Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[attofishpi]

Atto, your argument misinterprets quantum uncertainty and its implications for determinism. Quantum uncertainty, as described by Heisenberg's principle, states that we cannot simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of subatomic particles with absolute precision. This does not mean that those particles lack specific positions and momenta—only that our ability to measure them is limited. The uncertainty is epistemic (about what we can know), not necessarily ontological (about what exists).

Now, addressing your points:

A. If the Big Bang and all its conditions were perfectly identical, the universe would unfold exactly the same way. Even quantum uncertainty would originate from the same initial conditions. The "randomness" we observe arises from our inability to measure or predict certain outcomes, not because they are causeless. Quantum mechanics operates within a deterministic framework at the level of fundamental laws.

B. The divergence you refer to in the Boony’s Room thought experiment would occur only if quantum states are allowed to vary. In a truly identical scenario, with every particle and quantum state precisely recreated, even quantum randomness would follow the same probabilistic rules as before, leading to identical outcomes. Divergence happens only when quantum states differ across iterations, which does not apply in a perfectly identical scenario.

You’re conflating unpredictability (our limited ability to calculate outcomes) with indeterminism (events lacking causes). If you want to argue against hard determinism, you need to show that quantum effects introduce genuine causeless events and that those events somehow override the brain’s physical processes to create "will." So far, quantum mechanics provides no evidence for causeless events overriding determinism in any meaningful way. Conservation laws remain valid, and determinism stands unshaken.

Mike, do you think I can't tell when someone is attempting to blow smoke up my arse?

MY Point 1. & 2. are challenging the SAME PREMISE of hard determinism. You cannot on the one hand have identical David Boons diverging their decision-making process and indeed their actions in Point 2. while still insisting that if another identical instance of Big Bang were to occur that this conversation would again exist.

Thus U R insisting within:-

Point 1. there is no divergence due to ALL conditions being identical ALL the time (thus no "random quantum effects").
Point 2. the two David Boons diverge because of "random quantum effects".

AGAIN - which is it? You cannot blow smoke up my arse Mike and insist you are correct on BOTH point 1 & 2. !!

Atto, your insistence that I'm contradicting myself betrays your misunderstanding of both quantum mechanics and determinism. Let me clarify again.

In Point 1, the identical re-creation of the Big Bang assumes not just identical macroscopic conditions but also identical quantum states. If this happens, the universe—including this conversation—would play out exactly the same way because even quantum events, which follow probabilistic rules, would be governed by the same initial conditions and thus yield identical outcomes.

Since when has anything of probability yielded identical outcomes - not often dependent on parameters. The more the parameters the more unlikely the identical outcome.

Thus.

This thread and every chat within it is extremely unlikely in any Big Bang repeat instance and any argument from the likes of you and other "hard" determinists is ridiculous beyond compare.

In Point 2, the divergence in Boony’s Room occurs only if quantum states are allowed to vary. Quantum effects can cause divergence if the states aren’t perfectly replicated or if the system evolves with indeterminate variables. However, this variability arises because quantum states were not explicitly identical in that scenario.

Yet NOW U R insisting that Quantum states will remain identical if the same Big Bang occurred again. Through TIME quantum states change - you admitted that originally.

You’re conflating two different situations: one where conditions, including quantum states, are perfectly identical (Big Bang scenario), and one where quantum variations exist (Boony's Room). In a truly identical scenario, there would be no divergence—neither in David Boon nor in this conversation—because quantum “randomness” would be dictated by the exact same probabilities as before.

Probability dictates uncertainty, (non-determinism) - yet where the massive amounts of improbability that could be considered since a Big Bang repeat, a hard determinist as yourself will not yield to the obvious --> that hard determinism is BOLLOCKS.

[attofishpi]

...seriously?

1997 they attempted that shite upon the Life of Brian

U R an atheist (idiot) ...no offence but with that rhetoric ...I can't ASSIST.

PS. Stick to yer pills idiot...GOD is ALL MATTER IDIOT !!!

Well, since you put it that way, get sober and fuck off until you do, belligerent drunk.

OK U silly turd ...keep lamenting within the realm of atheist idiocy.

[BigMike]

Mike, do you think I can't tell when someone is attempting to blow smoke up my arse?

MY Point 1. & 2. are challenging the SAME PREMISE of hard determinism. You cannot on the one hand have identical David Boons diverging their decision-making process and indeed their actions in Point 2. while still insisting that if another identical instance of Big Bang were to occur that this conversation would again exist.

