A study conducted at the University of Florida published in PNAS helps to shed light on the mystery with information that shows what the first flowers looked like and how they evolved from isturbules
Darwin describes the sudden appearance of flowering plants about 130 million years ago as "the abominable mystery", a mystery that science must solve.
A study conducted at the University of Florida published in PNAS helps shed light on the mystery with information that shows what the first flowers looked like and how they evolved from flowerless plants.
Andre Chanderbali, who led the research, says: "Until the appearance of flowers, there was no similar phenomenon, and since their appearance, no parallel event has been predicted." The origin of the appearance of flowers is the key to understanding "flowering plants".
The purpose of the research is to understand the origin of the "plan" or the set of genetic changes that produced the first flowers that were the "ancestor model" of all flower plants. Understanding the changes will make it possible to grow disease-resistant or drought-resistant plants, as well as providing useful tools for understanding genetic changes in animals and humans.
Flowers are an evolutionary innovation that is responsible for the development of about 400.000 plants. Before the appearance of flowers, there were "visible seed-bearing" plants, gymnosperms that appeared about 360 million years ago, these dominated the plant world, their seeds developed in pine cone-like structures, such as: pines, the sago palm and ginkgo.
The first flowering plants - angiosperms - appeared about 140 million years ago. The research provides an insight according to which: the first flowers evolved from a "genetic program" that existed in ancient plants, a program that led to the development of the flower plants that "conquered" the world.
The study compared the genetic structure between two different plant species to see if there is a difference in the cycle that creates the flowers, the studied were marjoram which is used as a permanent object in genetic studies, and avocado which is associated with one of the ancient flowering plants. It was found that: "The avocado flower is a basic "genetic fossil" that still carries the genetic instructions that made the transition from a pine cone to a flower possible.
The Marganite flower, as well as advanced / modern flower subjects, has four groups of organs: perforating organs, male organs, petals, sepals. To verify this, only three groups of organs were identified in the avocado flower - petals are missing,
The sepals take their shape and fulfill part of the functions of the petals. Because of its "primitiveness", the researchers expected to find a unique genetic program in each organ of the avocado flower, but it was found that there is an overlap between the three organs, that is, despite the development of different and separate organs, from the point of view of genetic development there is a lot of sharing and similarity.
Virginia Walbot - professor of biology who read the study says that "as you go back in time, the genetic differences between the different organs of the flower blur." "Since the facts have been clarified, it is possible to understand the vast scope that natural selection has to produce clear and progressive boundaries (between the various organs)." "The selection process resulted in a narrow solution for four distinct groups of organs, but the same process gave a great variety of shapes and colors, a variety that defines and delimits all kinds of flowering plants."
The researchers were not able to identify the initial plant that began to grow flowers, but a previous study suggested that: "genetic programs in the pine nut plants underwent changes that made it possible for the first flower to bloom. For example, the pine tree produces male or female pine cones and has all the components and genetic links that are in Flowers, flowers that contain male and female organs.
Douglas Soltis - chairman of the botanical department emphasizes that the research illuminates the importance of studying primitive flower plants such as the avocado. Study and research that will allow an understanding of the ancient history of flowers, survivors of an ancient dynasty are an important link to the first flowers and provide an understanding that is not possible in the study of modern plants"
In another study it became clear that bees prefer the color blue and therefore flowers that are "interested" in pollination by bees developed the blue shades, the researchers who reached the blue conclusion, continue to say that it is possible that the red color and its shades evolved to prevent the approach of bees and "invite" other pollinators such as butterflies Or hummingbirds? Interesting.
My addition: Since it is very likely that the very mention of the name evolution will provoke reactions and "smart" words (more or less), it is better for me to emphasize that "the theory of evolution" is a collection of the various attempts of researchers to explain the process, the fact that it was given the name evolution, the name given to the process that brought our sphere and everything around it and on it to the state, the place, the essence in which we are, a process that goes on and on and continues to affect everything around us (and on us).
The development of life, the formation of zoological lineages and kingdoms, the development of plants, fungi, bacteria, algae and viruses, all came to their present state through the process called evolution.
The name, the theory of evolution gives skeptics the opportunity to question causes and factors, doubting the fact or process called evolution is at best ridiculous. Opponents are allowed to give the process other names ("intelligent planning", "creation", "higher power") as they wish and believe, the process we define as evolution will continue to exist under any name or description. There is no room for debate about the existence of the process.
I will add that: A fruitful debate takes place when there is an exchange of ideas and opinions, when the debate is between an idea or an opinion and a belief... its fruitfulness expires and disappears.
Asaf
Comments
Regarding the article - it is difficult to compare the development of pollinating insects to the development of flowers.
After all, there must be a connection - it doesn't make sense that flowers evolved because there were insects and it doesn't make sense that insects like bees that hang on flowers evolved before there were flowers.
There must be some insect - the "grandfather of the bee's grandfather" who lived before there were flowers and learned to dust and eat nectar from flowers but was not dependent on them.
Another difference:
The rose flower has many petals.
A lilium lily has six petals.
Laroni - Shushan Tzahor - or Shushan or Shushan in Hebrew is not a rose, it is the plant called lilium, a gophit-type plant with an onion that puts out leaves at the end of the winter, blooms in the spring, and in the summer dries up completely and only the onion remains in the ground.
The white lily called the black lily blooms naturally in Israel as a wild flower, the one sold in nurseries is its cultivated cousin.
A rose is a shrub from the rose family, which also includes deciduous fruits such as almonds, apricots, peaches, etc. - it is a perennial plant, with a bushy, thorny stem, the name rose was mistakenly attached to it, and has nothing to do with the rose or rose.
This article is very preliminary. Undeveloped and in all weak examples. There is nothing to refer to morons who deny evolution, instead I would be happy if you would break down and detail the process. Bring different demonstrations and explain. I will give you an example to explain - in the transition between reptiles and mammals you can see animals whose egg hatches in a pocket in their body. After the egg hatches inside their body, at the same time breastfeeding develops. At first there are no nipples and later the nipple appears. The animals that demonstrate this are the hedgehog, the duck, and then mammals. The gestational sac that the mothers of certain mammals leave with can be a direct continuation of the egg. This is a basic but good explanation
I was asked a difficult question here, so I want to
please forgive me
What is
What is the difference between a rose and a black lily?
And I need to determine at least 3 areas for comparison,
(Determine 3 areas for comparison.
Can you answer my question?
An interesting look at the question of existence (point: disappeared/disappeared recently, I hope you're reading because it will interest you):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4024v1
Well, Aristotle:
It turns out you don't love me.
