snyps said: I've read and seen some things regarding quantum physics that suggest everything stems from our thoughts. I'm not a quantum physicist but I am of the belief that of the many plausible outcomes that can be.. the outcome you concentrate on most will happen.
Maybe that's unreasonable to a lot of people. But it makes sense to me.
Errrrr... that's not quite it. The observer effect in quantum physics doesn't state that our thoughts effect anything, but rather that our way of measuring things does. To measure subatomic particles, we have to utilize something such as light to observe it, and that effects the outcomes. The observer effect has nothing to do with thought, as it can occur with automated measurements as well.
Billions of people across the globe embrace beliefs not based upon reason or evidence, but based upon faith. By doing this, faith is committed to an epistemology. This way one can draw conclusions about things and make declarations such as "I know God exists by faith". But let's not isolate this to mere god beliefs, this applies to any faith position. These would include paranormal claims, such as psychics or mediums, ghosts, or even those whom believe there are unicorns on Pluto. Definitions are in order here and since definitions are arbitrary, they are granted what is known as a priori true status which is to say that any definition is a *true* premise. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche quipped "Faith is not wanting to know what is true", I've attempted to use the Biblical notion of it without the allusions or poetry.
Faith - Belief in something one cannot observe or reasonably conclude.
Reasonable - Having sound reasoning.
P1) Reasonable implies having sound reasoning. (R → SR) [definition, a priori]
P2) Faith is absent sound reasoning. (⌐SR)[definition, a priori]
C) Therefore faith cannot be said to be reasonable. (⌐R) [modus tollens]
A very basic syllogism to demonstrate the falsity of the claim that "Faith is Reasonable" given that you embrace these definitions. If you think I've been uncharitable to faith, proctor a definition you think sufficiently describes faith as well as any arguments you think support the idea that faith is reasonable.
What say you, VgChartz, is this faith thing reasonable?
Tell me one thing. If you know something, then how can you believe it. Believing something is completely different then knowing it. If this world really is a test to test our beliefs, then what would be the point of God revealing himself to is. Then we would not need to belief, we will know and hence the entire point of testing us would be nullified. God, if he exists, can not be perceived by us as he has made us this way. It's like how we can not percieve 4 dimensional or 5 dimensional beings. We have our limitations.
That doesn't change the fact that it is silly to believe anything without some degree of evidence. If god made life a test to see if we would believe in him, and then made us in a way that we could not in any way detect his presence, then that would be a sadistic test of the highest order. Why would a god want us to believe in him without evidence? To create a way to reward gullibility?
Edit: And of course you can know and believe something. They are different, but not mutually exclusive categories.
snyps said: I've read and seen some things regarding quantum physics that suggest everything stems from our thoughts. I'm not a quantum physicist but I am of the belief that of the many plausible outcomes that can be.. the outcome you concentrate on most will happen.
Maybe that's unreasonable to a lot of people. But it makes sense to me.
Errrrr... that's not quite it. The observer effect in quantum physics doesn't state that our thoughts effect anything, but rather that our way of measuring things does. To measure subatomic particles, we have to utilize something such as light to observe it, and that effects the outcomes. The observer effect has nothing to do with thought, as it can occur with automated measurements as well.
I don't doubt what you are saying. I'm sure it's completely accurate in fact. I'm just basing my understanding off of the movie "What the Bleep do we know" and the book "The Secret". I believe in the power of thought because we can effect our environment in ways that are not explainable. Atleast according to the media I've seen.
For example, in what the bleep, they stated that a japanese guy did an experiment where he wrote different emotional words to express the feelings he had on several bottles of water. And when the water was looked at under a microscope, the structure of the water was different in each bottle.
Errrrr... that's not quite it. The observer effect in quantum physics doesn't state that our thoughts effect anything, but rather that our way of measuring things does. To measure subatomic particles, we have to utilize something such as light to observe it, and that effects the outcomes. The observer effect has nothing to do with thought, as it can occur with automated measurements as well.
I don't doubt what you are saying. I'm sure it's completely accurate in fact. I'm just basing my understanding off of the movie "What the Bleep do we know" and the book "The Secret". I believe in the power of thought because we can effect our environment in ways that are not explainable. Atleast according to the media I've seen.
For example, in what the bleep, they stated that a japanese guy did an experiment where he wrote different emotional words to express the feelings he had on several bottles of water. And when the water was looked at under a microscope, the structure of the water was different in each bottle.
I can't confirm the validity of this but would love to find someone that can.
Well first off, that doesn't have anything to do with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. Water molecules don't fall under that.
More importantly, a lot of people would love to confirm the validity of this, but they can't. That is because Emoto never fully published his methodology, and never published his work, despite the massive wealth and fame that this discovery would achieve (at least a million from James Randi).
Which brings us back to the issue of faith being reasonable. Perhaps you would like to believe that our thoughts can influence actions like this. It's certainly a lovely idea. However, until there is reasonable evidence to support this, then this belief is a faith based position, and it is unreasonable.
Well first off, that doesn't have anything to do with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. Water molecules don't fall under that.
More importantly, a lot of people would love to confirm the validity of this, but they can't. That is because Emoto never fully published his methodology, and never published his work, despite the massive wealth and fame that this discovery would achieve (at least a million from James Randi).
Which brings us back to the issue of faith being reasonable. Perhaps you would like to believe that our thoughts can influence actions like this. It's certainly a lovely idea. However, until there is reasonable evidence to support this, then this belief is a faith based position, and it is unreasonable.
The movie itself is entirely about subatomic particles and how they affect molecules.
Since my brain is not sufficienly capable of explaining all things regarding my environment I use positive thinking when it comes to plausible possibilities.
Well first off, that doesn't have anything to do with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. Water molecules don't fall under that.
More importantly, a lot of people would love to confirm the validity of this, but they can't. That is because Emoto never fully published his methodology, and never published his work, despite the massive wealth and fame that this discovery would achieve (at least a million from James Randi).
Which brings us back to the issue of faith being reasonable. Perhaps you would like to believe that our thoughts can influence actions like this. It's certainly a lovely idea. However, until there is reasonable evidence to support this, then this belief is a faith based position, and it is unreasonable.
The movie itself is entirely about subatomic particles and how they affect molecules.
Since my brain is not sufficienly capable of explaining all things regarding my environment I use positive thinking when it comes to plausible possibilities.
That's still not quantum physics. Quantum physics deals with particles in a quantum state, where they can exist as a wave and particle. But, as mentioned earlier, things like light cause this state to change, to (possibly) something that exists in our everyday life. Once they've formed molecules, it no longer makes sense to apply the rules of quantum physics to them anymore. By that point, we'd just go to physics or more likely chemistry. Judging by the fact that the movie uses this... errrr... "experiment" I would imagine it's psuedoscience.
There's nothing wrong with thinking positively. But to think your positive thoughts will change the composition of water is a bit out there.
Myself being agnostic, I think it's reasonable to assume there will always be things unknown to us, and there will always be questions asked where there is no scientific explanation possible.
No, it's not reasonable. There are other parts of religion that are more reasonable but the accepting of factual propositions for which there's no evidence and no inherent plausibility (there are propositions that have no evidence but have inherent plausibility of course), is a completely negative force in society and we'd be better if people didn't do it.
Gourmet said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:
P1) Reasonable implies having sound reasoning. (R → SR) [definition, a priori]