Thus U R insisting within:-

Point 1. there is no divergence due to ALL conditions being identical ALL the time (thus no "random quantum effects").
Point 2. the two David Boons diverge because of "random quantum effects".

AGAIN - which is it? You cannot blow smoke up my arse Mike and insist you are correct on BOTH point 1 & 2. !!

Atto, your insistence that I'm contradicting myself betrays your misunderstanding of both quantum mechanics and determinism. Let me clarify again.

In Point 1, the identical re-creation of the Big Bang assumes not just identical macroscopic conditions but also identical quantum states. If this happens, the universe—including this conversation—would play out exactly the same way because even quantum events, which follow probabilistic rules, would be governed by the same initial conditions and thus yield identical outcomes.

Since when has anything of probability yielded identical outcomes - not often dependent on parameters. The more the parameters the more unlikely the identical outcome.

Thus.

This thread and every chat within it is extremely unlikely in any Big Bang repeat instance and any argument from the likes of you and other "hard" determinists is ridiculous beyond compare.

In Point 2, the divergence in Boony’s Room occurs only if quantum states are allowed to vary. Quantum effects can cause divergence if the states aren’t perfectly replicated or if the system evolves with indeterminate variables. However, this variability arises because quantum states were not explicitly identical in that scenario.

Yet NOW U R insisting that Quantum states will remain identical if the same Big Bang occurred again. Through TIME quantum states change - you admitted that originally.

You’re conflating two different situations: one where conditions, including quantum states, are perfectly identical (Big Bang scenario), and one where quantum variations exist (Boony's Room). In a truly identical scenario, there would be no divergence—neither in David Boon nor in this conversation—because quantum “randomness” would be dictated by the exact same probabilities as before.

Probability dictates uncertainty, (non-determinism) - yet where the massive amounts of improbability that could be considered since a Big Bang repeat, a hard determinist as yourself will not yield to the obvious --> that hard determinism is BOLLOCKS.

Atto, let’s untangle your misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and how it relates to determinism.

The uncertainty principle doesn’t state that particles lack definite positions and momenta. Rather, it limits our ability to simultaneously measure both with arbitrary precision. This limitation arises because the act of measurement itself disturbs the system at the quantum level. But this is a matter of epistemology (what we can know), not ontology (what exists).

In principle, you can measure a particle’s position to any degree of accuracy you desire, or its momentum to any degree of accuracy. The trade-off is that the more precisely you measure one, the less precisely you can measure the other. That doesn’t mean the particle itself is in some fuzzy indeterminate state without a real position or momentum—it simply reflects our limitations as observers.

This has profound implications for how we interpret "randomness" in quantum mechanics. The apparent randomness isn’t because there’s no definite underlying reality but because our measurements interact with the system. Determinism at the quantum level means that if the quantum states and conditions are exactly the same, outcomes are dictated by those states and their probabilistic rules. If we could know every detail, determinism would still hold.

Now, let’s return to your argument about the Big Bang and Boony’s Room:

1. Identical Big Bang Scenario: If every quantum state and initial condition of the Big Bang were perfectly replicated, including all quantum states down to the tiniest scale, the universe would unfold exactly the same way—including this conversation. Why? Because the same causes would lead to the same effects under identical conditions.

2. Boony’s Room and Divergence: Divergence occurs only if quantum states aren’t identical or if external factors introduce variability. This variability doesn’t imply non-determinism; it reflects the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics under specific conditions.

When you argue that "probability dictates uncertainty, (non-determinism)," you’re conflating epistemic uncertainty (our limited knowledge) with ontological randomness. Determinism doesn’t require us to measure everything—it posits that everything is caused, even if we don’t have perfect access to those causes.

Your claim that hard determinism is "BOLLOCKS" ignores the foundation of physics: conservation laws and causality. Without evidence to the contrary, determinism remains the most robust framework for understanding how the universe operates.

[Gary Childress]

...seriously?

1997 they attempted that shite upon the Life of Brian

U R an atheist (idiot) ...no offence but with that rhetoric ...I can't ASSIST.

PS. Stick to yer pills idiot...GOD is ALL MATTER IDIOT !!!

Well, since you put it that way, get sober and fuck off until you do, belligerent drunk.

OK U silly turd ...keep lamenting within the realm of atheist idiocy.

Unfortunately, atheism is not necessarily "idiocy". It's a real possibility, jerk.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sorry, Gary. As per the above I revise my BigMike assessment. He has incoherent ideas and may best be described as confused.