Apparently I once revealed some mistake or deception of yours and you - like Nadav (if you are not Nadav) - are only looking for an opportunity to paint me in a negative way.
Of course, since everything is written - you're also making a fool of yourself.
Nadav has not yet answered the first question he received - what exactly are the scientists looking for - in his opinion - if there is no absolute truth.
He tried to hide the problem with a lot of attacks but it doesn't change anything.
He also did not understand that the delusional idea of "relationship" had received a perfect answer even before it was uttered.
It is true that the answer referred to logical things and did not anticipate such nonsense, but - as mentioned - he also answers nonsense and rules out the possibility of basing the claim of the non-existence of truth on it even if it were not nonsense.
Since it turns out that there are already two people who didn't understand the matter (maybe two that are one but fulfilled) - I will come back and explain it.
Just as the relativity of motion does not rule out motion in general, but only emphasizes the fact that in order to ask if something is in motion, one must specify the reference system (that is, one should not ask if X is in motion, but only if X is in motion relative to Y), so is the relativity of existence (ha ha! ) would not rule out existence, but only emphasizes the need to specify an attribution system in the question of existence as well (that is, not to ask if the moon exists but only if it exists in relation to Nadav).
Just as the question whether X moves relative to Y has one answer which is the absolute truth, so also the question whether the moon exists relative to Nadav will have one answer which is the absolute truth.
This is an example of a case where a fool throws a stone into the sea and yet one wise man is enough to take it out.
Beyond all this - of course the claim that properties of a particle do not need any attribution (with the example of string theory for those who do not have enough imagination to grasp it without an example) also remained unanswered and in fact none of his statements were seriously substantiated.
Of course, Nadav is also the only one who tried to use a psychological analysis of his interlocutor as a means of "persuasion" and also dared to make claims about the style.
In short, Aristotle - tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are (of course, if you're a volunteer then it's a little less interesting because you get "tell me who you are and I'll tell you who you are").
All honor to Nadav Knesset to Michael Bashaniyim
Nadav:
It's just a shame that you don't stop demonstrating "the puss in Momo puss"
I absolutely agree, it's actually good that people hold different opinions, you know I think that truth is a relative thing 🙂
Nadav,
There is nothing wrong with ending an argument with disagreements.
My opinion differs from yours and no harm is caused by that.
Michael, it seems to me that your piece is simply a piece of ego and you must have the last word
If I'm wrong then prove it to me and don't respond to my response
Bye
Nadav:
I think now that you don't have to put in the effort to explain anymore, maybe you can put some effort into understanding.
I suggest you read everything again and see that there wasn't a moment you didn't understand and that in fact the opposite is true and throughout the discussion you actually didn't understand.
Noam
The existence of a thing is simply our distinction in a collection of features, the union of all these features into one package is an action of your brain, the features can be bundled in different ways into different packages, the features change in relation to the bundler, I'm not saying that things don't exist, I'm just says that things do not exist absolutely, but they exist relatively and if at a certain point of reference something does not exist at all then it really does not exist for that point of reference, it is impossible to give less priority to this point of reference over the others, but I no longer have the power to explain it , I'm ending this debate, have a good day and good luck
And besides - you probably don't have good answers, so blatant accusation is the way of evasion you chose.
Nadav:
Probably the (absolute) truth is too blunt for you.
Nadav,
For the umpteenth time, something in your logic is flawed.
You make something that doesn't exist and use it to prove something wrong.
The fact that one phenomenon is often described in several ways, and it is impossible to decide who is right, has no logical connection to relationship!
It is so simple: the phenomenon exists (not as a feature but as a fact), regardless of the number of ways to explain or describe it, and regardless of the question of which description is more correct.
Does the fact of the existence of the electron depend on our explanation or on an alien explanation???
The electron exists whether with our explanation or whether some alien explains it.
What is not understood here?
Michael, I'm not interested in arguing with you, you're just blunt
Noam, I repeat for the umpteenth time, when we try to explain the universe we use concepts from our intuition, when we say particle or wave, we accompany concepts from our subjective world
Do you really think that an electron is a particle, or that light moves in the form of a wave, after all, a wave is something we saw in water and we understood the expression because it described the phenomenon in the best way, if some alien in his world had different waves and they could also explain the properties of light then they too would willingness and there is no possibility of preferring one willingness over the other, that is
One relative truth over another relative truth
Nadav:
Your tiredness, as far as I'm concerned, is not interesting.
You can refer to her relatively and say that in relation to me she does not exist at all.
The truth is that I never expected you to make such a delusional claim, but just for fun - I suggest you read everything I told you when you started pulling in this direction.
Although you came back and dismissed me and said that I would be patient and that I was just resisting instead of listening to the end, and it is true that I did not resist at all, but rather tried (and it turns out that I succeeded in a big way - not to the extent of the exact hallucination, but in terms of the idea, definitely yes) to guess where you are going and give you the answer in advance and thus shorten the discussion, But the funny thing is that after all this - the answers I gave you were also correct in relation to what you said in the end.
After all, I said that if a certain measurement gives different results from different reference systems, then the question about the value of the thing being measured without specifying the reference system is a wrong question.
This is also true for the question of existence that you propose (in my opinion - while completely disconnecting from reality) to define as relative.
So now - since you're tired - swallow some year tokens and go to sleep.
Nadav,
To be precise, not before, but at the moment of the big bang
Nadav,
For example the properties of that "primordial particle" that existed before the big bang
Noam
So tell me, if you don't treat existence as an attribute, what is existence without attributes?
And I would love to know which property of something is absolute - size? Color? speed? Attraction or repulsion?
Which of the features are absolutely present?
Nadav,
You are wrong twice:
1) I do not treat existence as a quality
2) Not all attributes are relative
The "primordial particle" existed, not as an attribute but as a fact, and it had certain properties.
Existence is not relative, so there is no way to explain it
Noam
Again, you refer to existence as an attribute, but existence is determined by the attributes and attributes are relative to the world
I don't know how to explain anymore
Nadav,
I don't find any connection between what you wrote, and having a relationship.
Whether the universe has 23 dimensions or 19 glimads, it exists, it has properties and does not need to be attributed to anything else, nor does it need to be compared to anything else.
The question "what is this really" also has nothing to do with "relationship".
There are indeed properties that are relative by nature, such as speed, but the concept of "relative existence" is completely meaningless, just a combination of words.
