Creationist theory

I agree that we don't know everything, so arguments about everything can be discarded. I'm not actually saying that everything is indeterminate, you are saying that everything may be predetermined. So, you are the one making arguments about everything, not I.I think it's more to the point here to compare creationist way of describing indeterminacy, with other ways of describing indeterminacy.So you know, argue something. I'm not going to explain again, I don't see the need to repeat myself, you have to ask a specific question if there's something you don't understand.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I said that if you wanted me to expand on it I will (I even left a link for you to puruse that explains things in a little more detail). Then asked you to expand on your side. You are saying that because we don't know how to predict x then it is inherently indeterminate as if we are some final arbiter on the matter. I don't agree. I am happy to accept the conclusion that things are indeterminate, but your reasoning is not sound. Perhaps you have better reasoning yet, hence why I am asking you to expand on it. I was just asking you to slowly step through your ideas with me so that I can understand them better and comment on specific areas where I disagree.So far it is clear that it is not science, since there is no evidence for any of the entities you have posited. You claim indterminacy yet if you follow the link I posted, and the conversation that followed you will see two cosmologists talking about the inherent determinacy of the universe:

quote:

---

It is totally deterministic. Given the initial wavefunction and a description of the system, I can give the final state with to[t]al accuracy.

---

If you don't want to try and explain your ideas to me further - that's fine. I'll stop posting, remove my access privelages to this forum and that'll be the end of it.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You only gave some reference to some opinionating evcforum posting! This is significant how? It was just the usual nay-saying against indeterminacy without much of any basis. It would be more meaningful if you could reference some nay-sayer who at least demonstrates their capability to describe in terms of indeterminacy in rejecting it.I don't want you to expand on theories that *everything* is determinate. Such philosphical meandering about everything is incredibly boring. I just want you to give some alternative theories of indeterminacy that discount the creationist theory of indeterminacy.I specially exluded ojbective evidence for the spiritual, and IMO such acknowledgement of a border beyond which science can't go, is still a part of science, as should be learned in a basic science class.I agree this debate is meaningless. So for the last time I ask you, argue for instance; another way then the creationist way to describe the change in location of an elecron around an atom in terms of indeterminacy.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

It is signifant for two reasons1) It shows that I am not totally anti-indeterminacy. Just this April gone I argued for it.2) I was corrected, and if you wish me to expand on things, I will do (though it may take time), the posts there are a background to the kind of direction I'll probably go in. No problem I'll get back to you on it. I'll attempt to show you that the electron isn't a thing, but given necessary initial variables we'll be able to determine the final state. This is a concept that is new to me as of April just gone, so I'll need to do some background reading if I am to present it to somebody else in any kind of detail. Perhaps - but a theory which includes an entity which cannot be described in a science manner, nor confirmed, tested or falsified is simply philosophy and not science. If it was consistent with science, it might pass as theoretical physics, but I don't think it is even consistent. A point I will attempt to show with my determinacy post. I will be arguing in terms of determinacy...is that ok?

---

In the mean time, might I ask that you comply with my request to expand on your ideas a little more. Perhaps if you explain it in a different way, or in simpler terms, or step through it one step at atime, break it down into component steps...anything like that would be helpful. After all, if I have misunderstood your point then the debate is going to be meaningless once again.You never know - I might end up agreeing with you!Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Go ahead and argue for determinacy, but such is a very weak argument. When you do that it simply gives credibility to what I say at the start of my original posting, which is that science can't handle indeterminacy. I'm pretty sure that to most readers this assertion would seem a doubtful point at first. But when you give a critque of the creationist way of handling indeterminacy, by basically denying indeterminacy althogether, then.... it becomes very credible that scientists actually can't handle indeterminacy.IMO such arguments for determinacy aren't worth considering, and like I said, they are very boring, so I would probably not respond.As far as I've read your referred debate, one of them has it backwards. AFAIK the electron as a particle does exist, the electron as a wave doesn't exist. That is to say the electron wave does exist but it only exists in the future as a probability, while only the electron particle exists in the present.So when you here say that an electron isn't a thing, I think very probably you are just disregarding the different timeperspectives, and getting them mixed up.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Just to let you know - I am compiling information on determinacy, and I might propose a new topic to get some resources together and let the debate take place. The internet is of limited use and sometimes expert sources are needed to be tapped.Still my request remains for you to expand on your information a little more. For example: We do not know the starting state of the entities in this sprit realm you propose. How then, are we to conclude that that this spirit realm is indeterminate? Perhaps there are the aforementioned hidden variables lurking within this realm?Are you just asking me to accept that it is indeterminate, or do you have some further evidence for it? Whether or not that is true - it seems like an admission that your idea is not actually science, but philosophy. You consider science as incapable of explaining reality in totality because it is flawed. Therefore some other method for arriving at conclusions must be employed. You have to look to some kind of alternative philosophy than science. Does this sound about right?

