On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:59 AM, benjayk
<benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature can be
> described through a set of fixed laws. Judging from our experience, it seems
> all laws are necessarily incomplete.
> It is just dogma of some materialists that the universe precisely follows
> laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no evidence
> for it either.

The evidence that the universe follows fixed laws is all of science.
Evidence against it would be if magical things started happening.

> Secondly, even the laws we have now don't really describe that the atoms in
> our brain are rigidly controlled. Rather, quantum mechanical laws just give
> us a probability distribution, they don't tell us what actually will happen.
> In this sense current physics has already taken the step beyond precise
> laws.
> Some scientists say that the probability distribution is an actual precise,
> deterministic entity, but really this is just pure speculation and we have
> no evidence for that.

Probabilities in quantum mechanics can be calculated with great
precision. For example, radioactive decay is a truly random process,
but we can calculate to an arbitrary level of certainty how much of an
isotope will decay. In fact, it is much easier to calculate this than
to make predictions about deterministic but chaotic phenomena such as
the weather.

Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to