Noam
I don't know if you've read it before, but let me copy here what I wrote before to refresh
Suppose hypothetically that you find a theory that describes all of reality, it is perfect, it has 23 dimensions and it explains all the laws and processes in nature, now an alien from another planet comes to you and he shows you another perfect theory with 19 glimads (which is a different type of dimension, with different laws Absolutely, it also explains all the processes in nature in a different way, now ask yourself, what is nature really like, does it have 23 dimensions with these laws or 19 dimensions with other laws, I am simply claiming that it is possible that nature can be both, because it is not really Exists in dimensions or glimmers, perhaps there is no absolute essence to reality in itself, but it has many essences relative to the subject and one essence cannot be preferred over the others
The singularity point and the big bang are perhaps one way to describe the universe, this way is limited in our perceptions of concepts, such as "point", "bang", the existence of time, etc. An alien from another planet might use different concepts and explain the same thing, but then you would Asks - what is the thing itself really? So I suggest that maybe there isn't, there really isn't the thing itself, but only the thing itself in relation to something else
Nadav,
Before the big bang, the universe was concentrated in a small point, if you will - a single particle.
Did he exist?
Did this particle have properties?
In relation to what?
Noam, I explained this before, if when you say universe you are referring to the totality of all relative truths, then it is clear, but this is only a concept, an idea, perhaps there is no place from which you can see the totality of all relative truths, because such a place would be an absolute truth, if you believe in God Somehow then you actually believe in his absolute point of view on everything and I have no argument with that, I'm just claiming that logically such a point of view is not necessarily necessary
Nadav,
Does the universe exist?
It exists, and how it exists.
In relation to what does the universe exist???
Is its existence relative???
Michael, I'm tired, I'm ending the argument with you, maybe really, in time your token will fall
In the meantime think about the definition of "existence" what do you consider to exist? In order for something to exist, it needs to have some properties, that is, the properties of a thing are what define the very existence of a thing,
Essence precedes existence
Hugin:
Unlike some others here - I am not a public phone.
Michael: I'm afraid that the token has not yet fallen for you regarding the connections + between everything and even within the 'nothing' itself..
Nadav:
To your credit, if you 'relate' to that particle then it probably has the 'property' of the "attributed":)
In my opinion - the properties of a particle are not lost even if there is nothing to compare them to and even if there is no one to observe them, therefore I see no need to consider a particle without properties.
By the way - if you look at string theory, that name is really formal because the particles it discusses are such that all their properties derive from the way they vibrate themselves without any connection to anything else.
Michael
Question, can a particle exist that has no properties?
Nadav:
Well - what to do - I think what you say is a combination of words that, although it fits syntactically, it has no meaning and no connection to reality.
Michael
The existence of human consciousness is truly an enigma, it is the thing that defines the existence or non-existence of things I have no idea how to define it, I can only say that perhaps consciousness cannot exist on its own either, that is, without the universe around me I would not materialize or be aware of things, because I do not There was a thing to know, and if the universe around me ceased, so would my consciousness.
Nadav:
It's not that I didn't want to answer - I just had to be somewhere else and not at the computer.
I unfollow you at the same place others do.
I think it's because what you're suggesting is incorrect.
By the way, if you say that the moon does not exist in relation to itself - am I allowed to conclude that you also do not exist in relation to yourself?
Thank you Erez, good night
I understand that a property is a relative thing observed only when you have another member to compare it to, but something in my brain resists the inclusion of 'existence' in the group of relative concepts. As far as I'm concerned (as opposed to movement or qualities that distinguish one from the other) - something either exists or it doesn't exist, and it doesn't matter if there are other things to 'presence' its existence.
Nadav, the fact that we do not get to the bottom of your mind does not necessarily mean that you are wrong. Take solace in the fact that 99% of people (including the very educated) do not understand modern ideas in theoretical physics. The more innovative the idea, the more people will tell you that it doesn't sound good to them.
Good night everyone.
It also means Neam
cedar
The moon exists in relation to countless things, but it does not exist in relation to the moon, that is, it does not exist absolutely
cedar,
Relative movement between different bodies has been known for hundreds of years. I assume the property of motion relative to light waves, which was not properly understood until Einstein's day.
Nadav,
I still haven't been able to understand - actually agree - that there is such a thing as a relationship.
I first asked a simple question: in relation to what does the moon exist?
Please explain
That is to say - things exist, relative to each other, but none of them exist absolutely
Hi Noam and thanks Erez :), that's it
Think hypothetically that all that exists is one particle, will this particle have properties, or does it require the attribution of another particle, or a space or something in order to express its properties, that is, is the property of existence something that is just like that on its own or is it something that comes to me Reality in the relationships between things, after all we define existence as something that has some attribute, but the attributes of things are determined by other things that also have attributes, if something has no attribute, maybe it doesn't exist and if it does exist, then there must be a point of reference from which it is will express some quality
Noam
Just to set things straight: relative movement was not a matter of course until a few dozen years ago. ('No-time' in every sense.)
Apart from that, I'm also not sure that I understand Nadav's logical insistence on having a relationship (although if Nadav can explain it, it might be interesting; I'll keep following).
Fingers crossed for Nadav (-;
Nadav,
Relative movement is a matter of course, but relative existence???
What is the relationship between existence and movement and how can one infer one from the other?
You made an amazing leap of logic here, but apparently a little (much) too far...
Does the moon only exist in relation to something else? relative to what?
I assume so and continue
If you agreed that the concepts of motion or rest are concepts whose correctness is determined only by their relation to something else, then why is it not possible to give the concept of existence the same determination, that is, that existence is determined only by its relation to something else and the existence (perhaps) of something does not have correctness in itself, just as it cannot To say with something at rest or moving absolutely
Do we have an agreement and can I continue?
Michael
Instead of trying to resist all the time try to understand what I want to say
I'm not talking about size, I'm talking about the fact that a certain object is at rest or in motion, I assume you understand that an object can appear at rest from a certain point and in motion from another point, that is, the terms - motion and rest are terms whose correctness is not absolute, but is measured relatively
Again, Nadav, with the caveat arising from the fact that the claim is part of its description, so yes - I accept it, but in any case - even if you lead to the relativity of space - it does not change anything - if a certain quantity is measured differently from one system than from another, it only means that you asked The size is not well defined without specifying the system - that is - that the question contains an unrealistic assumption that the measurement is independent of the system.
The type of error in this question is similar to the one made by someone who asks if you have already stopped hitting your parents.
Michael
That's not what I'm trying, bare with me
I am talking about the relativity of space and not the relativity of time, does the fact that there is no absolute origin of axes indicate that the idea of movement or rest is relative, that is, if something appears to be at rest then it is only because we observe it from the same set of axes, is this acceptable to you so far ?
