.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.

So? These are just the rules in this universe. You didn't create it from your mind.

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.

You act as if this has some deeper meaning. Like you know what a universe would be like in which there is no cause and effect.

But more importantly: how do you know there is cause and effect in this universe?

I don't ask that flippantly. I ask it after having studied Hume and his epistemology. In Empiricism you can only know that which you have DIRECT experience of. You don't have direct experience of cause and effect. You only INFER that ever.

The classic example from my philosophy class back in undergrad: you come into a room and there is a light switch on the wall. You flick the switch and the light comes on. But you never see the exact sequence of events that relate those two events. You COULD just have happened to flip the switch and it just by CHANCE was the exact same time the light was due to come on. In fact you can repeat this millions of times and never KNOW if there is a necessary cause-effect relationship between the light switch and the light.

But of course RATIONALLY you infer it. And you are likely correct. But you cannot KNOW IT.

So, in reality, you don't know that you live in a universe with cause and effect.

Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose.

I fundamentally disagree with "serves a purpose". Unless that "purpose" is to simply be what something is which is impossible to avoid.

The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

I don't see how they point to "purpose".

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

So reality wouldn't exist if YOU weren't experiencing it? What about other people? Do they count or do they disappear when you stop looking directly at them?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Mind stuff is consciousness. It’s the only thing which can exist outside of space and time

And how, praytell, do you know this? Have you EVER seen a "thought" outside of space and time?

or are you just GUESSING? (hint: you are just guessing. It's your "religion" if you will)

It’s like I’m free guy trying to explain to an npc that he’s an npc. Your reality doesn’t exist. It only exists as part of an alternate reality which we call the universe.

Is anyone OTHER THAN YOU "real"? If so, how do you know? Are you just "manifesting everyone" through your mind?

 

[ding]

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

Actually it’s both. The part about the material world is only made manifest by mind is QM. The speculation that mind exists as the source or matrix of the material world is philosophy based upon science.

We know that the universe was created from nothing. And that the creation of the universe followed the laws of conservation and QM. So we know those laws existed before space and time itself. We also know the presence of matter/energy created space and time and that mattrr changes, it equilibrates, so matter and energy cannot be an eternal source of creating space and time. That’s all from science. Philosophically we can surmise that the only eternal sources for creating realities is no thing. We already have an example of no thing existing before space and time; the laws of nature. So the only possible source for creating reality is consciousness without form. This is a life breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. It’s not a coincidence the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. It was intentional.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The cat simultaneously exists in both states until observed.

Again, Schroedinger's Cat was not intended to be a real-world example. In other words you can't put a cat in the proposed box, seal it up and then claim the cat is ACTUALLY in two different states pending the observer. Cats are a BIT larger than atoms. Cat's are not governed by "wave functions". Schroedinger's Cat was actually a CRITIQUE by Schroedinger of superpositional states collapsing upon interaction with other matter/observer.

It's not a real experiment. The cat actually IS one of the two states, not in a superposition state.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Ummmm…. No. You aren’t.

Actually I am. Because their claims are not falsifiable they are not scientific claims. As such they are nothing but "guesses" and my guess is as good as theirs.

It's like figuring out who is MORE RIGHT in a debate over unicorn biology.

 

[ding]

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?

That’s some serious science denial you have going there. All because this offends your atheistic sensibilities.

 

[ding]

Again, Schroedinger's Cat was not intended to be a real-world example. In other words you can't put a cat in the proposed box, seal it up and then claim the cat is ACTUALLY in two different states pending the observer. Cats are a BIT larger than atoms. Cat's are not governed by "wave functions". Schroedinger's Cat was actually a CRITIQUE by Schroedinger of superpositional states collapsing upon interaction with other matter/observer.

It's not a real experiment. The cat actually IS one of the two states, not in a superposition state.

Clearly you never read the link I replied with. QM is being proven in a myriad of ways.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Actually it’s both. The part about the material world is only made manifest by mind is QM.

That doesn't feel like it means anything.

The speculation that mind exists as the source or matrix of the material world is philosophy based upon science.

I don't even know how you'd support that claim.

We also know the presence of matter/energy created space and time and that mattrr changes, it equilibrates, so matter and energy cannot be an eternal source of creating space and time.

