02/12/24, 17:04
Janic wrote:
Everything lies in the way of formulating a hypothesis (another one!) which only leads to another language, but not to the substance, since there is NO PROOF (by contemporary physics) of any self-organization.
sen no sen
Oh my! So cyclones can't appear? That'll please the insurance companies! Snowflakes too?
These cyclones, and other phenomena of the same kind, obey laws like any phenomenon. What limits us is the ignorance we have of these; except for a few rare aspects that we are beginning to decode with the help of AI, itself designed by an external intervention to it. So not self-generated!
It would also be necessary to rename anthropogenic global warming to divine global warming!
Still as obsessed with a reference to some basic divine of the rejection of another origin than a blessed coincidence, which does things as well as if it were a divinity. It's a bit like those who cling to the vaccine miracle as for the other so-called divine miracles: semantic hypocrisy?
It is important to understand that the notion of creation, meaning a divinity organizing the world, has absolutely no place in science.
On the contrary, I was a creationist.
scientific by my profession, before retirement.
The term creation is not a term with a unique religious function as shown by all those who use this term in a common way.
Afterwards, that some anti-religious "scientists" reject this term by philosophical opposition, it is their right; just as for other scientists who do not reject this link, Because neither this term, nor its use are the private property of anyone.
Not that scientific research compromises with an anti-religious vision, but simply because God explains nothing.
It depends on how this "god" is imagined by his opponents as well as his supporters! Indeed, to "explain" (according to what criteria?) the existence or non-existence of something - or "someone" - one must still understand its meaning and even its reason. Thus, when some evoke chance or nature and other substitutes (also abstract notions) this does not explain anything either.
You claim that there is no self-organization? We must therefore deduce that Cyclones and other earthquakes are only the work of a demiurge...?
Again this anti-religious obsession with some demiurge (you seem to have serious problems on that side!) I am not asserting anything, I am simply noting the non-existence of biological and industrial self-generation.
Diseases would also be the work of God, the seasons also, the stars...etc...etc...
Stop, once again, this anti-god obsession (whatever meaning one gives to this term) even when these facts are attributed to other semantic substitutes called nature or chance of which these phenomena would be the work. It is the snake biting its tail!
According to this principle we could avoid any form of explanation, the idea of God would be sufficient in itself, which is not very practical for operating computers boosted by physics and chemistry!
no explanation can and could claim to know what is really going on, so everyone gives their opinion on what is unknown to all. As for the materials CREATED by humans, this would only confirm that the notion of creation remains the strongest in human thought since representing this reality that these computers (and all the materials that we use) are not self-generated; but that they are the result of the thought allowed by the complexity of the living whose origin is still not known "scientifically".
To say how the idea of God is useless in science (and has no place there),
re obsession anti god! Great scientists find, on the contrary, that this idea of a god, would explain this world better than a simple chance like the idea that a painter would explain a painting better than attributing this painting to a simple chance and other approaches that you recommend for want of anything better. All this has already been seen and reviewed and is only an additional repetition intended to self-persuade you that what cannot be "proven" materially has no existence and moreover MUST NOT exist.
It is important to note that there are theories which, despite their ability to meet scientific criteria, do not advance research and end up becoming counterproductive.
It is the nature of research to invent theories which have no more scientificity than the theory of evolution (and by the way on vaccinations or nutrition)
We can cite the case of the theory of the (quantum) multiverse, which tells us that our universe does not have one history, but all possible histories, which explain our presence here below.
The reasoning is not, however, pulled out of a hat, but is considered by physicists to be too explanatory, even super explanatory.
This kind of specialized discourse is only of interest to these bulb heads. By dint of looking at the stars, we forget that what is important is not the supposed multiverses, but daily life on THIS earth, not towards an elsewhere that ordinary humans don't give a damn about, as you notice below
Indeed, for a biologist, parallel universes are not of much use, despite the fact that quantum cosmology is inspired by very real experiences which are therefore widely used in computer science.
So what do we think of the idea of a demiurge creating the world? Well, nothing at all because it does not bring any concrete elements to our knowledge of evolution.
Quite the contrary! To take the example of the sculptor, another example, his works serve as evidence of an art and skills in a particular field and therefore of time, which plays a significant role in the theory of an evolution that is scientifically unprovable biologically, in particular.
We can always debate the existence of a creator, our existences simulated in a super-program etc., but this is more to be classified in philosophy than in science. For my part, I consider that this mainly relates to semantics...
Yes, semantics plays a particular role in the field of beliefs, religious or not, which leads to diverse, even opposing, convictions, but at the same time the belief in the complete freedom of one's life also remains illusory, which is particularly true in lifestyles where biological laws are unavoidable without taking the risk of losing one's life and often in significant suffering.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
) and therefore the question cannot be decided otherwise. 