I did not say the spiritual realm was indeterminate, I only said the spirit owns the choice. You are seemingly trying to make some objective appraisal of the spiritual realm, which I already explained why this is wrong.I just meant mainstream science can't handle indeterminacy, for failure to use the concept of decision correctly, creationist science can.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. The spirit, which might be determinate, owns the choice? Does that mean the spirit makes the choice? So basically this isn't actual science, as practiced by scientists. It's creationist science, which is fundamentally different in some important manner. The concept of decision seems to rely on the subjective, which is not actual science.I'm still tremendously confused about your ideas, and would appreciate some further elaboration on how this is all meant to work. It's not science, but it might be interesting...it is proving somewhat difficult to convince you to talk about your theory in depth. Is there a reason for this?

I think you are just tremendously confused about the subject of indeterminacy in general in the first place, not creationism in particular. This explains why you don't give an alternative model of indeterminacy to the creationist model, and why you flip-flop on acknowledging indeterminacy.The spirit makes the choice yes, I suggest you refer to the general religious and Hollywood talk about the heart and soul, spirit etc. for context.IMO we can locate decisions precisely, as I've shown, so creation science is just another science discpline.As many times before, ask specific questions about what you don't understand, about the specific examples I gave of how creationism works.There's no use for me to just go talking about "my" theory when actually you ignore that quite lenghty posting at the beginning where I do talk about it.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I am willing to accept indeterminacy in order for you to explain the practicalities and consequences for me. I keep asking for you to expand on your ideas, but you seem unwilling... I haven't ignored it - I have spoken of it. However, I think it needs expanding on, I'm looking for a little more detail. Some aspects of it leave me confused as to their relevancy and evidence. Given that you know lots about it, I thought you'd perhaps be able to word it in different ways and talk a willing person through it. If the spirit is determinate then, the choice it makes is not really a choice, but the determination of the variables involved. Right? Therefore the spirit is indeterminate. I disagree - we cannot locate decisions at all! At least - this is what I am asking you to demonstrate. Talk me through this precise location. I also don't think that being able to define a decision and discuss the moment that it happens makes creation science a science. It still makes it very much philosophy. Its validity isn't affected by this, but calling it science is misleading. I've asked specific questions about the practicality. I can't ask much more without understanding your theory in more detail. For example you keep saying things like "We may simply search and find the precise location of a decision", without actually detailing how we'd go about doing this. All we know is that this being will not be material. However, this 'spirit' may or may not be indeterminate (I thought it had to be indeterminate, but you have corrected me on this).You mention a decision occuring at the qmz point without explaining why in any detail. Why does the decision occur there, why not somewhere else, and the decision information is then 'transported' there? Perhaps the observer makes the decision? Can we test for this decision? Does your 'decision model' make any predictions or open itself up for testing in a manner that can be differentiated from current models?Without further elaboration, your idea is doomed to fall into obscurity. Hopefully (for it), you'll expand on your ideas a little for us all.

As you can read in post 1, you can locate a decision by;
- looking for the center of a probability distribution- looking for a change in pattern-looking for a qmz point-looking for a change in probability.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

In each of those cases, where would the decision actually be?

The decision would be at the center of the probability distribution, at the qmz-point, it would be at the point where the pattern changed.For instance randomness is a subject of interest for encryption, and various other computerfunctions. In discussing this one would obviously like to know where the number originates. It would not be good to have the number coming from a pre-existing pattern of numbers, because somebody might get their hands on the pre-existing pattern of numbers and consequently crack the encryption code more easily. So one would obviously want the number to be chosen there and then, so one wouldn't have to worry about safeguarding some pre-existing pattern.And so they researched it, and found that the noise coming from a zener-diode originates at the qmz-point. They calculated that it is impossible to predict the noise coming out of it, from the "input" of the zener-diode.So what this story says is that;- basically the science for finding decisions already exists- it is useful to talk in terms of decisions this way, it could hardly be avoided to tell this story informatively without referring to the location where the number is decidedregards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

OK, I feel I'm up to speed on the concept of decision. Now, how do we go from here to the concepts of a decider, a choice maker?From the choice maker, how do we conclude that the choice maker itself is indeterminate? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

As far as I know choice makers are neither determinate or indeterminate but absolutes, following from Kant. It's not the point here to discuss identity-issues, because I already explained how those issues are outside of science in post 1. Because one can only relate to the owner of a choice by your own choice, it is therefore neccessarily a subjective issue.For practical purposes one might say for instance that the zener-diode makes the decision, but that would only mean that the decision is located in the zener-diode. And since at the precise location of the decision is nothing, it would be false to insist that decisions are materially owned.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu