Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Uhhh, a principle is not a force of nature.

Doh!

Secondly and in a related manner, quantum mechanical measurement is of an effect, not a measurement of a cause that can be determined as a force of randomness.

The uncertainty principle deals with measurement only, not with observation of phenomena or known forces of nature.

You are still using that flashlight to look for darkness...

Quote from kjkent1:

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle demonstrates the existence of randomness as both a mathematical and empirical fact.

That you choose to pronounce judgment to the contrary based solely on your unsupported personal opinion, does not change the fact that your pronouncement is false.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Uhhh, a principle is not a force of nature.

Doh!

Secondly and in a related manner, quantum mechanical measurement is of an effect, not a measurement of a cause that can be determined as a force of randomness.

The uncertainty principle deals with measurement only, not with observation of phenomena or known forces of nature.

You are still using that flashlight to look for darkness...

Regardless of your incoherent comments above, quantum uncertainty scientifically proves randomness occurs. You may choose to believe that there is some cause behind the uncertainty principle, but you cannot prove it. You can only believe it.

Whereas I can simply point to the experiment which demonstrates that there is no possible way to simultaneously measure the location and frequency of a sub atomic particle -- i.e., it is a truly unpredictable event, which is random until such time as someone can demonstrate otherwise.

Absent such a demonstration, the scientific answer is the only answer. Randomness exists, and it is provable via methodical naturalism -- no creator is required.

Someday, you may actually offer some proof for your conclusions, rather than merely pronouncing them as fact without evidence.

But, I rather doubt it.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

That is a false claim, it doesn't prove randomness occurs, it demonstrates the there is a measurement problem using classical measurements (all measurements we make are on the foundation of classical logical thinking) and applying them to quantum mechanical events.

To prove randomness you would need to go back in time and observe a different outcome than the one from which you came.

If the outcome was the same each and every time with all conditions the same (as if we went back in time they would be the same) then outcome wouldn't have been random at all but, determined following cause and effect principles.

Until you can get a time machine to return to the exact same circumstances of the previous condition to either prove or disprove actual randomness vs. determinate cause by going back into time, you have nothing but a presupposition and ignorance.

Since the vast majority of observable events in the universe are not mysterious but the consequence of cause and effect, the most simple explanation is that there is cause, not random uncaused behavior or some unknown force of randomness. Cause should be assumed, not causeless assumed because of our ignorance.

Reductionism to randomness are a force is the same as the conclusion that darkness is a result of a force of darkness.

You can say we don't know how to measure something to achieve knowledge of an event, but that is such a far cry from claiming there is a force of randomness as causation.

Oh, the "scientific answer" you proclaim is just a speculative guess...that has been shown to be incomplete again and again as science advances, and does not eliminate spurious conclusions.

Some day you may offer proof of your conclusions, but I doubt it.

Science does not reach conclusions, scientists do, and scientists are not science any more than biologists are biology, logicians are logic, a physicist is physics, etc.

Keep shining that flashlight into the darkness claiming that there is a force of darkness to be found...

Quote from kjkent1:

Regardless of your incoherent comments above, quantum uncertainty scientifically proves randomness occurs. You may choose to believe that there is some cause behind the uncertainty principle, but you cannot prove it. You can only believe it.

Whereas I can simply point to the experiment which demonstrates that there is no possible way to simultaneously measure the location and frequency of a sub atomic particle -- i.e., it is a truly unpredictable event, which is random until such time as someone can demonstrate otherwise.

Absent such a demonstration, the scientific answer is the only answer. Randomness exists, and it is provable via methodical naturalism -- no creator is required.

Someday, you may actually offer some proof for your conclusions, rather than merely pronounce them as fact without evidence.

But, I rather doubt it.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

That is a false claim, it doesn't prove randomness occurs, it demonstrates the there is a measurement problem using classical measurements (all measurements we make are on the foundation of classical logical thinking) and applying them to quantum mechanical events.

To prove randomness you would need to go back in time and observe a different outcome than the one from which you came.

If the outcome was the same each and every time with all conditions the same (as if we went back in time they would be the same) then outcome wouldn't have been random at all but, determined following cause and effect principles.

Until you can get a time machine to return to the exact same circumstances of the previous condition to either prove or disprove actual randomness vs. determinate cause by going back into time, you have nothing but a presupposition and ignorance.

Since the vast majority of observable events in the universe are not mysterious but the consequence of cause and effect, the most simple explanation is that there is cause, nor random uncaused behavior or some unknown force of randomness. Cause should be assumed, not causeless assumed because of our ignorance.

Oh, the "scientific answer" you proclaim is just a speculative guess...that has been shown to be incomplete again and again as science advances, and does not eliminate spurious conclusions.

Some day you may offer proof of your conclusions, but I doubt it.

Science does not reach conclusions, scientists do, and scientists are not science any more than biologists are biology, logicians are logic, a physicist is physics, etc.

Keep shining that flashlight into the darkness claiming that there is a force of darkness to be found...

Total nonsense, Z.

You propose that the only way to conduct a scientific experiment to prove up randomness is by violating causality. But, by violating causality, you would return to a point where things would not be the same, because you would be there to observe it.

Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. The reason why quantum uncertainty is uncertain is because you cannot do what you claim must be done in order to prove what cannot be proved.

It's precisely because it cannot be proved that the event is random.

Randomness is proven to exist.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The simplest explanation based on observation of the known universe is causation, not lack of causation. The lack of knowledge of that cause is not a vitiation of cause or any reasonable proof of non cause. If there is a pattern of behavior we cannot measure, then the common factor is the pattern itself. To suggest that there is no algorithm in play for what happens takes a tremendous leap of speculative Nihilism.

As with light, it exists, darkness is but its absence.

I can't help it if you begin with absence as a foundation to construct what you consider knowledge...

The whole thing is so absurd, but few can stand back and take a reasonable look at it. Even those evolutionists are arguing a consistent pattern in natural behavior, following a pattern of any kind is not a display of randomness.

If they were claiming sometimes there is evolution, sometimes there isn't, sometimes it happens, or it may never happen, or it may have happened and never happen again, or it may not have happened as there is no consistency to even develop a concept of perpetual randomness following a pattern and force of randomness...all that would at least make some sense.

Oh, and there would be no certainty of uncertainty if it were truly uncertain.

Tooooooooo funny...

Quote from kjkent1:

Total nonsense, Z.

You propose that the only way to conduct a scientific experiment to prove up randomness is by violating causality. But, by violating causality, you would return to a point where things would not be the same, because you would be there to observe it.

Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. The reason why quantum uncertainty is uncertain is because you cannot do what you claim must be done in order to prove what cannot be proved.

It's precisely because it cannot be proved that the event is random.

Randomness is proven to exist.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The simplest explanation based on observation of the known universe is causation, not lack of causation. The lack of knowledge of that cause is not a vitiation of cause or any reasonable proof of non cause. If there is a pattern of behavior we cannot measure, then the common factor is the pattern itself. To suggest that there is no algorithm in play for what happens takes a tremendous leap of speculative Nihilism.

As with light, it exists, darkness is but its absence.

I can't help it if you begin with absence as a foundation to construct what you consider knowledge...

The whole thing is so absurd, but few can stand back and take a reasonable look at it. Even those evolutionists are arguing a consistent pattern in natural behavior, following a pattern of any kind is not a display of randomness.

If they were claiming sometimes there is evolution, sometimes there isn't, sometimes it happens, or it may never happen, or it may have happened and never happen again, or it may not have happened as there is no consistency to even develop a concept of perpetual randomness following a pattern and force of randomness...all that would at least make some sense.

Oh, and there would be no certainty of uncertainty if it were truly uncertain.

Tooooooooo funny...

Many serious scientists are united in their annoyance with the reality of Heisenberg's discovery. Richard Feynman (widely regarded as the most brilliant high energy physicist to have ever lived) would comment to his students to not try to "understand" the uncertaintly principle, and instead "shut up and calculate."

That you personally chose to find uncertainty unbelievable merely puts you in the same camp as many great minds. But, it doesn't matter, because all of those people -- Einstein included, were forced to accept uncertainty as reality.

So, if you wish to laugh in the face of that reality, you won't be the first or the last.

But, realty will have the last laugh -- and it just isn't the reality that you chose to believe.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I never claimed to find uncertainty unbelievable, it is a logical possibility, but one that is not proven to be true or false and runs counter the the primary workings of the universe.

The simplest explanation is causation, and there no reason or fact that demonstrates that explanation of non cause is the most reasonable.

"So, if you wish to laugh in the face of that reality, you won't be the first or the last."

Another master of realty jerking off in public...

Quote from kjkent1:

Many serious scientists are united in their annoyance with the reality of Heisenberg's discovery. Richard Feynman (widely regarded as the most brilliant high energy physicist to have ever lived) would comment to his students to not try to "understand" the uncertaintly principle, and instead "shut up and calculate."

That you personally chose to find uncertainty unbelievable merely puts you in the same camp as many great minds. But, it doesn't matter, because all of those people -- Einstein included, were forced to accept uncertainty as reality.

So, if you wish to laugh in the face of that reality, you won't be the first or the last.

But, realty will have the last laugh -- and it just isn't the reality that you chose to believe.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I never claimed to find uncertainty unbelievable, it is a logical possibility, but one that is not proven to be true or false and runs counter the the primary workings of the universe.

The simplest explanation is causation, and there no reason or fact that demonstrates that explanation of non cause is the most reasonable.

"So, if you wish to laugh in the face of that reality, you won't be the first or the last."

Another master of realty jerking off in public...

How charming. Remind me again as to which institution iit is in which you're committed?

 

[2cents]

if there is choice there is randomness and vice-versa, wouldn't you say zizzzo?

(and please wash your hands before posting...)

 

[I am...]

Quote from kjkent1:

How charming. Remind me again as to which institution iit is in which you're committed?

This universe is an insane asylum.
It's denizens are very committed to it.
Or at least they used to be.
Or they would not be here.

Before this universe,
there was no such thing as choice or decision.
With choice/decision came uncertainty.
With uncertainty came random chance.

Uncertainty is self-imposed,
by vacsillating back and forth
between what's true, and what's false.
This conjures doubt, the energy of fear.
Energy is the thought of fear.

Fear in a creative mind results in miscreation.
The miscreation cannot exist without it.
Random chance is a design
Chance maintains fear
Fear maintains the miscreation.

Too much fear and the mind won't tolerate the miscreation
Too little fear and the mind won't tolerate the miscreation.
The miscreation must find a balance:
Since fear is the energy of vascillation,
fear is reduced by a false sense of certainty.

Order and predictability arise out of a need to reduce fear.
Chaos underlies the order to maintain the fear.
Judgement backed by faith conjures a sense of certainty
So a world of fear is built on judgement and faith.

Peace rules the day...
Until a chance occurance thrusts fear into your heart.
All by design.
There are no accicents.

The world is ingenious.
It is genious so far beyond the limits imposed on man,
the miscreation is able to hide, and yet be feared.
Its genious serves one end, and one end only...
Murder.

Who commits to this except the insane?


Jesus