[quote=“write4u, post:118, topic:8245”]
Guess you have something there.
Though that still doesn’t make it correct.
You miss the point. It’s about acknowledging somethings simply are out of our ability to observe, measure, and assess.
Humans some how seem incapable of that and feel it’s noble to pretend we can understand, simply because we can imagine colorful possibilities.
I think it has something to do with keeping our eye on the ball.
It’s like claiming one acknowledges physical reality, but then tries to lecture about how the atom is supposedly all empty space, simply because one mathematical description, with limited application, says so?
Why not instead talk about the energy shells surrounding an atom’s nucleus that are more solid than granite?
You should apologize for that groundless remark.
You should understand that you are on a forum that accepts and expects evidence for any and all claims. If I missed the evidence you provided, please point it out. You have repeated many times that the lack of evidence for all details of how this universe came to be, is somehow counted as evidence for something immaterial, “ultramundane” was the word you used.
The lack of evidence is not evidence. You said there is no such evidence. You believe something “infers” “a transcendent agent”. That’s a belief, nothing more.
You are the one who should apologize for saying, “The rigid posture of those opposed to entertaining any thought of the mere possibility…” Because entertaining possibilities is the business of science. It was the rigid and dogmatic Catholic Church that held back science for a thousand years by not allowing curiosity and exploration. Once their power was reduced, we figured out how the planets move and eventually how to “slip the surly bonds of Earth”.
We shouldn’t label it a deity though.
Why not? Sounds good to me.
Indeed.
Mind you we were discussing the question of what happened on the other side of the Big Bang,
and why I believe it’s silly to call conjure about what happened before time began science.
Science is about measuring, observing, figuring out how things operate within this Physical Reality.
Now we just need to convince the talking heads.
Oh but it’s so difficult to kill a sensational story that sells.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:126, topic:8245”]
Now we just need to convince the talking heads.
You talk about the density within atoms. I talk about the density and patterns of atoms .
Same thing, different perspective.
Why do we need to bring David Bryne into this?
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was and look where my hand was
Time isn’t holding up, time isn’t after us
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Exactly.
Won’t happen. They may even say that idea is wrong.
There’s a considerable difference when a general comment is made about the way people may dismiss an idea arbitrarily because it doesn’t fit or challenges their world view, which is what I did. That’s something very different from saying as you did that a person is “whining” because he’s not getting enough attention. One comment is general and not directed at any one specifically. To allege someone is “whining” which is regarded as a character fault is specific and personal. I am not a whiner as you suggest Mr. Lausten and never was one. It’s one thing to criticize someone’s ideas, quite another to criticize someone’s character.
I would think that you as a moderator would know this.
I thank all who’ve added their thoughts to this discussion whether in opposition or agreement but when personal invective enters the dialogue it’s time to withdraw.
No, it’s a very slim difference. If I had used a more vulgar term, or repetitively used any term, that would be different. You have been persistent about the lack of open-mindedness you find in this discussion. There are only a handful of people in this discussion, so your comments about it being “general” do not pass the test of reasonableness. Who else are you speaking to?
Even if you are referring to the entire scientific community, or science minded people in general, that has also been responded to by me and the other people in this thread, several times. You are close to violating the rule about repetitive posting, aka “trolling”. You are not responding to the comments about what science is or providing anything other than worn-out statements about how if something can’t be proven, then speculation is as good as a complete scientific theory.
If you were to refer to or use more sophisticated language, like say, Alvin Plantinga, I might acknowledge your points. As of now, I find no reason to do anything but skim your posts.
This is my personal as well as official comment.
To be clear, this is about the notion itself. let the guilty sort themselves out.
I talk about the silliness of suggesting humans visualize a planetary model for the atom. And the even worse folly of extrapolating that misconception into grand philosophies that promise all sort of woo woo, but constantly take us away from biology, evolution, a scientific ground up approach - replacing that with lofty human reasoning and assumption weaving from our very self-centered perspectives, that longs to stare at the stars and perhaps even dream of living among them.
Lausten, you know I can’t pass that up. Might add a little emotional balance to this discussion. 
No matter where you go, there you are,
still stuck with yourself.
Get to know yourself.
Get along.
post musical ruminations
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:132, topic:8245”]
To be clear, this is about the notion itself. let the guilty sort themselves out.
I am not talking about the “planetary model” of atoms. I am talking about the density of patterns in any shape or form.
When we consider H2O. What makes the difference between ice, water, vapor?
