Kenneth, could you please clarify your position?

Kenneth Udut Said – “A mild view of God, a Theosophical view of God/Universe, random fluctuations in spacetime due to indeterminate quantum states, are no different from each other. All magical thinking.”

I said – I don’t consider quantum fluctuations to be magic.

Kenneth continued with – “At present, it’s a story to fill in the gaps that is suitable for modern people. It’s a faith, there’s no way to prove it, it can’t be verified. It’s a modern version of a god. That doesn’t make it wrong or bad; just a modern religion for modern times.”

My response ~
We are at least in agreement that quantum fluctuations, while not proven, are supported by mathematical formulation yes? If so, does that not remove the ability to lay the claim of ‘faith’ since there is reason rather than simply the desire?

Kenneth, could you please clarify your position?

=====

Ok, yes, we may be using different definitions of faith.
I am using a rather bland standard definition of faith:

“complete trust or confidence in someone or something.”

The complete trust or confidence in this case is that mathematical formulations are correct analogies for reality.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/analogy.htm is a worthy read if I didn’t present it before, I’m not sure.

In short, stepping beyond what can be proven is faith. Now I personally believe we have a better faith-leg to stand on with mathematics that goes beyond what’s provable and it’s somewhat more reasonable that other faith-alternatives, but I don’t believe being more reasonable eliminates it from being a faith position.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ four = 11

Leave a Reply