Roy Bhaskar invented critical realism. He talks about the epistemic fallacy
Message Board Archives
Judging existence- the epistemic fallacy
So because we are unaware that something exist does that mean it does not. Foolishly we have conflated epistemology (knowing) with ontology (what is)…
See bullerman, no scriptures- maybe unlike you more than an imaginary Naparima is here….
later Bhaskar promoted transcendental critical realism….this body of thought argues
Wait so since Bhudda couldn’t see Pluto it doesn't exist?
Even scientists couldn’t see
Because you can’t see doesn’t mean it does not exist…
Do we respect Socafighter? God moves him…
Comparable to the vacuum of the night sky are atoms. On the contrary, matter that exhibits a solid appearance results from the mutual repulsion of the negative exterior electrons of these cavities. A disintegrating star undergoes a transformation from atomic voids to pulsars, solid masses exclusively composed of neutrons that have a minimum mass of 10 million tons per thimbleful, due to the influence of intense gravity.
Does he know that Quantum Physics support God’s existence….
Follow the argument here
I believe because of Socafighter
Only physics and cell biology can truly teach us of God…I believe in intelligent design… if you didn’t go to school you can believe any fruitpicking sh!t…including Catholic Theology
Bullerman on a plane going home… going and meet him then- me and my stalker
My friend who limed with Socafighter was taught by Stephen Gould, who was agnostic. This article in Scientific American suggests that only an imbecile can be sure that the crack in his back is not a stinking nematode .....
that scratch is nematode number 9
Philosopher Tim Maudlin deplores this situation. In his 2019 book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory, he points out that several interpretations of quantum mechanics describe in detail how the world works. These include the GRW model proposed by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber; the pilot-wave theory of David Bohm; and the many-worlds hypothesis of Hugh Everett. But here’s the irony: Maudlin is so scrupulous in pointing out the flaws of these interpretations that he reinforces my skepticism. They all seem hopelessly kludgy and preposterous.
Maudlin does not examine interpretations that recast quantum mechanics as a theory about information. For positive perspectives on information-based interpretations, check out Beyond Weird by journalist Philip Ball and The Ascent of Information by astrobiologist Caleb Scharf. But to my mind, information-based takes on quantum mechanics are even less plausible than the interpretations that Maudlin scrutinizes. The concept of information makes no sense without conscious beings to send, receive and act upon the information.
Introducing consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity. Moreover, as far as we know, consciousness arises only in certain organisms that have existed for a brief period here on Earth. So how can quantum mechanics, if it’s a theory of information rather than matter and energy, apply to the entire cosmos since the big bang? Information-based theories of physics seem like a throwback to geocentrism, which assumed the universe revolves around us. Given the problems with all interpretations of quantum mechanics, agnosticism, again, strikes me as a sensible stance.
Socafighter's opposition helps me to reveal deep truths. All his handles are great....
Say yeah, yeah
Polkinghorne, who recently died at the age of ninety, obtained a doctorate in quantum field theory from Cambridge in 1956. He obtained a second doctorate in elementary particle physics in 1974. A few years later he left his research post (to the shock of many) to pursue theological studies, eventually being ordained as a priest in the Church of England in 1982. Polkinghorne became a key proponent for the reciprocal complementarity of theology and science (writing almost thirty books on the topic), and of the unique ability of the Christian worldview to broaden and deepen one’s vision of reality in both its physical and metaphysical domains.
Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously contended that science and religion constitute “non-overlapping magisteria.” He proposed the idea of a hard separation between the domains of science and religion. As a result of this separation, the domains may in no way be said to be in conflict with—or to complement—one another. His theory had the favorable effect, perhaps, of maintaining the fact that scientific thinking is not in conflict with Christian doctrine. But, ultimately, the theory is too radical. It goes too far.
In reply to Barry
No one touching this scientific and philosophical take, too deep for low value posters
In reply to XDFIX
indeed.......



The bullerman answereth?
The uneducated bullerman has rejected me- topic too difficult for him….
Let’s discuss this Canadian lecture
For the missing deck
I made him try to step up his game…. Unfortunately he forgot school

Plagiarizing Milton’s work
Search
Live Scores
- no matches