Science is Now a Religion (wisdom, education system, radical, school)

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc

What a crock of an article obviously written by a very ignorant person intimidated by science and the indesputable facts and information that it very often reveals. Much easier to believe and accept data compiled and tested in a laboratory under cotrolled conditions by educated and forward thinking minds than writings that took most of their so called facts from mythology. Taling snakes, women of salt, rivers of blood, virgin births, walking on water, resurrections of the dead, a boat that held every species of living creatue, a guy living in a fish...yeah, this is the stuff facts are made of.

O ye of little faith.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

Considering his background and qualifications, I think his work deserves more than a "gloss".

Nonsense. His background and qualifications betray no special expertise in metaphysics. A gloss was all that was necessary (particularly of his conclusions and responses to criticism) to identify that the paper is pure solipsism.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

However, the mountain of evidence that subatomic particles do not physically exist unless and until we measure them does.

How would you propose to demonstrate the non-existence of subatomic particles? Do you honestly not understand how completely absurd that statement was?

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

Unless you have an alternative explanation for how one particle can exist in two different places simultaneously?

Listen to yourself. How a particle exist in two places simultaneously, and not exist at the same time? You do not appear to have assembled your arguments any more coherently than the last time we spoke.

You still (in spite of multiple requests) have never been able to offer a single testable prediction that would allow us to distinguish between a simulation and an objective reality.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Do you disagree that many premises in the theory of quantum physics are contradictory?

Actually, yes I disagree. They are empirically derived. How could they be contradictory?

The premises of quantum mechanics are simply not the same as those for classical mechanics. Your intuitive desire to understand them in classical terms is the source of your confusion.

But they are not the same.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Harrier

There is also no evidence that the theory of evolution is valid.

There are few statements you could have made that would so instantly and completely destroy your credibility as a rational person quite like that one.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

That may very well be, but so was the idea that the earth was round instead of flat.

Seriously? You want to trot out the flat earth myth? Seriously?

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

The simulation theory fits the data better than the objective reality theory.

How?

In the two times we've discussed this, I've asked you no fewer than a half dozen times to justify that claim. You've never responded. Let's try again:

Exactly what prediction does the simulation theory make that would distinguish it as superior to an objective reality?

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

The double slit experiment holds the keys to the universe.

If we don't look, matter exists in 2 places at once.

If we look, but destroy the knowledge, it still exists in 2 places at once.

If we look and retain the knowledge, it collapses to only one place.

But wait... earlier you said that until we look, the matter doesn't exist at all.

You are contradicting yourself.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

But wait... earlier you said that until we look, the matter doesn't exist at all.

You are contradicting yourself.

None of us actually exist - it is just an illusionary state of being.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

There must be a single valid explanation. Simulated universe is one that appears to explain it.

How? In point of fact, the simulation theory explains exactly nothing. It solves no problems, makes no predictions, settles no controversies, and suggests no fruitful avenues for additional investigation.

It is exactly as explanatory as creationism, no more. It is exactly as explanatory as "magic," no more. It has an answer for every question, and the answer is always the same:

"Because."

Exactly what do you believe it "explains?"

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

How would you propose to demonstrate the non-existence of subatomic particles? Do you honestly not understand how completely absurd that statement was?

I propose that it's already been demonstrated. You just don't like the conclusions.

Listen to yourself. How a particle exist in two places simultaneously, and not exist at the same time?

It's rather simple, actually. The fact that they appear to exist in two places at once shows that, when we're not looking, they don't exist at all.

You still (in spite of multiple requests) have never been able to offer a single testable prediction that would allow us to distinguish between a simulation and an objective reality.

Perhaps an example would help. Perhaps you can share with me a testable prediction that would show that reality exists objectively.