If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

New religions are emerging all the time. Wicca emerged in the 20th century, not to mention all the New Age stuff, and a cursory review of the internet would reveal numerous cults that have come and gone in the last century.


Agreed.

But if theists are being put on the spot to explain, so are atheists.

If nothing exists but inanimate matter and energy, then atheists are required to explain how a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned cosmos could have originated from purely inanimate physical reasons and irrational chance.

The only worldview that is not on the hook to explain itself is agnosticism.

The Universe is unorganized. Buzzword fallacies (inanimate matter and energy, mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned cosmos, irrational chance, inanimate physical reasons, agnosticism).

Go learn English.

 

[Cypress]

The answer you are EVADING is that it has never been tested. You have no business pretending to engage in any sort of discussion on this subject matter.


The question you are EVADING is why do you think that any agreement is necessary?


Objective truth is not a subjective matter of opinion. Science is not determined by consensus. Nobody owns either science or math.

Why are you concerned about "agreement"?


You are wrong about virtually everything you write.


Correct. That brings your grand total of correct things to 4.


You have never defined "real". Just for the record, you are stating that empirical evidence is not real, yes?

Your frantic Googling failed to uncover what the name of this equation is?

Considering you basically claimed to almost be a protege of Steven Hawking, you should have been able to recognize one of the most famous equations of 20th century physics.

 

[Into the Night]

I knew you wouldn't recognize the equation without me telling you, or by you frantically Googling.

Irrelevance fallacy. The Universe isn't a random equation. It is simply unorganized.

"A Century Into Quantum Mechanics, Physicists Still Can’t Agree What It Means"
A new Nature survey of over 1,100 researchers reveals that physicists remain sharply divided on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, even 100 years after its development.

A Century Into Quantum Mechanics, Physicists Still Can’t Agree What It Means, Nature Survey Shows

A new Nature survey of over 1,100 researchers reveals that physicists remain sharply divided on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

thequantuminsider.com

Science is not a magazine, researches, or a poll.

 

[Into the Night]

no. the roulette reel is real even before it stops.

equations are functions essentially, and a plethora of value are predicted based on input.

its like you're dumber than shit.

(x−a)^2 + (y−b)^2 = r^2
is not a function, but it IS an equation.

It happens to be the equation describing a circle.

 

[Monad Portal]

(x−a)^2 + (y−b)^2 = r^2
is not a function, but it IS an equation.

It happens to be the equation describing a circle.

as we know, every relation is not a function.

 

[Monad Portal]

vetical line test.

 

[Into the Night]

First you have some frantic Googling homework to complete.
Tell me what the name of this equation is, before I have to invest time giving you more tuition-free education.

I said there wasn't agreement and there were open questions about what quantum mechanics really is telling us about physical reality.
You claimed I was wrong about that.

Theories can and do change.

Only measurements are real.

An equation is not a measurement. ALL observations (and the data resulting from them) are subject to the problems of phenonemology.
ALL measurements are based on a ground reference (which you choose).

No theory changes. A different theory is simply a completely different theory.

No theory of science can ever change.

 

[Into the Night]

as we know, every relation is not a function.

But you claimed it was. Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

The roulette wheel is a macroscopic physical object, not an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a mathematical representation of a quantum system. They are not analogous.

Correct Einstein. Mathematics makes accurate predictions.

Statistical mathematics has no power of prediction due to it's import of random numbers.
Random numbers themselves are not predictions.

Your boyfriend IBDumbass howled at me that math does not make predictions.

Mathematics does not make predictions, but mathematics has the power of prediction inherit in it (with some exceptions). This is due to the closed functional nature of mathematics.

 

[Cypress]

The Universe is unorganized!!

ftfy

 

[Monad Portal]

But you claimed it was. Which is it, dude?

many equations are essentially functions, but not all.

 

[Monad Portal]

vertical line test.

 

[Into the Night]

Your frantic Googling failed to uncover what the name of this equation is?

Meh.

Considering you basically claimed to almost be a protege of Steven Hawking, you should have been able to recognize one of the most famous equations of 20th century physics.

Steven Hawking isn't an equation.

The most significant equation in science (that eventually resulted in quantum mechanics!) is F=mA, or Newton's law of motion. It even took us to the Moon! It even allowed us to build and fly spacecraft to travel beyond the solar system.

NONE of it is the Universe. The Universe is unorganized. It has no equation.

 

[Into the Night]

vertical line test.

Not good enough. Circles have no vertical lines.

Consider the equation:
y=(x<2)*28+(x>2)*29+(x!=2)*x

This produces a discontinuous graph. It is not a function, but it IS an equation.
No vertical lines either.

 

[Into the Night]

ftfy

The Universe is not a planet.

 

[Monad Portal]

Not good enough. Circles have no vertical lines.

Consider the equation:
y=(x<2)*28+(x>2)*29+(x!=2)*x

This produces a discontinuous graph. It is not a function, but it IS an equation.
No vertical lines either.

every relation is not a function.

we have addressed this.

 

[Cypress]

The Universe is not a planet.

Interesting that you don't recognize this seminal scientific law and principle.

 

[Monad Portal]

The Universe is not a planet.

and gravity being consistent does not mean the universe is planned.

 

[Into the Night]

every relation is not a function.

we have addressed this.

Pivot fallacy. You were discussing some kind 'vertical line test' where there are no vertical lines!

 

[Into the Night]

Interesting that you don't recognize this seminal scientific law and principle.

The Universe is not a theory of science, was never transcribed to mathematics, and is not a principle.