4 ms·

physics <> determinsm

by dror 14y ago

confluence 14y ago
physics = probabilistic determinism
goldfeld 14y ago
I'm constantly intrigued by how people can keep such dual world views. Like Christians who also believe in natural selection. It seems like they don't really want to think it through, so whatever they just accept both conflicting notions. If you come to understand and appreciate high-school level physics, chemistry and the workings of the brain, which most high-schoolers don't, it really strikes me as conflicting how you could not become a determinist. We're just machines fueled by chemistry.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > I'm constantly intrigued by how people can keep such dual world views. Like Christians who also believe in natural selection. I'm not a Christian, but I can easily see how someone could be a Christian while not accepting the fundamentalist outlook (i.e. that the world is only 6,000 years old, we're not descended from other species, etc.). Those "other" Christians believe in God, but don't accept the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. To argue that all Christians are fundamentalists would be like arguing the all Muslims want to fly airplanes into buildings. As a viewpoint, it lacks evidence. Even Einstein held something resembling a religious outlook -- but his supreme being couldn't be bothered to deal with us lowly insects: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Also, remember that, until the end of the 19th century, there was no plausible way for the sun to have been in existence for more than a few million years (in that pre-relativistic era, the sun's energy was thought to arise only from gravitational contraction), which wasn't enough time to support Darwin's timetable. So at that time, even scientists couldn't explain how complex species arose. > We're just machines fueled by chemistry. That's my outlook also, but I can see how religious people might possess different views on the literalness of scripture.
- confluence 14y ago
  It's called cognitive dissonance. It's how religious people can argue on an internet developed using science or risk their lives to machines made with science. They never join the two logically incompatible worlds.

physics <> determinsm

by dror 14y ago

physics <> determinsm

confluence 14y ago

physics = probabilistic determinism

goldfeld 14y ago

I'm constantly intrigued by how people can keep such dual world views. Like Christians who also believe in natural selection. It seems like they don't really want to think it through, so whatever they just accept both conflicting notions. If you come to understand and appreciate high-school level physics, chemistry and the workings of the brain, which most high-schoolers don't, it really strikes me as conflicting how you could not become a determinist. We're just machines fueled by chemistry.

lutusp 14y ago
> I'm constantly intrigued by how people can keep such dual world views. Like Christians who also believe in natural selection. I'm not a Christian, but I can easily see how someone could be a Christian while not accepting the fundamentalist outlook (i.e. that the world is only 6,000 years old, we're not descended from other species, etc.). Those "other" Christians believe in God, but don't accept the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. To argue that all Christians are fundamentalists would be like arguing the all Muslims want to fly airplanes into buildings. As a viewpoint, it lacks evidence. Even Einstein held something resembling a religious outlook -- but his supreme being couldn't be bothered to deal with us lowly insects: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Also, remember that, until the end of the 19th century, there was no plausible way for the sun to have been in existence for more than a few million years (in that pre-relativistic era, the sun's energy was thought to arise only from gravitational contraction), which wasn't enough time to support Darwin's timetable. So at that time, even scientists couldn't explain how complex species arose. > We're just machines fueled by chemistry. That's my outlook also, but I can see how religious people might possess different views on the literalness of scripture.
confluence 14y ago
It's called cognitive dissonance. It's how religious people can argue on an internet developed using science or risk their lives to machines made with science. They never join the two logically incompatible worlds.