[Serious Discussion] Religion

[STyL4]

Well hello johnatan ratz, Maybe i should call stephen hawking to enter this forum. You might as well make your own sect you youtube troll.

Yes, where is your god proof in this thing? Because i'm not discussing the orch or, i'm discussing the fact that you connect this theory to Universe=God. Nevertheless Orch-Or is one of the million theories which remain extremely doubtful today, just as anything else in the psychology-philosophical domain.

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Scientific proof is not dependent on philosophy of science. Scientific proof is observation and measurement. And not intuition and reason alone, which is ontological.



Look up the anti-Zeno effect without packet reduction.

I bet you can use any theory you want and combine it to the result you want. Seeing that there are an enormous amount of consciousness theories and an enormous amount of quantum theoretical models. Both of which have yet to be proven. So for every theory you use, i can use a theory who contradicts yours, because thats just how many theories there are. Therefor i believe this discussion is useless.

Use Schrödingers cat?

So the schrödinger equation is a mind? So the atom orbital is a mind? Minds can be seen as self collapsing wave function. They do not equal them

Sorry i'm not even answering more of your stuff because it has become irrelevant for this discussion in my opinion. Al you do is use ontological arguments, which are not proof, so they are useless in my opinion.


Sorry Styl4, i'm gonna leave it at this. I can't really afford to lose much time this week, cause i have a lot of work. Just bear in mind that philosophical theories (which you seem to like) do not equal the truth. They might be interesting, but philosophers are not scientists and not out for the truth. They love the art of reasoning (without proof). Let CERN do their work and let them prove to us how this quantumphysical world really works.

My opinion on god remains the same. It's a fairytale, you may believe in it, but to consider it the truth is quite naive.

You have failed to prove the existance of God, which is a really hard thing to do. Cause you can't prove things that don't exist, nor can you disprove them.

Hmm. Well you can't have truth without philosophy as philosophy is ultimately how things are justified. So I don't understand where you get that scientists are out for the truth while philosophers are not. I don't see how that view can be philosophically justified. That's just the Fallacy of Scientism.

Also to get to the truth, a posteriori scientific truth must match up to a priori philosophic truth. If you have a mismatch then obviously your conclusions are not true. This does not mean that the empirical data is wrong only that your interpretation of it necessarily is.

There are positivists of course who insist that you can do science without philosophy but everyone knows they are just irrational dolts: Empirically Verifying the Verification Principle