You seem to "know" a lot of things. None of which you could possibly "know" per se. It just feels like a religious dogma.

We already have an example of no thing existing before space and time; the laws of nature.

I will grant you a nice set up and denouement, but it's just more guessing. In a sense you have replaced "that being than which none greater can be conceived" with a sui generis definition of "natural laws".

So the only possible source for creating reality is consciousness without form.

Not really. You introduced "consciousness" all of a sudden from out of nowhere. It does not follow from your previous syllogistic claims.

This is a life breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

Now you're wholly off in religious discussion. Which is fine. This thread is about the possible disjunct between science and religion. But that's pure ol' religion.

It’s not a coincidence the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. It was intentional.

Intentional by whom?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That’s some serious science denial you have going there. All because this offends your atheistic sensibilities.

It's not science denial. It's an alternative to your religious claims.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Clearly you never read the link I replied with. QM is being proven in a myriad of ways.

I am quite familiar that QM is proven since I use it most days. But, again, Schroedinger's Cat is not what you think it is.

 

[ding]

HOpefully you got the point, though.

This is great example of you infamous parsing of posts because what I said in the post - after I demonstrated the universe screams purpose and intention - was in no way does any of that negate that reality only becomes manifest through consciousness.

So I got your point. Did you get mine?

 

[ding]

It's not science denial. It's an alternative to your religious claims.

I haven’t gotten within 100 miles of a religious claim, science denier.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

This is great example of you infamous parsing of posts because what I said in the post - after I demonstrated the universe screams purpose and intention - was in no way does any of that negate that reality only becomes manifest through consciousness.

So I got your point. Did you get mine?

And I disagree with it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I haven’t gotten within 100 miles of a religious claim, science denier.

I wish you weren't so amazingly repellent as a human being. I was actually kind of having fun with this.

But now you are back to trolling and lying.

What a waste.

 

[ding]

So? These are just the rules in this universe. You didn't create it from your mind.

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. It wasn’t a coincidence the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce intelligence.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

,​

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

there in lies your fallacy ... and for which religion, conflicts do abound.

Men's INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures is the problem. The God Hater's INTREPRETATION of TRUE SCIENCE is the problem.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Men's INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures is the problem.

Might I propose that everyone intepret the way YOU interpret it? That would seem to ease everything if you have the correct interpretation.

The God Hater's INTREPRETATION of TRUE SCIENCE is the problem.

This sounds like it could be interesting to explore. Who are the "God Haters" and how have they "interpretted" science that goes against your belief system (aka "Ultimate Truth")?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

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. It wasn’t a coincidence the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce intelligence.

You have not yet established that there IS cause and effect in this universe (see Post #162, my post about Hume). From that it thus does not follow that there is any "reason" for anything...and there's NOTHING in any of your proposals that so far supports the necessary existence of "purpose".

 

[ding]

You act as if this has some deeper meaning. Like you know what a universe would be like in which there is no cause and effect.

But more importantly: how do you know there is cause and effect in this universe?

I don't ask that flippantly. I ask it after having studied Hume and his epistemology. In Empiricism you can only know that which you have DIRECT experience of. You don't have direct experience of cause and effect. You only INFER that ever.

The classic example from my philosophy class back in undergrad: you come into a room and there is a light switch on the wall. You flick the switch and the light comes on. But you never see the exact sequence of events that relate those two events. You COULD just have happened to flip the switch and it just by CHANCE was the exact same time the light was due to come on. In fact you can repeat this millions of times and never KNOW if there is a necessary cause-effect relationship between the light switch and the light.

But of course RATIONALLY you infer it. And you are likely correct. But you cannot KNOW IT.

So, in reality, you don't know that you live in a universe with cause and effect.

I would seriously question the intelligence of anyone who questioned cause and effect. Not only can it be taken on authority through the work of others, we experience it daily in our lives in a myriad of ways. In fact, right now we are engaged in a series of cause and effects in this very discussion.

That you don’t see deeper meaning in existence baffles me. I don’t see how anyone could study the evolution of space and time and not see deeper meaning. The universe is literally an intelligence producing machine which by all accounts is unnatural in and of itself. Small changes to the structure of matter could have allowed a universe to be created in exactly the same way it was created but it would be impossible for life to exist anywhere. This isn’t an accident. It’s intentional.