Why physicists are uniquely qualified to talk about god

[Cypress]

Other than Sean Carroll, no one as a physicist is discussing philosophy. Of course, there are lots of philosophers talking about physics.

Very few philosophers actually really know physics, unless they got dual degrees in physics and philosophy. There's a few who have dual degrees

You obviously are not familiar with Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, and the debates over the meaning of Quantum mechanics.

The physics community is split into experimentalists and theorists. The experimentalists are the shut up and calculate types. The theorists who work on the cutting edge tend to have some interest in the epistomological and ontological consequences of theoretical physics.

 

[Hume]

Very few philosophers actually really know physics, unless they got dual degrees in physics and philosophy. There's a few who have dual degrees

You obviously are not familiar with Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, and the debates over the meaning of Quantum mechanics.

The physics community is split into experimentalists and theorists. The experimentalists are the shut up and calculate types. The theorists who work on the cutting edge tend to have some interest in the epistomological and ontological consequences of theoretical physics.

shut up you dope

 

[Cypress]

shut up you dope

"The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science, insofar as the disagreements—and the outcome of Bohr's version of quantum mechanics becoming the prevalent view—form the root of the modern understanding of physics."

Bohr–Einstein debates - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Cypress]

Thanks for posting this interesting read. The last sentence says it all.

I think the reason that Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Steven Weinberg, Steven Hawking are/were in such high demand by the media, is because physicists are perceived as having some kind of deeper insights into god and the meaning of the universe that biologists, chemists, and engineers are not percieved as having.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't confuse the two.

Yes you did.

 

[Into the Night]

"The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science, insofar as the disagreements—and the outcome of Bohr's version of quantum mechanics becoming the prevalent view—form the root of the modern understanding of physics."

Bohr–Einstein debates - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Redefinition fallacy (philosophy<->science).

 

[Into the Night]

Very few philosophers actually really know physics, unless they got dual degrees in physics and philosophy. There's a few who have dual degrees

You obviously are not familiar with Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, and the debates over the meaning of Quantum mechanics.

The physics community is split into experimentalists and theorists. The experimentalists are the shut up and calculate types. The theorists who work on the cutting edge tend to have some interest in the epistomological and ontological consequences of theoretical physics.

You are not familiar with them either, Sybil.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I think the reason that Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Steven Weinberg, Steven Hawking are/were in such high demand by the media, is because physicists are perceived as having some kind of deeper insights into god and the meaning of the universe that biologists, chemists, and engineers are not percieved as having.

Esp. physicists who can put their esoteric knowledge into words that we lesser beings can grok.

 

[Cypress]

You are not familiar with them either, Sybil.

This is obviously your confession that you have never, ever heard of the Niels Bohr - Einstein debates over quantum mechanics.

I heard of them in college, and even posted a thread about it three years ago:

Einstein vs. Bohr

Einstein, Bohr and the war over quantum theory What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics All hell broke loose in physics some 90 years ago. Quantum theory emerged — partly in heated clashes between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. It posed a challenge to the very...

www.justplainpolitics.com

 

[Margot]

Come on, bro, institutions can shut down physicists any time they want. That's what the Jeffrey Epstein scandal was all about.

Science is studying metaphysics and finding some interesting stuff.

Jeffrey Epstein was all about playing with young women and sharing with friends!

 

[Margot]

Physicists have peered into the depths of ultimate physical reality, and have an understanding of it in a way that biologists, chemists, geneticists don't and can't because they lack the training and experience.

That's why I am more willing to entertain the metaphysical musings of an Einstein or a Weinberg, than I am of a Richard Dawkins or Jane Goodall.

No Physicist ,will ever figure out that the Big Bang was an equal and opposite reaction to Satan's failed attempt (Backed by a third of the Angels) to overthrow YHWH! That you can only learn from YHWH revealing it to you through the Holy Spirit!

 

[Into the Night]

This is obviously your confession that you have never, ever heard of the Niels Bohr - Einstein debates over quantum mechanics.

