Creation Vs. Evolution = Free will Vs. determinism

If everything that exist is composed of atoms and atoms are composed of subatomic particles and the subatomic particles are composed of yet still more fundlemental particles. It has been postulated that fundlemental particles are not predictable, they can pop in and out of existance so to speak at random. Your thoughts are the same, they can pop in and out of existance too. Schrodinger expressed in his cat in a box analogy that observation can influence causality. Something that observes a event actualizes the event. I believe that the uncertainty principal permeates many facets of reality. I believe that looking into the box that contains the cat gives the answer only when one looks, until then the cat is both alive and dead. The randomness of radioactive decay keeps the answer/effect at bay until a observer actualizes/ collapses the wave form/event. Super computer models can predict and show every possible outcome but that still is not determinism. The cat is either dead or alive but what 'causes' the outcome? Randomness. Knowing all possible outcomes is not the samething as knowing THE actual outcome. Whos to say that the randomness of the quantum world does not leak into the macro world?

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Yes go look up some evidence on the other side. I don't really accept a partizan attitude on the issue, it's disgusting.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I've looked. Can't find any. Lots of assertions, lots of assertions from the Christian fundamentalists, literalists and revisionists, but no evidence.And I imagine if you could find it, you'd present it.But Hitler and the leading Nazis words stand.So once again, find out where Hitler claimed his actions, and the actions of ANY of the Nazis were based on Social Darwinism. Don't think you will. Genocide, like what the US did to the American Indians, like slavery, like the holocaust, were not done in the name of Social Darwinism, but rather in the name of Christianity.This message has been edited by jar, 08-19-2004 11:42 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is the way you do history science, the way you do all science?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In other words, you have no evidence.So I'd say it was time for you to retract your assertion and stop making such unfounded assertions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As far as I know, Schroedinger used the cat in the box example, to show how ridiculous it was to suppose that things just become real when they are observed.I wonder why you don't just assert the "straightforward" uncertainty that is used in science everywhere in terms of probabilities etc, and the uncertainties that are talked about all the time in the common language that you use in every day life.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No I think I'll just dismiss your opinion as worthless politics.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So once again, you are asserting opinion without any evidence to back it up.Good tactic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I do not believe your are correct in this assumption. Schrodinger did say the experiment was 'ridiculous' but his point of connecting micro and macro uncertianty was quite clear.
As for the rest of your post..I am not sure of your point. I can have a easier time understanding Schrodinger and Brad McFall than you at times. Sometimes I wonder if you even realize that someone is trying to support your argument. Or do you argue for the sake of argument.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

It is time that you backed up your assertions. Failure to do so would be taken as not debating in good faith and will earn you a rest from posting.

Yes it's a good tactic not to give counterargument, because now the only thing to look at is your 3 quotes standing there very pathetically.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Presumably that is why you do it it all the time!If you and Jar really want to discuss the ideological background of the holocaust (again) could you open up another thread to do so as it is still of topic for this one.TTFN,WK

Well I refer you to many of the innumerable postings I made on the subject. I am just following previous admin directives to limit the disscusion of the links between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. But sure I can post everything here again if you want, for this guy who obviously has no intention of taking a balanced view of things.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In this case what it really comes down to is whether the underlying basis of quantum mechanical phenomena is actually indeterministic. The various different flavours of quantum theory have different views on the matter. The copenhagen interpretation would favour indeterminism, the many worlds theory is a peculiar admixture (if you choose every option in some world have you really made a choice) and the evolution of the wavefunction in many-worlds is clearly deterministic, the pilot-wave based theories such as Bohmian mechanics or the trasactional interpretation of John Cramer are also Deterministic.If the quantum world is truly random then there is every likelihood that the universe itself is fundamentally random unless there are deeper layers of reality underlying the quantum world, at the moment however the question of whether QM is really random/indeterministic is still open.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-20-2004 02:40 AM

I don't think that a good way not to get banned is to start spamming yet another thread with your thoughts on social darwinism and the holocaust, open your own thread if you want to do that.TTFN,WK