Nadav:
I accept this as the conclusion of a scientific theory.
Not necessarily as an absolute truth.
If you want to lead me to the relativity of time then don't bother because I certainly accept the claim that it is possible to ask questions that have no real answer (like, for example, the question of whether a crocodile is longer or greener).
This does not prevent other questions from having a real answer.
Michael
Let's try something
Do you accept the fact (according to relativity) that there is no starting point and no place in space is absolute?
By the way - the attempt you make here to insert the timeline - can be used to emphasize the enormous distance of all scientific research from the approach you propose.
Scientific research strives to discover the laws that govern nature and its starting point is that not only do such laws exist, but they do not change over time!
Note that the constancy of the laws in time is not necessary for the existence of objective truth and that even the existence of laws that change over time is not necessary for it.
That is - the fact that someone who jumps from Azrieli in the future will not crash does not invalidate the truth of the claim that those who jumped from it in the past crashed.
Michael
Let's try something
Do you accept the fact (according to relativity) that there is no starting point and no place in space is absolute?
And by the way, Nadav, laws with probability are also legitimate laws that can reflect truth.
In other words, the claim that anyone who jumps from Azrieli will crash with a probability exceeding 90% can be true in principle and I don't think there is a single anti-realist whose intellectual honesty will overcome his logic to the point of putting this claim to the test.
Nadav:
You have never answered in the past and your answer is not satisfactory this time either.
Your answer refers to our inability to know the truth with certainty and not to the existence of the truth.
Although in my opinion there is no chance that the direction of gravity will reverse, but like any theory - there is some doubt.
It does not belong to reality itself where gravity - either can turn direction or not but not both and gravity is not at all affected by social conventions.
Again I forgot to mention the word "maybe" at the end
I must emphasize, Nadav, that I refer only to the texts you brought.
If someone defines anti-realism in a logical way and you just took things out of context, then my criticism is directed only at the anti-realists you describe (and you) and not at those who define anti-realism differently.
Okay, let's address your question, even though I have already answered it countless times
Do you think there is any chance, even if it is terribly small, that in the jump of the anti-realist, gravity will reverse its polarity randomly and he will fly into the sky?
If your answer is that there is no chance, then this is an answer that is based on faith and not on logic
If your answer is that there is a small chance, then you must accept the fact that the existence of gravity as a force is not absolute but relative
Nadav:
What makes me hard?
The one you don't answer?
I really don't care if someone decided to associate this claim with the philosophy of science.
As soon as he claims that science "discovers" social conventions, he is a New Ageist.
But I repeat and ask you what happens to an anti-realist who jumps from the Peace Tower?
Will the speed he reaches at the end of his journey be due to the laws of nature or social conventions?
Will his crash also result from social conventions?
Is - when enough anti-realists accumulate to change the conventions, is his fate expected to change?
Regarding your question, you simply don't grasp the concept of relativity, that something exists relatively, doesn't that mean it doesn't exist, it just means that one superior reference point cannot be determined for it, space is relative, does that mean there is no space? Time is relative, does that mean there is no time? Maybe the existence of things is also relative, it doesn't mean that there aren't things, it just means that certain things can be considered to exist at one point of observation and considered not to exist at another point and like in relationships, there is no way to give greater importance to one point than the other, you just have a hard time grasping it
Oh Michael, you are difficult
Anti-realism is a branch of the philosophy of science
Anti-realism in Science
In philosophy of science, anti-realism applies mainly to claims about the non-reality of "unobservable" entities such as electrons or DNA, which are not detectable with human senses. One prominent anti-realist position in the philosophy of science is instrumentalism, which takes a purely agnostic view towards the existence of unobservable entities: unobservable entity X serves simply as an instrument to aid in the success of theory Y. We need not determine the existence or non-existence of X. Some scientific anti-realists argue further, however, and deny that unobservables exist even as non-truth conditioned instruments.
Nadav:
Of course you don't answer.
It's good that you cite the anti-realists (which is a type of New Agers) and not the Satanic cult.
I will repeat one of my questions that you did not bother to address in a certain variation.
When an anti-realist jumps from the roof of the Azrieli Towers, will he be killed just because of social conventions?
And one more thing
For Anti-realists, the inaccessibility of any final, objective truth means that there is no truth beyond the socially-accepted consensus. (Although this means there are truths, not truth).
Again, truths exist but not one absolute truth (maybe)
Michael, in answer to your question, I will use Wikipedia where I found the idea I tried to convey to you, but you refuse to grasp, and that you arbitrarily determined that all scientists do not support it, I hope that this will put your mind to rest
Please read to the end, think about things before you respond
Anti-realism in Science
In philosophy of science, anti-realism applies mainly to claims about the non-reality of "unobservable" entities such as electrons or DNA, which are not detectable with human senses. For a brief discussion comparing such anti-realism to its opposite, realism, see (Okasha 2002, ch. 4). Ian Hacking (1999, p. 84) also uses the same definition. One prominent anti-realist position in the philosophy of science is instrumentalism, which takes a purely agnostic view towards the existence of unobservable entities: unobservable entity X serves simply as an instrument to aid in the success of theory Y. We need not determine the existence or non-existence of X. Some scientific anti-realists argue further, however, and deny that unobservables exist even as non-truth conditioned instruments.
By the way, Nadav:
You are still welcome to address the first question I asked you, which is the purpose of the research of a scientist who does not believe in the existence of absolute truth.
On that occasion, I will paraphrase another thing that I have already told you: do you tend to look to the side when you cross a busy road and if you do - why exactly?
Nadav:
If you decided to attach my name to everyone who supports my opinion then all I can say is that it's a bad joke.
If you accuse me of impersonation, then you have simply gone beyond the lowliness I thought possible even for you.
:)=
Whatever you say Chaimichael
Nadav. I don't have the patience that Michael has and I'm just telling you that the attempt to work on the public and claim that you found logical contradictions or mistakes in Michael's words is the opposite of reality.
Life
I can honestly tell you that I did not feel that I was arguing just to avoid admitting a mistake, I urge you to re-read what I wrote, if you find logical contradictions or mistakes as I found in Michael's words, I am ready to admit that even if I did not feel that way, I was just arguing and I will take all Talk back, all in all I tried to convey an idea of the possibility that the concept of "existence" or "truth" in things related to the nature we live in is only relative and not absolute, in this attempt I probably failed and for that I can only blame myself
Michael. From the very first moment you could see that Nadav was only arguing so as not to admit a mistake. I admire your patience but glad to know that it too has an end
Nadav:
I was wrong.
