I am still waiting for you to rule out the uncertainty is a human flaw or human perception, or limited means of measurement, combined with the projection of said events being unplanned simply because the numan mind cannot predict the results accurately, nor understand what the reason and/or causation for the inner workings of subatomic particles is....some proof of events are necessarily absolutely random and unguided or unplanned and or fully disconnected from a program and programming of the physical universe which is a natural phenomena falling under the rules and regulations of natural law, which would begin at a bare minimum by creating an argument that clearly established the logical and physical impossibility of design at work. Since we both know you can't do that, you can engage in your typical distraction from the double wide gaping hole in our knowledge of causation... Facts that are a product of limited knowledge, limited perception, relativistic points of view and limited intelligence are just points in time in which bloated egotistical windbags like yourself think they have a handle on universe... Time has show over and over again, that "accepted" facts and "known" facts were nothing but a relativistic fact that crumbles when the point of view deepens. Little more than the fashion of the day, the hemline changes as more and more is revealed.... Oh, and what is the mass, size, color, smell, touch, and sound of a thought? ROTFLMAO...
I hope you all followed Z's lucid monologue on Uncertainty, above. It certainly clears things up about his chances for this year's Nobel Prize.
Bout what I expected from a one dimensional thinker... Oh, yeah, what does a thought look like? What is the odor of a thought? What does a thought feel light? What does a thought taste like? What does a thought sound like? A certain principle is that you will have no "scientific" response.... So while every person experiences thoughts, knows intimately of their existence, they must not physically exist because we have no way of measuring their physical existence... What a trash-bag filled with wind you are...
So, let's see. As it stands, I've provided scientific proof of randomness, and you've provided an argument from incredulity. And, now, as a diversion, you want me to discuss "thought," since you can't respond to my proof of randomness with anything other than nonsensical ravings. I'll be happy to discuss "thought" scientifically, right after you prove the uncertainty principle false. You started this particular argument, so let's see you put your money where you mouth is.
As it stands, you have provided what scientists define as random, which of course is a scientific opinion, not a fact of randomness. There is no such thing as an observation of randomness. There are observations, and then there is a projection of the concept, a human concept upon those natural happenings. Random is only a mental construct, a concept which is descriptive observed facts, not a fact itself. Scientific instruments and raw observation don't prove randomness, they only provide the events at points in a time line. It is the mental projection of random or order which is the human creation, a product of mind and thought, and as such it is not immutable. This has been proven over and over again by scientists, as they took observations, labeled and concluded them as random because they could not find a pattern, then later discovered that there was actually a deeper understanding of the relationship of the events which destroyed their belief that the events were random. There is no "force of random." There is only what naturally happens to be observed, and man's ability or inability to understand the deepest patterns and programming of nature as he moves to deeper and deeper levels. At every new level he claims "Eureka! Now I know!" only to be made a fool by those who go even deeper into the reality than he could imagine. I have responded to your "proof" of randomness. It is not a proof of causation, it is just a concept projected onto natural behavior which is conclusive and conceptual in its scope and purpose, not factual in nature. If you want to say it is an inference, fine. But an inference is not a fact, it is an opinion formed in the mind, not observed by the senses. Those inferences are often invalidated as observation deepens. The introduction of how clueless scientists are about the nature of a thought is illustrative of how limited our scientific understanding is, and how limited one field of study is. Physics is limited completely to the physical phenomena, as it depends upon physical measurements. Since we all know life is more than physical, i.e. our thoughts are not physical, then it is unreasonable to exclude these other areas of existence when trying to grasp the workings of the universe. It simply cannot be known, as we cannot even measure the properties of a human thought physically, yet human thought is the foundation of all of our understanding of the physical world. To claim one has an understanding of the physical world, yet has no clue of how their mind can even reach that situation, or exclude the concept that the physical world is a product of thought of a creator is creating rules of a game solely for the purpose of being able to win the silly game. Such games are not searches for truth, as they exclude the very important field upon which all these games are constructed, the mental field of play. You will discuss thought after I have "proved" the uncertainty principle false. No offense, but that sounds a wee bit childish. I doubt the Einstein would have been so stubborn... You have embraced a concept that cannot be falsified, which of course is only possible by application of thought, by the use of something non physical...and you don't want to discuss the very tools, i.e. the mental field and the nature of thoughts and concepts. Okay. I see that like someone who doesn't want to discuss math, who uses math in order to arrive at their proofs. Oh, and before the universe appeared, did the principles of mathematics exist? There's a question I am confident will not be answered, as even though it is essential to have an understanding of the origin of math if anyone is to broach the subject of creation of the universe, the fact that math is not physical...no one can measure the physical properties of a numeric value, we all know that the physical world is somehow intimately related to mathematical concepts. However, if someone is content to begin and end their world view with the physical measurements of the physical senses alone, then what can be done? It is like that trash-bag in the wind. The bag is both inflated by and then contains within it the power of the wind, the wind gives it shape but the shape is also defined by the physical limits of the trash-bag, and what is within the confines of the trash-bag can be known and examined from withing the trash-bag...but what is outside of the trash-bag cannot be known while living only inside the narrow boundaries of the trash-bag. Assumptions are made, theories are generated, a sense of comfort and control and provided to those who are locked into the confines and borders of the trash bag. Then what happens is science advances, knowledge deepens, and that shreds the trash-bag so that the wind keeps on blowing as before, and the concepts and ideas are blown away...
I agree that scientists have arrived at an opinion via a set of agree upon rules which are essentially a product of thought, not that they have arrived at a truth independent of their thought processes nor a truth that is everlasting. Theirs is a point of view, and history has show that science changes its point of view as knowledge deepens. It is absolutely true that man's mental point of view is ultimately a product of his thought processes, which is not physical process. So man's conclusions about the physical is ultimate a product of something that itself is not physical, which should reasonably create sufficient doubt in a principle of "physical uncertainty" as to render it just another "feel good" theory for those who want to embrace a non-design philosophy.
Okay, that's actually two things that you assert are absolute truths: 1. man's mental point of view is ultimately a product of his thought processes; 2. man's thought processes are not physical processes. Other than your personal opinion, what proof do you have to support either of the above assertions?
1. The proof is self evident that's man point of view is ultimately a product of his thought processes, as without thought man has no point of view. 2. Man's thought processes are not physical, as they cannot be measured by any physical instruments. The physical brain activity can be measured by physical instrumentation, but not the thoughts themselves. They exist beyond physical instrumentation's realm. You have no means of measuring any physical properties of a thought, a mental concept, an idea, etc. Yet even though there is no physical method of measuring thoughts, they do exist within the mind of human beings. Of course, you could prove me wrong and show me the thought measuring instrument that tells us the exact physical properties of a thought, an idea, a mental concept...
Oh, I can prove you wrong without any measuring instruments at all! The possibility remains that man's point of view is under the control of an external influence of which man is unaware. What proof do you have that man's viewpoint is solely his own?