Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 12:31 (4132 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don't know to what extent [Strassler's comment] challenges Ruth's take on causality, because I don't know to what extent the two approaches overlap, but I mention it because scientists rarely agree amongst themselves.-DAVID: I don't know where you get the idea that scientists don't agree. Yes they argue theory among themelves, but science would not advance unless a concensus coalesces around varius advances in thought and theory.
 
Sorry, my statement was far too general. Of course there is a consensus on many subjects ... otherwise technology would never work! I was thinking of the various fields that we are constantly discussing: the origin of life, consciousness, evolution, the nature of the universe, free will etc.
 
DAVID: The basis of our reality comes out of the quantum realm. It is understood by math. the book Fearful Symmetry asks the question, is God a geometer? Einstein is surprised that the world is explained by math. God is at the quantum level. It must be understood in the search for God.-At various times Einstein described himself as an agnostic, a non-believer, and a Spinoza-type pantheist. I have already supplied a list of notable physicists who are/were atheists or agnostics. This is the sort of thing I was referring to when I mentioned the lack of consensus among scientists. Maybe the basis of our reality does come out of the quantum realm, but that doesn't mean there's an eternal, purposeful, consciously creative mind in there! I suspect that people searching for God or for mindless materialism will find what they want anyway. Using your own terms, should one not rather say that the quantum level must be understood in the search for the basis of our reality?