-
Posts
-
This really is nonsense and you know it. Whilst science has made major advancements, we are still operating in comparative infancy regarding our understanding of our own significance in the cosmos and comprehending how our environment behaves around us. Gamma rays for eg were only discovered 50 years ago, DNA sequencing has only been introduced in the last 40 years which is nothing taking into account the age of the human race. We are still debating in 2017 whether Mars our closest planet has water ffs and you think ” the laws of physics explain away XYZ” .. laughable
None of those things are laws, or effect laws.
I don’t think you know what a law is.The only way to test that theory, which is what it is, is a parallel universe with cameras recording events in every one ascertaining whether identical stimuli present identical results. As you haven’t access to a universe traversing a normal linear time line into a quantum parallel reality your “theory ” can’t be proven or substantiated can it?
The laws of physics dictate that the same decision must always be taken, anything else is impossible. You have to prove that the laws of physics are wrong.
This is almost verging on the religious argument to defend scriptures .. it’s for you to prove a flawed set of laws if correct not the other way around. Of course there are various entities which operate within our known knowledge of physics but physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain. To extrapolate a set of laws on celestial bodies which may have no laws simply because the human brain has managed to find a finite set of parameters which certain things operate within is bizarre. The onus is on you to prove , not to disprove a very limited flawed set of “physics laws” which can barely explain 1% of the universe and our understanding of it.
1 member liked this post.
This is almost verging on the religious argument to defend scriptures .. it’s for you to prove a flawed set of laws if correct not the other way around. Of course there are various entities which operate within our known knowledge of physics but physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain. To extrapolate a set of laws on celestial bodies which may have no laws simply because the human brain has managed to find a finite set of parameters which certain things operate within is bizarre. The onus is on you to prove , not to disprove a very limited flawed set of “physics laws” which can barely explain 1% of the universe and our understanding of it.
To assert that free will exists, without evidence is the same as asserting that a god exists, without evidence.
This really is nonsense and you know it. Whilst science has made major advancements, we are still operating in comparative infancy regarding our understanding of our own significance in the cosmos and comprehending how our environment behaves around us. Gamma rays for eg were only discovered 50 years ago, DNA sequencing has only been introduced in the last 40 years which is nothing taking into account the age of the human race. We are still debating in 2017 whether Mars our closest planet has water ffs and you think ” the laws of physics explain away XYZ” .. laughable
None of those things are laws. I don’t think you know what a law is.
You’re confusing yourself Drac, I’ll simplify it so you can understand. Science has barely evolved to a state where we don’t know if a planet next to us has ever had water or not. You then suggest using these “laws” from such a basic comprehension of physics to define what is and isn’t fact.
But physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain.
Such as?
You’re confusing yourself Drac, I’ll simplify it so you can understand. Science has barely evolved to a state where we don’t know if a planet next to us has ever had water or not. You then suggest using these “laws” from such a basic comprehension of physics to define what is and isn’t fact.
I don’t see how that is relevent in any way.
This is almost verging on the religious argument to defend scriptures .. it’s for you to prove a flawed set of laws if correct not the other way around. Of course there are various entities which operate within our known knowledge of physics but physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain. To extrapolate a set of laws on celestial bodies which may have no laws simply because the human brain has managed to find a finite set of parameters which certain things operate within is bizarre. The onus is on you to prove , not to disprove a very limited flawed set of “physics laws” which can barely explain 1% of the universe and our understanding of it.
To assert that free will exists, without evidence is the same as asserting that a god exists, without evidence.
The free will argument is a complex one. Most people may say ” you can do XYZ so you have free will” but technically if you state we are all products of DNA, nurture/ nature and other experiences then we are all essentially pre programmed. This article is an interesting one
But physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain.
Such as?
parallel universes
time
universe origins ( the big bang is theory)
black holes
Is there a creator
life after death
fate or “free will” etc etc
The free will argument is a complex one. Most people may say ” you can do XYZ so you have free will” but technically if you state we are all products of DNA, nurture/ nature and other experiences then we are all essentially pre programmed. This article is an interesting one
Free will requires that the brain has some special property that operates outside the normal laws of physics.
This has never been observed, there is no refutation of this in the magazine article you linked to.
You’re confusing yourself Drac, I’ll simplify it so you can understand. Science has barely evolved to a state where we don’t know if a planet next to us has ever had water or not. You then suggest using these “laws” from such a basic comprehension of physics to define what is and isn’t fact.
I don’t see how that is relevent in any way.
so if a 5 year old using laws to explain how a house is built with 1 % of knowledge states he will use his laws to explain how he intends to build a high rise flat in Glasgow, you would take that as absolute and verified. Science is the 5 year old with its lack of knowledge in so many areas so why use those laws as a template to base your argument on.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!