Wrong is not the right term. Trying to deceive is more appropriate.
Nadav:
You are wrong but - honestly - I am tired of you
Michal - Michael
Michal, I think you lack basic honesty and therefore no discussion with you will lead to anything fruitful
Nadav:
The debate has been going on for too long and throughout most of it you are the one twisting your words and not me.
The mistake I made in quoting Peninich in the last response stems from my tiredness and the fact that I am tired of trying.
You simply do not address the real problems that I repeat and point out in your words and instead you choose every time - often without any justification - some other word of mine to criticize.
You must understand that dealing with your evasion attempts is much less interesting to me than debating the matter itself, so - what to do? Sometimes I don't give it my full effort.
After I realized that the debate deviated from the matter, I find other things to read carefully and I read your words only to try to get rid of the nuisance.
Well, Michael, that's exactly what I'm talking about. My concept of a real debate is different from your concept of a real debate.
So there is no real debate here. 🙂
Michael
I really don't understand you, you just keep twisting my words, I didn't claim that the existence of quantum mechanics negates the absolute truth, it only points to the possibility that such a truth does not exist
I did not claim that one and one plus one are two is not an absolute truth, on the contrary I claimed that in mathematics things can be proven absolutely because the basic assumptions are absolute but not in nature, I no longer have the strength to go through any more of your distortions and inaccuracies what's more you changed all your opinions again and started talking about "Faith" of the scientists and not on "reason" and that is exactly what I am saying from the beginning
refreshed
Suppose hypothetically that you find a theory that describes all of reality, it is perfect, it has 23 dimensions and it explains all the laws and processes in nature, now an alien from another planet comes to you and he shows you another perfect theory with 19 glimads (which is a different type of dimension, with different laws Absolutely, it also explains all the processes in nature in a different way, now ask yourself, what is nature really like, does it have 23 dimensions with these laws or 19 dimensions with other laws, I am simply claiming that it is possible that nature can be both, because it is not really Exists in dimensions or glimmers, perhaps there is no absolute essence to reality in itself, but it has many essences relative to the subject and one essence cannot be preferred over the others
fresh:
Unfortunately - my personal conclusion is that they will never find the "theory of everything".
This conclusion follows from Gadel's incompleteness theorem.
At some point it became clear to me that Hawking also shared this opinion.
That doesn't mean you should stop trying!
Any unification and simplification of laws contributes a lot even if it does not allow for the prediction of "everything" and even if there will always remain questions that only experiment can decide.
point:
A real debate is possible and not only does the above demonstrate this, but the debate I just started having with you also demonstrates this.
Of course, during the debate they also deal with clarifying concepts. This is necessary so that during the debate everyone understands the other's claims - but the existence of clarifying concepts does not negate the very existence of the debate.
It is true that sometimes - when the concepts become clear - it also becomes clear that there is no debate, but beyond the fact that this does not always happen either - even in the cases where this happens, it is usually due to an understanding of the priority of one interpretation over another and then one can say - at least in retrospect (and many times this is even said in advance) that the decision about this priority was actually the essence of the debate.
As I have said before, a real argument is not logically possible, only a clarification of concepts.
All recent debates demonstrate this.
Nadav:
Admitting a mistake is only possible when you are wrong.
Since I did not make a mistake, there is no reason for me to admit to making a mistake.
You are the one who is wrong and you are the one who is contorting to avoid admitting it.
I don't know what kind of absolute truth is and I don't know what a possible apple is.
I was talking about a certain interpretation of quantum theory that - beyond the fact that you saw in it the vision of everything - you also claimed that its very existence negates the possibility of absolute truth.
Because you talked about denying the possibility, I offered the exact same interpretation as the possibility that you think he is denying and I asked you what prevents you from seeing it as such a possibility - this is the reason for using the word "possible".
There are no types of absolute truth.
There is only one absolute truth.
Our lack of knowledge obliges us to consider all kinds of theories as possibilities.
There is no logic in considering different types of a thing that only has one of its kind.
Historically, it is not true that you excluded mathematics from the rule.
Your first comment on the matter (number 17) did not mention this at all.
In response 30 you even elaborated and said that the sentence one plus one equals two is not an absolute truth.
Here and there you did show signs of accepting mathematical truth as absolute truth but that was the exception rather than the rule.
But the debate revolved around other things as well and I explained to you that without belief in the existence of a universe and the existence of processes occurring in it (and these are not beliefs from the field of mathematics) there is no point in exploring the universe and trying to understand the processes.
In fact, the belief behind scientific research is even deeper because it tries to extract from these processes all kinds of laws that govern them (what is commonly called the "laws of nature") - that is - there is a belief here not only in the existence of the universe and processes but also in the existence of laws that govern them .
All these are absolute physical truths that every scientist must accept in order to justify in his own eyes his pursuit of science.
Of course - you can also argue that there is no absolute truth, but then there is also no reason to be careful when crossing a busy road (because when you get run over - you don't "really" get injured or die).
Nadav
There is one absolute truth and that is reality, and humans will never know it, and even if by chance humans manage to reach a "theory of everything" we will not be able to know that we have reached the truth, we can only confirm it more and more but not prove it.
Michael you wrote
I do not propose to accept quantum theory as some kind of absolute truth
Does the phrase "a kind of absolute truth" not include the phrase "possible absolute truth"
Is a possible apple not a type of apple? It seems to me that you are simply unable to admit your mistake
That is why it is difficult for me to continue this discussion, but I will refer to the failures that you attributed to me
You are absolutely right that the sentence there is (no) absolute truth is paradoxical because it itself denies its existence, but that is not what I said, I even said that there are absolute truths in mathematics, say,
The sentence I have been saying all along is that there may not be absolute truth in nature, this does not mean that there is no truth at all, it does not mean that nature does not exist, it simply means that nature may consist of many relative truths and there is not one truth that contains all of them and is superior to them, the search for absolute truth in nature is a necessity Human, emotional, it stems from intuition rather than logical necessity and the existence of such truth is a matter of faith only
fresh:
That's why I said that in order to respond, you have to know what the debate is about and not take things out of context.
To simplify the work for you - note - when you read the comments - that I am not claiming this but referring to Nadav's claim.
In general - the whole debate is not about one physical theory or another.
Therefore it is not clear why you claim the same interpretation which is indeed legitimate but ignore the others that say the opposite.
fresh:
Do you know what the argument is about or are you just grabbing a sentence in the middle and deciding to show you read something.
After all, we have already discussed the subject at length and you know that you are not renewing anything for me in your response.
Michael
Quantum mechanics says that randomness necessarily exists, this is true according to certain interpretations and false according to other interpretations such as the interpretation of multiple parallel worlds.
Nadav:
It's simply a matter of reading comprehension.
In the first quote the word "possible" appears and this is because it is a scientific theory and as such it is only possible but not certain.
This fits perfectly with what I wrote in the second comment.
Michael, before I continue, please resolve for me the following contradiction arising from your words alone here...
For some reason you refuse - even though I have already explained the matter to you - to see quantum theory as a possible absolute truth.
I do not propose to accept the quantum theory as a kind of absolute truth because I said from the beginning that even though absolute truth exists - we almost never know if we are holding it.
If you change your opinion every time in every comment, we won't be able to develop any fruitful discussion
Nadav:
I just find it hard to believe that this debate is still going on and it seems to me that what you are hurling at me should have been turned against yourself.
I understood your words from the first moment.
It seems to me that you finally began to understand my words and therefore began to try to change what you said in retrospect.
You were talking about truth and not about "scientific truth".
There is no such thing as "scientific truth" and I have constantly differentiated between the truth and what we know about it.
Now - when you start to understand that there is a problem with your words, you try to create a presentation as if you were always referring to the same concept that you invented and called it "scientific truth".
I have no logical fallacy - neither obvious nor hidden.
I do not propose to accept the quantum theory as a kind of absolute truth because I said from the beginning that even though absolute truth exists - we almost never know if we are holding it.
How many times do I have to repeat this before you start to pay attention to what I'm saying?
You say "quantum mechanics states that there are things in nature that cannot be explained or known, quantum mechanics states that there are things in nature that cannot be explained or known, i.e. it is not possible to know the "absolute truth" of all things so far we have an agreement"
So first of all - no - even up to this point we do not have an agreement.
Quantum mechanics does not talk about what we can know. She doesn't talk about humans at all. Quantum mechanics talks about what exists (as mentioned - it does so as a theory and therefore with all the appropriate reservations). Even the term "knowledge" is not defined in quantum mechanics. Beyond that, I repeat that there is a difference between what we know or can know and the truth.
That quantum theory has random things doesn't say anything about the absolute truth. When will you get it? If the quantum theory is true then the absolute truth is that there is randomness in nature. Why do you refuse to call a situation where there is randomness the name of absolute truth?
If there are random phenomena then there really are things that cannot be explained as a necessary chain of events and one must be satisfied with an explanation of a probabilistic nature. Does it make reality unreal? of course not! Not only does reality remain true but even the probabilistic explanation can be true!
In your attempt to attribute a logical fallacy to me, you are merely tying several of your confusions together. Among other things, you include there the unjustified guarantee of necessary causality with truth, also the unjustified guarantee between our knowledge and the absolute truth.
With so many errors it's no wonder you come to the wrong conclusion.
Of course, beyond the wrong claim you tried to direct at me - you didn't even begin to deal with the logical errors that I proved to be in your words.
Michael, it seems to me that you are trying to defend your position more than to understand my position
There are no absolute scientific truths, everything that science discovers about the world is questionable, it is this doubt that makes science the most powerful tool we have, if tomorrow someone finds a theory that the entire universe is a computer program and has no real existence and this theory is confirmed by their experiment then it is be the preferred theory
I think you have a clear logical fallacy
You propose to accept quantum mechanics as a type of absolute truth, quantum mechanics states that there are things in nature that cannot be explained or known, i.e. the "absolute truth" of all things cannot be known
So far we have an agreement
Why do you refuse to go one step further logically and say that if the "absolute truth" cannot be known then perhaps no such truth exists, meaning that if there are things that cannot be explained in any way then that means there are chances that there may not be such an explanation at all,
The strange part is that in one of your comments you referred to it when you said "understandable randomness" if there is understandable randomness, then it is true that there are things that just happen without an explanation, the fact that you called it randomness does not mean that you have given it any explanation, you are giving quantum mechanics a status that it does not pretend to take at all
Basically you are saying that the absolute truth is that it is impossible to know the absolute truth and this is of course a contradiction
This is a circular logical fallacy that you threw at my statement that there may not be an absolute truth, that is, there may not be one exclusive point of view that can contain the explanation, understanding and knowledge of all things
One + one = two: according to the brain perception of a dry and barren world.
One+one={ ?}three: according to the brain-nerve - the gene - the pineal gland.
Vertex work, survivor.
Below, translated to "pineapple": the dictionary.
-------------
1) Acorn, an organ corresponding to the fruit that carries the seeds in plants that are exposed to the seed. Especially in conifers (pine, cedar, etc.) the pine is made of scales in which the seeds sit.
2) A cone, a cone, an engineering body with a round base that gets narrower to its apex.
extension:
According to ancient inner concepts, the "spheres" are shaped like cones: like a galactic core...
Nadav:
enough already!
For the sake of accuracy, I will point out that science does not even assume a priori that forces exist. It's not relevant, but here you slid in the opposite direction from the one you wanted to move towards.
I will limit myself to the study of the processes.
Doesn't this mean that science presupposes - as an absolute truth - that a universe exists and processes exist in it?
Otherwise - as I say again and again - there is nothing to try to find out!
How many times do you have to say the same thing in different words until they understand?!
By the way - I hope it is clear to you (or at least it will become clear to you after reading this sentence) that the sentence "there is no absolute truth" has an internal contradiction.
Is the sentence "there is no absolute truth" an absolute truth?
The scientists (and any sane person) do assume that one plus one is two and in general they assume the validity of the laws of logic.
Without this type of assumption they cannot even speak - and certainly cannot formulate theories about the laws of nature or draw conclusions from experiments.
It is not clear to me why you wrote the section on quantum theory.
It is true, but it is not relevant to our case.
For some reason you refuse - even though I have already explained the matter to you - to see quantum theory as a possible absolute truth.
I have already explained several times that there is a difference between the existence of the truth and the ability to know for sure that we have discovered it.
At the end of your words you present it as a question. so be it. In my opinion this is a trivial question but if you are not sure of the answer (wrong in my opinion) that there is no difference between the two claims then you cannot claim that there is no absolute truth just because we cannot know with absolute certainty if we have discovered it.
By the way - the claim that "we cannot know for sure if we have discovered any absolute truth" also includes an internal contradiction.
point:
In that you return to emptying all the words from their content, you contribute nothing to the discussion.
Cremation after death exists in many religions devoted to the "Holy Spirit".
That is, they believe in the eternity of the rest of the soul - even after the cremation of the body.
