chantel89

About time Martin got some new guides, and not all women ,

The argument is that even the improvisation is pre determined by the makeup of the brain

Dracs belief is the jazz musicians brain is already pre programmed with DNA allowing it to adjust with experiences in a pre destined manner … like a robot basically. Although it sounds ludicrous, there is an element of truth to it

so the  deficiencies in the ” standard model” of physics, such as the origin of mass, neutrino oscillations , dark matter and dark energy are conveniently ignored then? Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the whole thing which is inconsistent with general relativity  to the point that one or both theories break down u…[Read more]

<!– [if lt IE 9]><script src=”/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=html5shiv&only=scripts&skin=vector&sync=1″></script><![endif]–>

so the  deficiencies in the ” standard model” of physics, such as the origin of mass, neutrino oscillations , dark matter and dark energy are conveniently ignored then? Another problem lies within the…[Read more]

I am open minded to the free will argument hence I posted the article, but why do you keep mentioning ” the normal laws of physics ” when we have such limited understanding of them? You are quoting our 2017 knowledge of physics as the holy grail which generation will look at in years to come in the same way we laugh at people who thought the…[Read more]

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.

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…[Read more]

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.

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…[Read more]

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 i…[Read more]

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?…[Read more]

The evidence is the ” laws” are continuing to be updated and can’t explain satisfactorily why we are here , how the universe is here or anything else remotely close to being an absolute law.

I haven’t a clue who you are talking to or what you are saying

Laws of physics aren’t set in stone and are transient  continually being modified through the ages – using them as a template to define if free will exists is a weak argument.

Define free will.

Where did I say ” there is evidence Jesus existed”? I stated many historians accept there probably was a figure called Jesus. History is everything including a history of sciences.

Where?

It is nowhere near as black and white as you imply, firstly you have to define ” God”, secondly you have to accept your own consciousness is infact reality, then you have to accept your brain like others have said only uses a tiny amount of it’s capacity ( like us all) so our perception of what is real/not real is fundamentally flawed. From this…[Read more]