23 May '14 08:31>6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have deliberately offered a generic description and will leave it at that, it was not my intent to introduce any specific issues as this is not the place for it. The problem may be one of morality, criminality, anything infact.
To say that there should be no rational reason as to why a system functions is to ignore or refuse to acknowledge re ...[text shortened]... ing to a convenient material level, which is fine if you are a scientist, but not a philosopher.
The problem may be one of morality, criminality,
What does the problem of morality or criminality got to do with the interpretation of quantum events and/or quantum behaviour and/or what causes or is behind such quantum behaviour or any physical interpretation for that matter?
To say that there should be no rational reason as to why a system functions is to ignore or refuse to acknowledge reason.
and this “reason” could be something to do with “ morality, criminality”? Your post makes absolutely no sense.
Ok you may describe how the universe functions in mathematical terms but cannot say why it was brought into existence.
Correct, and there is no reason to believe there exists such a “why” in this case.
There is no assumption,
there is no assumption regarding what?
its simply a question.
what is your question? You haven't stated any in this post. Again, your post makes no sense.
What I have done is merely to point out that science is ill fitted for describing morality
Actually, prior to this post in this thread, you didn't. Why would it be a requirement “for describing morality” when interpreting quantum effects/behaviour? Interpretation of physical phenomena is not a moral problem. Yet again, you are not making any sense.
or questions which go beyond what is merely physical.
right, because science cannot deal with stupid assumptions about the existence of things we have no evidence for.
Science cannot, for example, answer equations about Santa or the tooth fairy because it is, as you said, “ ill fitted for” such things i.e. rubbish.
Yes i think I understand what you are saying,
NO, you obviously do NOT!
essentially its an attempt to reduce everything to a convenient material level
NO, I am NOT! Explaining or interpreting physical phenomenon isn't an “attempt” to “reduce everything to a convenient material level”. And what you mean here by "convenient"? "convenient" in what way?
Explaining something physical (such as a quantum event ) is not "trying" to explain why it is physical as opposed to being none physical.
It is an implicit assumption by nearly all people that, if it looks physical and if it behaves as if it is physical and there is no known evidence nor reason to believe that it is none physical, then it is physical and thus we are not "trying" to explain how it can be physical and not none physical because it being physical as opposed to none physical would generally not be in depute here.
Are you trying to say quantum events are none physical? if not, what are you trying to say here?