you can get it on Iplayer Char - hold on.. BBC iPlayer - The Secrets of Quantum Physics - 1. Einstein's Nightmare prog before (on now) is pretty good too!
Thats not what i said and its not what i meant so i dont know how you came to that conclusion. Then again, if one is in any way religous neither the facts nor logic mean anything.
Oh God! - If you know what I mean - not them.. that's a good theory spoiled. I promise you I'm not a Jehova.
But remember, if you are religious you are a member of a cult and you subscribe to its rules and you trot out its dogma. And its threats. I sincerely hope, therefore, that science isn't the new religion but it does too often get stuck in the same rut. A fundamentalist atheist is no improvement on a fundamentalist religious zealot. They're both bigots and both anti-scientific.
The religion of Anthropogenic Climate Change where "proof" comes from computer modelling and goalposts are regularly moved :Angelic:
Stop clouding the issue johnv! This thread is not about climate change. We did that one to death several threads ago. (You'll have noticed BTW, that this is the warmest year ever. I know. It's the confusing start to the new ice age. Don't bother replying. I'm just winding you up. If you do want to reply - for a laff - start a new thread where we can go over the same old ground © Pink Floyd)
That still doesn't get you that far. You just end up saying "well, what created God?" And you end up answering: "Nothing. God just is". So you may as well cut out a step and say that the universe(s) just is (are). Is this that relevant to quantum physics? Put it this way, is it relevant to the theory of gravitation? Or electricity? Or magnetism? We were sort of trying to fathom science. Now we're off discussing God again. The old bastard just won't lie down.
Unfortunately, as science becomes more complex it becomes very much like religion to the lay person. The average man in the street is told something is so and he believes it because he sees the results and accepts the cause. The difference being that with science a questioning soul can have every step of the answer demonstrated and proven. A religious question results only in another demonstration of the result or a reaffirmation of the original statement. But if it comforts you in a time of need then fill your boots. Personally I am comforted by physics and that the things that (mostly) come my way travel faster than the speed of sound and so I can't get out of the way regardless. That, and I should have found better cover.
Ah, semantics again. God as described by religions patently does not exist. So you just take something which actually does exist (like the laws of physics) and redefine the meaning of the word "god" so that: god = laws of physics. Ergo: god exists. Well, we can all do that. 'God' can be redefined to = anything which does exist, or anything which does not exist. When you go down that road, 'god' loses all meaning, and can mean anything at all or nothing. The word 'god' just becomes a label which you can stick on anything you like. Back in the real world, religious believers give their gods specific characteristics. Vaguely defined, to be sure, and varying from religion to religion, but sufficiently crystallised for there to be a widely understood concept of what a god is. If you choose to ignore that concept completely, and use 'god' to mean something quite different and utterly inchoate, that's your choice (and you are by no means the first). But it does nothing to help us to evaluate the truth values of assertions made by religions.
OK, some of you are willing to consider QP because it interests you, but you are not willing to consider, in this instance, religion. You are dismissing it. I do not understand why.
I consider religion often; in fact I spend a lot of my time considering religion. Why do you say "not willing to consider ... religion"? Are those words based on anything?
Climate change, what a load of crock, I reckon the climate is changing, 50 years from now, its going to be shit.
It's like saying, "Here's a history of Europe in the 20th Century" and then asking us why we don't believe in a history of Middle Earth as well. The two things are not remotely similar. The first is an attempt to relate events that actually occurred and which can be independently verified whereas the second is a work of fiction. However enjoyable it might be to read, the second one doesn't fulfil the same purpose as the first.
