pears

Which is what I said. I've never claimed it is scientific evidence, but it's personal evidence on which to base a personal belief. Someone without the experience might not hold that belief (faith). Someone with it might. So to them it's evidence. I agree.

What is the purpose of a hypothesis if not to explain? Surely all scientific hypothesis including the multiverse hypothesis seek to explain. Not that I'm saying God is a scientific hypothesis but I would have thought that in general a hypothesis that seeks to explain something is different in some way to one that seeks to explain nothing. Some people believe they have seen and heard. But subjective experience does not count as evidence on a science forum. Personally I think personal experience is reasonable evidence for a personal belief. But that is not a view shared here. I don't. I completely understand. And thank you for the links on the multiverse I appreciate it. I am still working through the paper and will reply when I'm done if I feel I have more to say on that topic.

But isn't the observer interfering by the very means of measurement? If the cat is in the dark it's not measuring the quantum state, but if a camera is able to see the cat then it would have been firing photons around in the box which implies something has interfered with the quantum system. Or am I misunderstanding the means by which observation affects a quantum system? I thought it was to do with measurement. Not that I'm saying the cat IS in both states. Just that I would have thought the cat being an observer would mean the cat had to measure the quantum system rather than just 'know' whether the decay had occured.

Thanks John, that paper looks awesome. I look forward to reading it. And thanks everyone else too, for your answers.

Wouldn't the camera be acting as observer in this case? If the camera is able to record the particles under decay light or something would have had to interfere with them and cause collapse at that point. Without the light the particles wouldn't have collapsed and the camera would have recorded nothing.

I think I'm asking more of the how than the why. I can accept that symmetry is favoured by natural selection etc and I can accept that external symmetry is favoured by attraction (though not symmetry of internal organs) but I just wondered how it happens, i.e. the mechanism that gives you two almost identical organs in symmetry. In my mind I can't help thinking of something splitting, either in the enbryo or in the DNA. I suspect the actual answer might be too technical for a simple post though?

I'm still confused. Are you saying I have claimed this? Or is this a general comment on the purpose of the section?

Could the film have been tampered with? How do we know it's genuine footage?

So if reason is defined as "capable of using reason and rationality to explain natural phenomena" doesn't that preclude religion by definition? So what is the point of having a religion section?

You're saying that the existence of a multiverse is probable because of something to do with quantum mechanics and an application of Bayesian probabilties. That's all rather vague. References please. I'm confused. What is the purpose of the religion section of this forum?

Haha that's priceless. That doesn't even make sense in plain English! If you guys really can't see a difference then good luck to you. I won't be able to convince you otherwise and I've already wasted enough hours of my life in this discussion.

I'm not trying to convince you of the existence of either. I am showing that the ideas are different.

Like some people accept God as a reasonable possibility. So how are you calculating this probability? OK. Let's consider the two ideas side by side. God: let's define this as a mind that isn't part of the physical universe, that is moral in character, and is the mind which is responsible for the laws of physics and the existence of the physical universe. Inows dragon: an invisible dragon who shits corn dogs living in his garage. Let's look at the features of each. God: A mind that is not part of the physical universe. Not subject to the laws of physics but rather their source and therefore one possible explanation for the existence of a coherent universe. Moral in nature therefore one possible explanation for the existence of moral ideas in humans. Dragon: A creature that is part of the physical universe with a particular location and biological functions. Physical in nature therefore should obey the laws of physics. Provides no explanation for anything. There is no known mechanism in physics where biological creatures can be invisible. There is no known mechanism in biology where creatures can shit corn-dogs. A physical biological creature that doesn't obey physics or biology is internally incoherent. This just sounds like an opinion. What is this probability? 10% 50% 90%? How is is calculated?

The speculation section is very useful to those of us with little formal scientific training. If a topic is in the main forum I can 'trust' it more. If it's in speculations I can understand immediately that it's not mainstream. I suspect that having a speculations section means such topics get moved there quickly whereas if there wasn't a section, a bit of discussion might need to be had in the mainstream section before a topic was deleted. I think I'd find that confusing.

This sounds like a faith statement. You don't give people much credit do you? Again this seems like a gross oversimplification. Are you talking about substance dualism or property dualism? You're right it is a separate discussion. If you want to discuss it you start a thread. You're the one making the claim. My point is that to claim two ideas are identical in their possibility because of their scientific verifiability when the content of the ideas is clearly different doesn't seem right. Just because we don't know how to measure coherence or plausibility of ideas, it doesn't necessarily mean that all ideas are equally plausible, even in the absence of scientific verifiability. Comparing a corn-dog shitting dragon to God is clearly a rhetorical device aimed at deriding the idea of God in a childish way. I could do the same to the multiverse. Believing in a multiverse is like believing in dragons that piss coco-cola.