[attofishpi]

..honestly, sometimes I get bewildered by man's stupidity (that includes U Gazza).

[Gary Childress]

..honestly, sometimes I get bewildered by man's stupidity (that includes U Gazza).

Then you must bewilder yourself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

General Notice

I am right on the verge of revealing how it came about that Great God himself ordained that I bring The (at that time) 10-Week Email Course out into the world.

[Gary Childress]

Yes! I prophesize the coming of the 10 week course. Oops, make that 5, 5 week course for a discounted price!!!

Sorry about the mess, AJ. I'll clean it up with a bottle of Zen-Away! (10 weeks was probably too long for the Internet crowd's attention span anyway. I know it is for mine)

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, theology is not philosophy and it always permits self-serving double-dealing in a way that philosophy cannot get away with.

If “God” is understood to be “Logos” and knowledge of God and involvement with God to be involvement with all that is reasonable (in the root sense of the word) then a “rational theology” and a “theological philosophy” certainly become possible, even if and when that pursuit upends (or allegories) the myths and fables.

Doesn’t it seem to you that “philosophy” so called (or perhaps I mean as it is practiced) cannot ever develop a platform on which life can actually be lived? I mean that the philosophical pursuit seems always to be about undermining those certainties we generally see as “religious”. No ‘ultimate’ true statement can ever be made and believed. So in this sense philosophical musings cannot ever create a foundation.

What seems interesting to me about BigMike’s proposition (having as numerous here have suggested a religious and zealous tone) is that he wishes that an absolutely settled foundation for a philosophy (an applied anthropology) could be established, and he sees “science” and science-factualism as being just that route.

Therefore, I see BigMike as expressing existential desperation: the need or the desire to arrive at something solid, definite, believable and suasive when, in truth, it seems that any such stance except that of religious decisiveness is effectively beyond (our) grasp. The curious thing about desperation is that it can push people to abandon “uncertainty” if some type of anchor is discovered with which they can arrive at (even the illusion of) security.

[Gary Childress]

Doesn’t it seem to you that “philosophy” so called (or perhaps I mean as it is practiced) cannot ever develop a platform on which life can actually be lived? I mean that the philosophical pursuit seems always to be about undermining those certainties we generally see as “religious”. No ‘ultimate’ true statement can ever be made and believed. So in this sense philosophical musings cannot ever create a foundation.

Not all philosophers are mentally ill as I am. There are many people in philosophy departments who are not fanatically religious, who nevertheless lead fulfilling lives.

[attofishpi]

Doesn’t it seem to you that “philosophy” so called (or perhaps I mean as it is practiced) cannot ever develop a platform on which life can actually be lived? I mean that the philosophical pursuit seems always to be about undermining those certainties we generally see as “religious”. No ‘ultimate’ true statement can ever be made and believed. So in this sense philosophical musings cannot ever create a foundation.

Not all philosophers are mentally ill as I am.

Shut up ...U R not mentally ill U R an example of the TEST....as to whether U can LOG_I_C yer way to comprehension.

..and I'll say it again ....JE SUS CHRIST.

I sussed the kunt

[Gary Childress]

Doesn’t it seem to you that “philosophy” so called (or perhaps I mean as it is practiced) cannot ever develop a platform on which life can actually be lived? I mean that the philosophical pursuit seems always to be about undermining those certainties we generally see as “religious”. No ‘ultimate’ true statement can ever be made and believed. So in this sense philosophical musings cannot ever create a foundation.

Not all philosophers are mentally ill as I am.

Shut up ...U R not mentally ill U R an example of the TEST....as to whether U can LOG_I_C yer way to comprehension.

..and I'll say it again ....JE SUS CHRIST.

I sussed the kunt

It's possible, I suppose.

[attofishpi]

...finally.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not all philosophers are mentally ill as I am. There are many people in philosophy departments who are not fanatically religious, who nevertheless lead fulfilling lives.

I am speaking of something different. I think it fair to say that Our Modernity, if we see it as an intellectual current, has no power to decide anything. We are (therefore) is processes of breakdown. Nothing can be built up.

Religious conviction can sometimes be the choice to subscribe to “faith” as a way to solve internal, existential conflicts. (I locate BigMike (to a degree) in that “desperate” need of a solution.)

“Fulfilling lives” does not mean very much, really. And not when a larger existential conviction about ultimate values is unattainable. It might only mean one has chosen to get by as best one can.