I heard of them in college, and even posted a thread about it three years ago:

Einstein vs. Bohr

Einstein, Bohr and the war over quantum theory What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics All hell broke loose in physics some 90 years ago. Quantum theory emerged — partly in heated clashes between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. It posed a challenge to the very...

www.justplainpolitics.com

Hearing about them is not understanding them, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Esp. physicists who can put their esoteric knowledge into words that we lesser beings can grok.

But you don't grok.

 

[Kafka]

You obviously do not have a well rounded education, especially for someone who claims to have a PhD.

Obligatory insult. Let's move on.

Not all knowledge comes from science and physical evidence.

So you are saying one can use "pure reason" to answer the question whether God exists?

How do you do that? Aquinas and Anselm? I've already pointed out the potential fail point of Anselm and Aquinas's first uncaused cause is hardly of any real value since it creates more questions than it answers.

Any logical deduction, like string theory, or moral theory is valid as long as it follows from the premises.

String theory is NOT considered to be accurate. It is merely an hypothesis at this point in time. Just like the neutrino was before it was verified. It fell out of the math but couldnt' be verified for over 25 years.

You seem to be laboring under the pretense that experimental science is superior because it's the truth.

Why do you keep going on about "experimental science" when I've moved the topic away from that? Remember the jury trial example? NOT experimental science but still a rubric by which one tests the truth value of a claim.

But that's a limitation of your background, education, and imagination.

More insults. Is that literally all you have?

I'm getting off this merry-go-round.

Because you have nothing of value to add. Just insults. I can see why you are frustarted because you don't understand what is being said to you and now your ego is being threatened.

I leave you to wallow in your beliefs that only science gives knowledge, and that morality is utterly subjective and relative, only based on opinion and the popular vote.

You seem like the type who can't sleep at night without getting the last word in, so you have my permission to chime in again

And all you ever do is insult. That's the sign of a truly second rate intellect.

 

[Kafka]

Yes you did.

Nope.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope.

That won't work. You confused a hypothesis with a theory.
And you still continue to do so.

There is no point where something 'graduates' into a theory. There is no voting bloc for any theory.
A theory is not a hypothesis, nor does it come from a hypothesis. A hypothesis comes from a theory, such as the null hypothesis used to test a theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

You obviously do not have a well rounded education, especially for someone who claims to have a PhD.

A PhD is not necessarily a well rounded education, Sybil.

Not all knowledge comes from science and physical evidence.

Any logical deduction, like string theory, or moral theory is valid as long as it follows from the premises. It may or may not be true.

String theory is not a theory of science.

You seem to be laboring under the pretense that experimental science is superior because it's the truth.

Science has no proofs.

I have news for you: almost every scientific theory is ultimately proved to not be true.

Blatant lie. There are many theories of science. None of them are falsified.

Aristotle's physics were completely wrong, and that was the best science in the world until the 16th century. Newton's laws of mechanics misinterpreted the nature of time and space. And the wave theory of light had to be replaced.

The wave theory of light did not have to be replaced.
Newton created no theory of time or space. Newton's laws are not falsified.

Maybe your high school chemistry teacher convinced you that the only real knowledge comes from science and physical evidence.

But that's a limitation of your background, education, and imagination.

I'm getting off this merry-go-round. I leave you to wallow in your beliefs that only science gives knowledge, and that morality is utterly subjective and relative, only based on opinion and the popular vote.

Science has no voting bloc, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Very few philosophers actually really know physics, unless they got dual degrees in physics and philosophy. There's a few who have dual degrees

Neither philosophy nor physics requires any degree.

You obviously are not familiar with Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, and the debates over the meaning of Quantum mechanics.

You are describing yourself.

The physics community

Science is not a community, Sybil.

 

[Litmus]

And physicists rarely talk about philosophy.

because they don't really work in that sphere.

so their ontological fancies carry no more weight than anyone elses.

 

[Litmus]

Neither philosophy nor physics requires any degree.

You are describing yourself.

Science is not a community, Sybil.

lol @ the physics community.