…or ever will be able to see, feel, hear, examine with electron microscopes and large hadron colliders, quantum-frandobulate, calculate, etc., then you’re right. But I see no reason to believe that there is anything beyond that ‘mundane’.

Why not? Your belief that humans have an infinite capacity to do all that frandobulating and calculating, and get it right, is as fantastical as anything the rons of the world think.

We are clever monkeys, and we can light the fire of the sun over our cities if we so choose to wipe ourselves out, but our conceptualizations are rooted in a limited frame of reference.

Power is not wisdom.

OK, now I’m going.

‘The fact that evolution is constrained says nothing about whether or not we are perceiving “reality” beyond the mundane.’ If by ‘mundane’ you mean everything we can or ever will be able to see, feel, hear, examine with electron microscopes and large hadron colliders, quantum-frandobulate, calculate, etc., then you’re right. But I see no reason to believe that there is anything beyond that ‘mundane’. If that’s not what you mean, then you’re wrong, as has been explained repeatedly.

So I’m not going to try again. Bye, all.

Who designed the Designer?

Who created the Creator?

No idea what “an explanation for the basis of induction” means.

Please see my #42 for treesong. You can’t apply OR unless you have a clearly stated question. I certainly haven’t been able to figure out what yours is. (Please note that is talking about the universe not evolution.)

Greg is correct– evolution occurs in a particular “space”– Earth, with all its physical characteristics, like sunlight and water and asteroid impacts and mineralogy and so on, and then there’s more fundamental physics and chemistry– gravity, molecular bonds, yadda yadda. So the possible outcomes are obviously limited.

Occam’s Razor, though not recommended to find correct answers (it is used rather to limit the number of wrong answers), would never predict, prefer, or suggest god, for obvious reasons.

If we’re to accept Occam’s Razor (advising which hypothesis to test first) as an explanation for the basis of induction versus a chaotic system, why would one believe that God is not preferable / simpler than chaotic systems?

I guess I have to educate both you guys on this word.

“Random” does not mean “not designed”.

-It means, in quantum physics, that there is no cause.

-Random in the classical vernacular is used to describe things that are unpredictable in practice, like the path of a gas molecule. The path is, however, the result of causes, and it is also constrained.

-But evolution is probably best described as “chaotic”, because there are different possible discrete outcomes. We can’t predict them, but the number of possible states is limited.

Perhaps you could rephrase your question to reflect these distinctions?