Jump to content


Photo

Scientific Evidence Against Materialism


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
15 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 July 2012 - 07:22 PM





This is insane! Basically it shows that what we observe of reality is what reality programs we observe, pretty funky stuff!







More about quantum mechanics







Gravity at the fundamental level is supernatural, it cannot be fully explained

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:47 AM

I love the idea of the double slit experiment, but the one question keeps nagging at me is why, how, observation changes the results...it makes no sense...and I can understand why people would devote their life trying to understand it.

I also liked the examples of quantum mechanics in use by various organisms, its very interesting to think of things that we can scarcely imagine affecting organisms to that degree.

I dislike the the insinuation that something that cannot be fully explained is supernatural because I feel it cheapens the definition of supernatural. I believe that God is the metaphysical, the reason the physical exists and continues to exist, but I find it hard to believe that gravity will continue to be unexplainable forever.

#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 948 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:45 PM

I agree unexplainable =/= supernatural.

But then I have a problem with the term "supernatural" as such. One would have to draw up an ontology and then explain all terms against each other.

#4 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1551 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 July 2012 - 04:24 PM

It would seem to me that these videos support that the universe is set up for crativity.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:18 PM

I love the idea of the double slit experiment, but the one question keeps nagging at me is why, how, observation changes the results...it makes no sense...and I can understand why people would devote their life trying to understand it.

I also liked the examples of quantum mechanics in use by various organisms, its very interesting to think of things that we can scarcely imagine affecting organisms to that degree.

I dislike the the insinuation that something that cannot be fully explained is supernatural because I feel it cheapens the definition of supernatural. I believe that God is the metaphysical, the reason the physical exists and continues to exist, but I find it hard to believe that gravity will continue to be unexplainable forever.


I agree with your claims, I guess I should have worded it better. Currently gravity and how it fits within the universe is an absolute mystery and has been touted as the collapse of physics.





Here is some more interesting videos, this one is by the Dr Fred Alan Wolf who is the voice for Dr Quantum. In it he claims that in order for us to percieve the world we must first have the information of the world which will affect our perceptions.

"its only when you bring your mind into the picture that you begin to make pictures.."






Another from Dr Fred Alan Wolf about how our brains can percieve things occuring before they occur... similar to the double slit conclusion






Now the next step is to get the evolutionists to add all this into their theory lol :P

#6 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1551 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:07 PM

Wow! Thhey sure kept his a secret. A lot of food for thought. I remember reading about this phoenomina years ago in an aricle about artificial intelligence penned by Massachusttes Institue of Technology. The article talked about teaching people to fly by computer. At a specific point in the education of the would be pilot the, computer had to be truned off, and the student had to get in a plane and fly by the "seat of his pants." In other words a mental pheonomena called "intution" must (that's what Wolf is talking about) take over for a pilot to actually fly a plane.

Another example used was this; When a boxer is boxing, if he has to thin and choose choose which fist to punch or defend himself with he would always be knocked out. He asctually has to anticipate which fist to use before it happens. Another example is in baseball. The batter has to swing his bat before the baseball arrives at the bat. Go figure.

Maybe you can answer a question about "Einstein's relativity theory. It makes somewhat sense when it applies to outer space (the fabric example). But suppose we are deep within the earth and we fall--would gravity pull us towards the center of the earh instead of causing us to fall up toward the earth's surface (because of greater density above us). Is this a naive question? Am I missing something?

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 31 July 2012 - 06:53 AM

Wow! Thhey sure kept his a secret. A lot of food for thought. I remember reading about this phoenomina years ago in an aricle about artificial intelligence penned by Massachusttes Institue of Technology. The article talked about teaching people to fly by computer. At a specific point in the education of the would be pilot the, computer had to be truned off, and the student had to get in a plane and fly by the "seat of his pants." In other words a mental pheonomena called "intution" must (that's what Wolf is talking about) take over for a pilot to actually fly a plane.

Another example used was this; When a boxer is boxing, if he has to thin and choose choose which fist to punch or defend himself with he would always be knocked out. He asctually has to anticipate which fist to use before it happens. Another example is in baseball. The batter has to swing his bat before the baseball arrives at the bat. Go figure.

Maybe you can answer a question about "Einstein's relativity theory. It makes somewhat sense when it applies to outer space (the fabric example). But suppose we are deep within the earth and we fall--would gravity pull us towards the center of the earh instead of causing us to fall up toward the earth's surface (because of greater density above us). Is this a naive question? Am I missing something?


If we could live despite the temperature Posted Image then we would get pulled towards the centre since the only time you won't get pulled towards the centre is at the centre Posted Image The majority of the mass is always pulling towards the centre, (though the pull would be less since the difference is less Posted Image

Yes I totally agree I think that there is much about this world that we do not fully comprehend

#8 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 948 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 February 2013 - 04:31 AM

The scientific method itself is metaphysical. While it is applied to material/natural phenomena, it still is metaphysical just as the believe that it is valid.

#9 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:02 AM

The scientific method itself is metaphysical. While it is applied to material/natural phenomena, it still is metaphysical just as the believe that it is valid.


Which is exactly why you cannot apply the scientific method ON the scientific method! And exactly why "materialism, for materialism's sake" is an epic fail.
  • gilbo12345 and MarkForbes like this

#10 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 948 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 February 2013 - 04:16 PM

How do we know the scientific method is true or valid?

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 February 2013 - 10:09 PM

How do we know the scientific method is true or valid?

It is merely a method of deduction.

1- Observe phenomena
2- Propose hypothesis for the cause of said phenomena
3- Enact an experiment to test the hypothesis, altering conditions and measuring conclusions in order verify what was the effect
4- Undertake additional experiments to verify the initial one- used to check other potential causes or problems associated with the initial experiment.


For example- I want to screen extracts for anti-cancer capability

I add the extract to cultures of cancer cells (made from the same batch), and measure the amount of cells survive the treatment. Different concentrations of the extract are used in order to get a concentration curve which will assist in knowing how effective the extract is as well as provide additional support for its effect if the curve relates to it logically- increased extract shows increased number of dead cancer cells; you know something is wrong when you increase the extract and there is more cancer cells surviving.

Additional testing after this would be on "normal" human cell lines, since any compound can technically be an "anti-cancer" agent it just has the additional effect of being an "anti-cell" agent too ;)
  • MarkForbes likes this

#12 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 24 February 2013 - 04:49 PM

How do we know the scientific method is true or valid?


Because it is self evidence when done properly... List the steps in order, then follow them correctly, and they will EITHER validate of invalidate the experiment.

#13 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 948 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:05 AM

I think you can only know that the outcomes of the experiment are valid, when you already know or assume the scientific method is valid.

@Gilbo, I think you mean induction.

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:26 AM

True lol :)

#15 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:31 PM

I think you can only know that the outcomes of the experiment are valid, when you already know or assume the scientific method is valid. @Gilbo, I think you mean induction.

No, you know the scientific method is valid due, not only to the logic of the steps, but also due to the verification of the outcome of experimentation due to induction.

#16 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 948 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:02 AM

No, you know the scientific method is valid due, not only to the logic of the steps, but also due to the verification of the outcome of experimentation due to induction.

That's what I mean. You use the scientific method to validate the scientific method.

This is similar to some philosophical arguments for the existence of God.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users