In Judaism, there is another concept called revitalization and 'revival' and therefore in order not to forget the sanctity of the names/sanctity of the Torah and its commandments: bury the dead: "to be safe"..
The pharaohs also had the same understanding in their time.
Michael, you were wrong about me, I've already said before that everything is an illusion
Michael
To your question, in my view science tries to find teachings and theories that successfully explain the processes and forces that operate in the universe, in my opinion many scientists have understood for a long time that any such theory, no matter how good, will always be limited
And there will never be the absolute "truth" I will try to explain my opinion simply
One plus one equals two - in order for this to be an absolute truth, it must be established that one is really one and plus is really plus, etc.
In other words, in mathematics absolute truth is possible because we determine the basic assumptions, not so in the natural sciences in my opinion
Here the basic assumptions are not determined by us, they are measured and interpreted by us
For example, we see things falling and deduce gravity from this, we determine that this is a force that exists in nature and try to confirm this with experiments
Let's say we dropped an apple a billion times, no one tells us that the billion and one time it won't fall upwards, although it is unlikely, but the existence of gravity is not an absolute truth and there may be some chance (horribly small) that gravity reverses every ten billion years for example
And here came quantum mechanics and established that the very measurement itself affects the existence of things at the particle level, that is, something that was a wave, collapsed and became a particle only because something else measured it
This is how a limit of certainty is established, that is, a mathematical, logical limit of the ability to know the position or speed of particles, this is not a technical limit, it is a mathematical barrier
By the way, chaos theory didn't help either, if I understood correctly, it states that in chaotic systems, in order to predict results, the initial state must be measured with infinite precision, i.e.
It is necessary to verify the position and speed of a particle with infinite precision in order to try and describe the development of events, it is clear to you that there is no device that can measure things with infinite precision, what's more every measurement changes the result completely
I guess there are some scientists like Einstein who oppose it but if I am not mistaken most scientists today support the conclusions of quantum mechanics
In conclusion - the search for absolute truth is not possible in a system whose basic assumptions are not absolute
Does the fact that we will never be able to explain the world with absolute precision as it is mean that there is no such explanation or that such an explanation exists even though it cannot be obtained
...and in the tongue when a tree falls in the forest
Is the very existence of an explanation not conditional on the existence of some entity that can understand it?
But this is already a philosophical question and a matter of faith
point:
You don't get the point.
I don't squirm.
I am also ready to believe in the aforementioned God, but calling him by the name "God" is a mistake.
Einstein was not wrong in choosing what to believe but only in choosing the word to describe it.
After all, the God of Einstein and Spinoza is simply the nature that exists there - without any will or awareness.
I'm sure you're not a disbeliever in the existence of nature either.
The whole mistake is that they are willing to call it God.
As you said - Dawkins is also willing to believe in such a God, but he nevertheless wrote a book called "The Hallucination of God" (I was forgiven by the editors of the Hebrew edition who decided not to translate the name of the book but to replace it).
He did this because although he is willing to believe in such a God he is not willing to call him by that name.
Michael, it is clear that Einstein knew what you were saying, and he emphasized that he was against the personal God, but still chose to use the word God.
You're just twisting and turning and trying to claim that Einstein didn't believe in God.
Dawkins himself writes that he is also ready to accept the God that Einstein believed in.
I of course do not accept the opinion of Einstein or Dawkins. Both were wrong.
point:
As someone who always fights for the clarity of the definitions, I'm surprised that you decided this time to fight for Erful.
After all, defining God as a box of corn is exactly the patent used by all those who believe in his usual definition to claim that Einstein too - like them - believed in God.
This definition is only used for fraud and in my opinion we must emphasize this at every opportunity and that is what I am doing here.
I remember that once - when I took on the leadership of a certain project in the army - after the person who led it before was released - I discovered that different parts of the system were developed based on an uncoordinated understanding of the terms and that I actually took on the management of a project that needed a real miracle to not fail.
I read the requirements documents of the project and found that the problem appears already there.
I called one of the companies who were partners in defining the requirements and I asked him the meaning of this and he told me that they deliberately wrote the things so that they could be interpreted in many different ways so that it would be liked by everyone.
I asked him if he was a politician or an engineer and I explained to him that many different ways are - it's as simple as multiplying its meaning - many unequal ways.
This is the case here.
Double meaning allows people to create a false representation of agreement when in reality they do not agree at all.
When this doubling of meaning is used in connection with the word "God" it is ultimately part of the substrate on which religious coercion grows.
If this is what you and Nadav want - continue to ignore this fact.
By the way - pay attention: as if specifically to illustrate the danger I am pointing out, Hugin came and reinforced her point.
Doesn't that say it all?
Nadav:
And as for the question of the existence of absolute truth - tell me what in your opinion is the thing that the scientist who does not believe in its existence is trying to discover.
It is quite possible that here and there you will find an irrational scientist who is ready to make this fashionable claim, but there is no need for a survey to understand that this is an unreasonable claim (it is a false claim and not a survey claim)
For a moment, he said 'point' something with a hint of taste.
I will mention that.
You should bring the English translation:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
Look Michael, God has many meanings, and even within the religious he has many meanings, and he even changes his definition according to the momentary state of the believer... therefore to come and say that Einstein did not believe in God is not accurate. He speaks of the God who manifests himself in order and harmony in nature. I think this is a clear statement of belief in some kind of other supernatural being.
It is important to note that this does not affect the truth of what Einstein believed or did not believe.
By the way, this is Nadav
Hi Michael
For some reason you choose to grasp the more narrow and simplistic definition of the concept of God and the truth which is your full right
But please don't deny me the right to expand it to the idea of an irrational cosmic deity, and if you're going to deny me this right, please don't deny it to Einstein himself...
I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings" (Albert Einstein).
And I do not agree with you that all scientists believe in the existence of absolute truth, but it is a matter of opinion that can only be proven through a wide and comprehensive survey, what is certain is that many scientists today understand that it may not be possible to reach such a truth at all, because of the problems of measurement and subjectivity, logically with the fact that it is not possible to reach the truth This means that there are some chances that such a truth may not exist, whether you choose to believe it or not is only your business
point:
What is not true is precisely what you say.
God is a defined word and is not meant to indicate a box of corn.
If someone decides to call a box of corn by the name "God" then it is possible to claim that in the private language he invented for himself he believes in God, but this is a statement that without learning that private language is only misleading.
Einstein said (and I repeat only one of the quotes):
The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible
This is a sentence in which he talks about what everyone calls God and in such a God he does not believe.
