Do you believe in Free-Will, the Soul, and God?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I would suspect that it would work in a rather simply way. Perhaps the 'us' in the non-predictive realm could in some way influence the collapse of wavefunctions in the physical brain, maybe slightly altering the probabilities of collapsing to certain eigenfunctions. This would allow true free-will by altering the universe away from the predictions made in the thought experiment above.

Forget telepathy or telekenises. Havig the power to change QM wavefunction distributions would be the coolest superpower.

Imagine, if that were true,, how revolutionary it would be to quantum computing - (even ignoring the possibility for a sentient AI) controlling wavefunctions would be an immensely powerful tool.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by Bkeela
I believe in extremely limited freewill. We have the power to choose what cereal we eat for breakfast, or the type of transport we take to work. But we don't have control over the really important things in life, like our sexuality, or our eternal destination.
Bkeela.

Last time I check, you did have control over you sexuality.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Forget telepathy or telekenises. Havig the power to change QM wavefunction distributions would be the coolest superpower.

Maybe you already have this 'superpower'!

[Lincoln]

Aeson,

I asked:

How is the DNA effectively divided into triplets?
Answer that question and you will see what I mean.

Your reply:



"I'm not very proficient in biology or chemistry, so I'm not even sure what you are talking about. From what I do know, these chemicals follow physical rules in how they interact. If I'm wrong about this, it would be very interesting to know how chemical bonds form without following the laws of physics."

The question is simple really. DNA is made up of four chemical "letters" (AGCT). These letters form a code when divided into triplets. In other words three leters is the length of the "word". But, AGCT can be arranged in any order and in any length. What divides it into a 3 letter code? The answer is that it is only divided by way of the biological machinery that recognizes the letters in groups of three. There is really no code without the translation as the letters form a sting that appears completely random. The code is manifest by the machinery (ribizome, RNA, tRNA, etc. etc.). There must be cooridination or there is no code and nothing to select a non existent code over another non existent one. The DNA is useless just as these letters and words I type are useless unless you and I have a mutual understanding of what they mean.

Chemical bonds all form in conformance with chemical laws just as these words do. But that does not answer the question of information and the convention (and several other things) that are necessary for there to be true communication.

Ranger,

Is that the thread where you left crying. And I like your new signature. I didn't know that Michael Faraday and other founders of scientific fields were "stupid". I learn something new at Apolyton every day...

[Lincoln]

Here are some more scientists (who believed in creation and not the fantasy of materialism) for UR and Cybergnue that "must be stupid".

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


I don't disagree. What I do say is that the biology and pyramid building must conform to the laws of physics. The laws of physics do not say you can't cure cancer - however they do say that the there is no such thing as free-will.

SCORE





btw... I am on YYY...

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Here are some more scientists (who believed in creation and not the fantasy of materialism) for UR and Cybergnue that "must be stupid".

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

My god I didn't know Newton was stupid, hallelujah!!Many of those names are mentioned more than once...

btw ppl,
How did this thread go into "If TODAYS science doesn't prove A, I don't believe A and I will use the incompetence of the science as an argument" What the hell? I doubt very much that science will ever give satisfying answer to the first question. And so what? What does it prove if they can't prove this? Answer: It proves Nothing.

[Aeson]

Lincoln,

I wasn't sure which way you meant, sorry to have misread. In my post I also touched on how an interpretive system, and the data it interprets, aren't necessarily linked in their formation process. DNA would be useless without the means to decode it obviously, but that doesn't preclude DNA from being produced by another system, or the system working with information other than DNA. They just wouldn't produce anything of value most likely.

It doesn't mean that some intelligence needs to match them up, they do that by themselves if the conditions are right. Environmental factors just need to be such that both will be developed naturally in the same time frame. That environment could have happened through pure chance as far as we know, it also could have been set up by an intelligent designer. As we have no testable information on an ID, there really isn't any way to prove or disprove that there was one.

Religions accept this for the most part, and that is why they are founded on faith. If there was verifiable evidence of an ID, then there wouldn't be any need for faith (outside the 'I accept this because it's holds up under testing' type), and Religion wouldn't be needed because of it.

My point is basically this: Data exists with or without a means to extract/translate/whatever it, and a system can exist with or without a source of data to work on.

[Ramo]

There must be cooridination or there is no code and nothing to select a non existent code over another non existent one.

The "code" has been built by billions of years of evolution.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Here are some more scientists (who believed in creation and not the fantasy of materialism) for UR and Cybergnue that "must be stupid".

What's your point Lincoln? Is this some kind of wacky Appeal to Authority effort?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Ranger,

Is that the thread where you left crying. And I like your new signature. I didn't know that Michael Faraday and other founders of scientific fields were "stupid". I learn something new at Apolyton every day...

You can be a little more honest seeing that the thread is still available on 'Poly in addition to my own archival.

A search on the Web has not turned up any positive links between Michael Faraday and Creationism.

Maybe the next thing you were going to tell me is Einstein believed in God.

[TheStinger]

Newton didn't support relativity either.

What is the point of the list

[Alexander's Horse]

Do creationists still also believe the earth is flat?

Imagine admitting to people you were a creationist in real life. It'd be like saying, "hello, I'm stupid."

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Do creationists still also believe the earth is flat?

Imagine admitting to people you were a creationist in real life. It'd be like saying, "hello, I'm stupid."

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by Sikander


I'm sure there is a wave of disappointment sweeping through the hearts of our many female forum participants.