Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #605 –
Forgive me (or ignore me…) if I'm intruding. ButThe sheer mathematical certainty that there must be a multitude of planets conducive to intelligent life is what causes me to think that they exist.
What precisely is this "sheer mathematical certainty" you speak of?
Some sort of metaphysical frequentism?
How much nano sized anyway? that's a funny idea, they would see us as giants...
How could they see "us" at all? Unless it's "macro-scopes all the way up!"
The reason Heisenberg said that is not possible to be aware where a particle is, to determinate simultaneously location and speed, was because to observing it the observer influences the phenomena. (by way of needing to project light - or any other form of energy on it.)
Not quite: The actual mathematics of the theory preclude the simultaneous measurement of such "properties" (no matter how they're defined or observed…). The common misconception, that it's the means of measurement that's responsible for the Hobson's Choice — well, math is hard! Some other things aren't, so much!
(Perhaps we should consider Dobbin's Choice? But I'd surmise -by looking out for himself- Hobson did more than Dobbins could… Which, in this context, is to say: Epistemology precedes science; and subsumes it. And, yes, ersi and Belfrager —and no, James; you're wrong— that means metaphysics has to be taken account of, if you want much more from science: But I'm likely alone in thinking that's where things are going; and, certainly, out on a ledge — in thinking that that's where they should go!
Given that epistemology is primary, a re-interpretation of science as a "how do we know what we think, seem to know and must believe" discipline (what we think we know…for short) — becomes an area where nobody knows why…
Why anything!
Why not nothing?