By the way - I don't even know a quote where he defines what he calls God as a box of corn, nature, or anything else.
Nadav:
You didn't understand my words even though I tried to say them very clearly.
There is a difference between the existence of the truth and our knowledge of it.
I said that scientists believe in the existence of absolute truth but do not claim absolute recognition of that truth.
What changes is the extent to which we know the truth and not the truth itself.
I repeat that without belief in the existence of absolute truth there is no sense in trying to discover it.
That romantic belief of Einstein's that you described in your last response is what I called in my response - "the belief that true randomness is not possible".
This is indeed a belief (romantic or not - it's not important) in something that today is thought to be untrue but which in no way has anything to do with God
Michael, what you say is not true, Einstein did believe in God. Only he reserved it from the personal God that the religious believe in.
Michael
I'm not a scientist, but according to my understanding, the very act of trying to explain the universe around us does not necessarily stem from a belief in absolute truth. On the contrary, it is known that every scientific truth is only the most correct truth that can be found at the moment. Science tries to describe the world with the tools and limitations of the human mind, and it will always be limited by This intermediary (the mind) that interprets and gives meaning to all things, what's more, every proof in a scientific experiment is only a confirmation of a temporary truth but never its absolute confirmation, as in the famous example that you cannot know for sure with the laws of physics correct, this is a truer sentence than the laws of physics are correct until 2019 , Einstein had an emotional, romantic belief that everything can and can be explained and understood in time, that belief raised him against
From the quantum machine and the limit it set for certainty
See, Nadav:
As I said from the beginning - most of your words seemed true to me and I rebelled only against your claim that Einstein believed in God.
Now you change the claim a bit and try to soften it by defining God as "absolute truth".
In fact you are wrong here in the opposite direction.
It is true that Einstein believed in the existence of absolute truth, but all scientists believe in its existence because otherwise there would be no point in the scientific enterprise designed to reveal it.
The scientists do not claim for a moment that it is in their hands, but they clearly believe in its existence.
This is also the belief of those who argued against Einstein that nature actually has a built-in randomness.
Simply according to his claim - the existence of that randomness represents the absolute truth better than Einstein's claim of the absence of randomness.
Anyway - there is no point in calling the word "truth" by the name "God". These are two separate words with different meanings.
As for the basis of Einstein's statement - it was not his belief in the existence of absolute truth that led him to say these things (because as mentioned - the existence of absolute truth was not at all controversial) but his belief that true randomness is not possible in nature.
What is actually the advantage of the flower plants over the seed covers?
When I meant Einstein's art in God, I didn't exactly mean the classic image of God, but rather a belief in some kind of supreme absolute truth, an absolute point of view in its correctness, Einstein also believed, according to my understanding, in the abilities of the human mind to achieve the same truth, that belief could not exist with some of the conclusions that may arise from quantum mechanics And so he rebelled against it, basically I wanted to say that in order to resolutely rebel against any scientific fact you need two parameters, one is to truly understand the meaning of that fact and two is to hold an (emotional) belief that contradicts it.
As a staunch atheist, I must point out in connection with the last paragraph that although the existence of this process is almost axiomatic (however, charging to absolute truth is from the devil P: ) it is certainly possible to argue that there were other processes that happened at the same time, and perhaps even their weight in determining the development was higher.
I'm not talking about anything specific that I know of, but I'm simply aiming for an "open mind" and trying to avoid brain trouble.
Johnny:
Man's descent from the ape.
The common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans was a type of monkey.
This is true whether you see man as a type of chimpanzee or whether you decide that he should be classified as a completely separate species.
biological:
I assume that Einstein knew better than you what he himself was thinking, so please - read what he wrote about the question:
1. The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere. [Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, pp 69-70]
2. The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. [Albert Einstein]
3. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events... He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. [Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions]
4. The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]
5. If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? [Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years]
6. It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it. [Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
7. The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task... [Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941]
8.
Einstein would use many "Jewish" expressions, but he would never believe.
Just for proof, I will mention that he wrote in his will that he wanted his body to be cremated and scattered, so that people would not go to his grave.
What kind of believing person would want their body cremated????
To Johnny the biologist - there are also biologists who oppose evolution. And they have weighty claims if you have learned about them. That is why there is also scientific opposition, although they are a minority, but they have an influence.
to johnny
In fact man did not evolve from the monkey, the correct wording is that man is a species of monkey.
Another wording is simply wrong, you cannot put the chimpanzee and the rhesus under one family if the human is not in the same category, because the human-chimpanzee relationship is greater than the chimpanzee's relationship with the rhesus.
Please be precise, according to evolution man and ape developed from a common ancestor and not "man's descent from ape".
And really as a biologist I am amazed every time how people who have not read researched and thought about evolution a little in depth express strong opinions based on half facts at best and lies at worst.
Just do some homework, it doesn't hurt to read
Michael,
Einstein was a great believer in God and this is what caused his inability to continue fruitful research in the later years of his life. Again we see that even in the greatest, faith in God prevents reason from flourishing.
Very interesting article.
Thank you very much 🙂
Einstein was wrong twice in the same sentence. There is no God and there are dice
Nadav:
Your first words are correct, but your words about Einstein are a complete miss.
Einstein did not believe in God. His use of the word was metaphorical.
to joe
It seems to me that the neglect of evolution derives from its simple conclusion that man evolved from monkeys, thus completely eliminating the possibility that God created the world for the sake of man who was created in his image (Book of Genesis) It seems to me that it is emotionally difficult for religious people to come to terms with this contradiction, what is more, that relativity and quanta are complex teachings and difficult to understand , it is likely that a religious person or a believer who understands their contradiction will revolt, but the masses who are not educated enough will not consider For this reason, Einstein's statement regarding quantum mechanics can perhaps be brought here "God does not play dice with the universe" Einstein believed in God and also grasped the idea that (perhaps) derives from quantum mechanics and therefore could rebel
It is culturally interesting why the religions treated evolution as representing evil, it seems to me that private relativity and quantum mechanics also contradict biblical beliefs, but I have never heard a religious person speak out against them.
It should be added that the pollination freed the flower plants from hanging in the water for fertilization.
@Asaf, I completely agree. I'm finishing Biology A soon and I'm just starting to realize how much I don't know about evolution. Arguing about it even as a philosophy is exhausting and unhelpful.
@Joe, Flowering plants have two reproductive systems. In addition to the flowers used for pollination, they also produce seeds that contain the embryo and facilities that nourish it.
I didn't really understand what is so special about the evolution of flowers, after all division into female and male in plant seeds also exists in pine cones, so where is the big jump?