Why do you think subjective judgement is necessarily emotional? Take three ideas, a multiverse, God and a pink unicorn. Why do you think the perceived coherence of these ideas is based on emotion? Si het hercocne fo hist netsenec faftecde yb oteimno? I'm not saying coherence has an effect on the truth. But it has an effect on perceived plausibility, which has an effect on belief. But quantum mechanics can be backed up by scientific evidence, which is another factor in plausibility. We are talking about areas where there isn't that luxury. Also isn't quantum mechanics largely mathematical? That would seem to make it internally coherent almost by definition. In what sense are you using the word 'likely' here? Likely to you? Because you perceive it that way? This itself appears to be a subjective judgement. This is also a gross oversimplification of the whole mind/body debate. But this is the question. How do you measure coherence or plausibilty? Just because a group of ideas are subjective why does that make them necessarily equal in every aspect? If we define these terms as subjective, i.e. as functions of human minds then perhaps we need to look at human minds in order to measure them. One could argue that one measure of the plausibility of an idea might be the number of minds prepared to believe it. Iggy thanks for your support. And by the way I'm a she not a he

OK I like your post. You make a good case for your view. I don't know how I can measure coherence. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it is just my opinion. They still 'seem' different ideas to me, and I can't explain objectively why one is more coherent than the other, except that philosophical pondering can lead me to the one idea over the other. I'm not trying to be difficult or deliberately argue against you just for the sake of it. We have different outlooks. To me one idea seems more reasonable than the other and I don't know exactly how to defend that view. I'll go away and think about it. Thank you for your considered response. Edit to add: OK I think the point is this: coherence of an idea, or what 'makes sense' to someone, IS a subjective thing, therefore the idea of God makes sense to some people, not because it's validity can be objectively verified, but because the idea just subjectively 'makes sense' in a way that isn't measurable. Note that my only assertion here is that belief in God is reasonable, in spite of a lack of any objectively verifiability or falsifability. I've also argued that one idea is more coherent than another. Again coherence here is a subjective term. So I am using words like 'reasonable' and 'coherent' which are intrinsically subjective. To you, I presume, reasonableness and coherence depend on objective verifiablity. To many people they don't, including myself. I would say an idea can be coherent because philosophical intuition might get me there. I probably need to think about this some more but at the end of the day what we have here is a difference of opinion. And we should probably just agree to disagree.

You mean coded in DNA? Do the pairs then evolve together? (i.e. an advantage in one kidney is reproduced in both) Is the symmetry there in the DNA that tells the embryo how to develop? (Is that right? Does DNA tell an embryo how to develop?) Does the advantage appear in the DNA and then the two kidneys are replicated from the same piece of DNA? Sorry that's a lot of questions and as you can see my background knowledge is a bit poor.

Humans would look practically the same if you put a mirror down the centre of us (as would many other creatures). Why is that? I assume it's something to do with the way the enbryo develops, like clusters of cell for producing a particular organ form and then kind of maybe split into two along an axis resulting in two eyes, two kidneys, two lungs etc. Presumably our two kidneys didn't evolve independently of each other.

OK thank you. That looks quite interesting. I didn't suggest morality comes from a holy book. I would say that morality or a sense of morality is sonething that comes from within us. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily limited to biology. And before you say anything, this is not something I can prove, which is why I qualify it as a belief someone might reasonably hold rather than a fact. If you limit your definiition of love to the feelings experienced in courtship, which don't necessarily last, and which don't necessarily keep people together. No, reductionism and materialism are philosophical viewpoints. Science is a tool. Fine. That's your opinion. I am not saying that people are *right* to hold such views, just that they are valid opinions which a scientist might reasonable hold (as an opinion, not as scientific 'fact'). Ok thanks. I hadn't heard religious being used in that way before.

Have you? I assumed most people here didn't have religious beliefs. How can someone show you what they do not have? I have claimed very little. I have suggested that evidence does not always have to be scientific (and that some people might claim subjective experience as valid evidence for *them* (not OBjective evidence, SUBjective). This is hardly a grand claim. And I have suggested that the idea of God is more coherent than a corn dog pooping dragon. I have hardly claimed "all sorts of things". If you disagree with these claims how does knowledge of my spiritual life help you? Unless you want to attack that, rather than the comments I have made in the discussion. Trolling? Seriously? My spiritual life is a personal matter. I don't know why you need to know anything about it. I have merely commented on a few individual points. An 'even playing field'? This is a discussion, not a competition. I am not trying to "win" anything. I am not trying to change anyone's beliefs, or lack of. I am not even trying to change anyone's opinion. But where I see what I consider to be flawed logic or reasoning, I will comment on it. Presumably people can do the same if they see flawed reasoning in any of my posts. I do not need to know another's personal beleifs, nor they mine in order to engage in a reasonable discussion of a named topic. It is the topic and the arguments that matter to me, not the person behind them.

Oh OK. Thanks. Philosophy of science is not something I've read up on yet. It's on my to do list. Thanks Obe Wan.

hmm well actually I don't understand this sentence. My ignorance is showing here.

Well in fairness, scientific verification isn't the challenge to the idea of equating the two - but the nature of the idea itself, it's content and coherence. So Iggy's point stands on that basis. I.e. the two ideas are not equal, except on the grounds of scientific provability. How about the idea of a multiverse? Is that equal to a dragon poop?

How about a game that involves keeping things below a certain level, such as power or water. E.g. you have to perform certain tasks without exceeding an allowed level of resources. Maybe you have opponents (e.g. other household members) that go around leaving lights on, and taps running?