It is not the constituent parts, we can have the exact same number of H2O molecules, yet one pattern becomes expressed as ice, another as water, and yet another as vapor.
It is the arrangement and density of the pattern that makes the difference.
There can be no disagreement about that. It is axiomatic.
Therefore, IMO, it can be stipulated that physical reality is an expression of “patterns with various densities”, whether they be atoms, molecules, planets, solar systems, galaxies, or interstellar clouds.
And so it is with the difference between living and dead organisms, like a beetle. There is no difference, except the pattern arrangement of the constituent parts.
Once we accept that it is patterns that make up physical reality, we can advance the argument that "regular"patterns are an expression of physical interactions via mathematical “guiding equations” and as these patterns are demonstrably self-organizing , the need for a “creator agent” becomes moot.
Michael, it’s obvious you and Lausten have history, as they say. Why not just lighten up. Try to let the past go and focus on now.
Besides, it’s always bad form (and usual quite inaccurate) to evaluate oneself.
Give it a rest.
All of us can improve our game, we get father in that game by focusing on improving oneself, than searching for fault in others.
Okay. One could also say it has to do with atmospheric pressure and temperature and be just as accurate. And yes, sure it’s about patterns and science use math to describe all this stuff and run their amazing models.
I have no fundamental argument with you. Though I think you oversimplify and go a tad too far with the difference between dead and alive creatures, because it’s really not a simple matter of on or off. In the real interwoven, still mysterious world of biology, our nice and neat mental constructs have always had a way of failing. It’s alway more complex, more interconnected, and of course there are the left field surprises that keep coming along and radically changing previous assumptions. I’m satisfied sitting back and focusing on the amazing details that are within my grasp.
We don’t have much disagreement about the facts, I think we part when it comes to…, how should I put it, … modulation. We are set to different frequency modulations. I reckon perhaps I’m more into the mud and blood and the guts of living, giving me a different perspective.
I agree, we have a similar horizon, we just travel by a slightly different route.
I am enamored with the mathematical nature of the universe. It answers so many questions that appear to be mysterious.
But I do not believe in “irreducible complexity” and I believe all physics starts with 3 elementary quantum values (quarks).
Elementary Particles irreducible representations
There are three irreducible bosonic representation: the gluons form one, photon, Z-boson and W-boson another, and the Higgs bosons the third . … Each of these particles has a fixed mass, the mass being a Casimir operator of the Poincare Lie algebra. Aug 11, 2014
The rest is self-organizing complexity.
You’ve never heard me defend any ID version of 'irreducible complexity, as for 3 elementary quantum values (does sound better than “particles”) mind you I’m the one who likes sharing this
The bottom line, courtesy of:
Mysteries of Modern Physics by Sean Carroll
Jan 29, 2020 - [Darwin College Lecture Series]
Sean Carroll, 10:45
. . . these are the particles that make up you and this table and me and this laptop and really everything that you have ever seen with your eyes touched with your fingers smelled with your nose in your life.
Furthermore we know how they interact with each other and even better than that, the most i mpressive fact is that there will not be a discovery tomorrow or next century or a million years from now which says you know what there was another particle or another force that we didn’t know about but now we realize plays a crucial role in our everyday life.
As far as our everyday life is concerned by which I really mean what you can see with your eyes touch with your hands etc we’re done finding the underlying ingredients. That is an enormous achievement in human history one that does not get enough credit, because of course as soon as we do it we go on to the next thing.
Physics is not done. I’m not saying that physics is done, but physics has understood certain things and those things include everything you encounter in your everyday life - unless you’re a professional experimental physicist or unless you’re looking of course outside our everyday life at the universe and other places where we don’t know what’s going on. …
1 Like
I know you do not believe in ID. It was a general remark. Don’t be mad at me… 
1 Like
Funny thing is, that history is better. The first long thread with this fine gentleman was one of the most productive conversations I’ve had with someone who is speaking from the supernatural POV. I don’t even want to label him a “believer” because his langauge was often precise and acknowledged the lack of evidence. That thread degraded once Near Death Experiences were brought up, but that doesn’t spoil it for me.
This recent line though, where there is insistence that I (or some general community of scientific thinkers) need to alter our perspective and accept some premise. That premise is untenable. I don’t like switching from the language of possibility, speculation, and personal experience to the language of needing facts, data, and imperical proof, but in this case, what is being asked of me is beyond my boundaries of acceptable discourse. I might as well be talking about whether or not Ant Man is a true superhero.