Not really.

I would point out that the entanglement of the two was paradoxical and then ask you on what grounds did you come to that assumption.

EDIT: The two already established ideas we have brought to the table. That wasn't very clear of me =/

This post was edited by piddywiffle on Feb 26 2012 10:11pm

you left out a pretty important word there:



obviously i do think youre wrong (as does most of the scientific community), but I realize you can't prove it thats why i said SUGGESTS


and the application of it isnt towards the constructs of a higher power, its towards whether or not a god micromanages every and little thing in which case quantum mechanics can sufficiently cast a reasonably doubt on that notion. and for the record is COMPLETELY relavent to what you said


and theres nothing childish or paradoxical about the application; the only childish thing seems to be youre inability to apply quantum mechanics to your own reality


you should add this to youre next post. just say:

"i understand quantum mechanics suggests that im wrong, but i believe this anyway"

stop using the word paradoxcial, i dont think you fully understand what it means. yea its cool word, but its completely irrelavent to anything in this thread


and if youre confused, the relationship between the two statements is that they are both probably true, but cant be said with absolute certainty.

Suggests?

I'm pretty sure this was addressed earlier in the thread.

And it is paradoxical (yes I'm going to keep using that word. It is cool, it's easily defined, and I'm enjoying your abrasive nature towards it).

Point and case, as this whole conversation will swing full circle, is a creationist asking the question, "What makes you so sure God didn't design it that way?"

okay cool keep using irrelavent words

and dumb question. whether or not god designed the universe to be random is also irrelevant. To elaborate, lets pretend god designed the universe to be random. That means the universe is still random, and he doesnt control the events, and he has nothing to do with species extintion, and youre still wrong. Except this time you would be 100% wrong and not just probably wrong since in the scenario described the universe is assumed random


Bottom line:

what you said is probably wrong. deal with it

Again you're basing assumption on fact.

A big no no in the scientific community.

Quantum mechanics is something we are still struggling to understand and to even project that it is concrete is foolhardy at best. Of course it seems random to us at this stage, it's still in an infantile stage of development.

I mean... I am sorry it took you this long to understand my point, and I'm also sorry that you feel science is quantifiable as an absolute, but that's not my problem.

It is, however, everyone else's problem when you present such data as empirical.

yea, i think science is quantifiable as an absolute. Thats why ive used words like "SUGGESTS" and "PROBABLY" for the entire conversation. /facepalm

and actually its a big yes yes for the scientific community. yes there are different theories, but MOST of the field believes its random. if everything were predetermined or controlled there would be no wave function to collapse

i never presented anything as emprical, all i ever said was that you were PROBABLY wrong.

And guess what, YOU'RE STILL PROBABLY WRONG. You can try and run from it all you want, but you're still PROBABLY wrong. And honestly the probably part is understated. Really you're almost certainly wrong, but I'll be generous and keep saying you're only probably wrong.

Are you familiar with what this argument is about?

I'm curious to see it in your own words.

I just want to make sure you understand what has transpired here today.

explain it to me


If you want a summary of what happen, I would say this. You made a statement, i pointed it out that it probably wasnt true, and then you proceeded to try to save face and in the process made yourself look completely retarded

In a nut shell:

You attempted to disprove something unquantifiable with something else that is unquantifiable through implied suggestion.

You presented a cyclic argument and claimed your method to be absolute in its own right in an effort to break the cycle with failed inductive reasoning.

When that fell apart, you resorted to childish name calling, which only hampered your argument and, eventually, ground it into dust by asking me to transpose the recent events.



Mind you, I am not disputing your right to counteract my idea, only the method in which you proceeded to do so.