Analytics

Okay. It looks like I just found a Latter-day Saint who does believe it is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient codex. Or not? What am I missing here? I'm confident from the context that when the GPT said "straightforward translation" it meant to imply that it was a translation that is faithful to what was originally written on the alleged golden plates. Are you implying that when things are translated by the power of God they are no longer an accurate representation of the original text? I really don't get your point. This one is a big deal to you, so I'd like you to clarify where you're coming from before I respond.

Sure. I totally agree that this is what Latter-day Saints assume and believe in abstract. The problem is what happens when we start to compile very strong evidence that natural laws really are in direct, irreconcilable conflict with religious beliefs. Of course you can always assume that they will eventually be reconciled, but the reality is that in some areas, this assumption is getting more and more tenuous. One of the most interesting and certainly strongest beliefs like this is the belief in a "spirit" that somehow inhabits the body in a way where the spirit experiences consciousness, participates in free agency, and to some extent can continue to think, observe, and be aware of itself after death as it floats away from the physical body. Scientists have studied the brain from different angles, and they all come to the same conclusion--personality, sense of self, decisions, and observations all emerge from the brain. Change the brain with injury, disease, surgery, or medication, and all of these things change in extremely predictable ways. There just isn't anything for a "spirit" to do. Furthermore, what the spirit could actually be ceases to make sense. If you surgically split a person's brain in half and then observe them after, you see two distinct senses of self with two different personalities that both think they are the ones in control of the body. How do dualists explain this? Does the "spirit" get split when the brain gets split? Add to this physicists who say that science is now in a completely different state than it ever has been, and that we can now say that while we don't know everything, we know some things, and one of the things we know is that the idea of "spirit energy" or "spirit particles" can't exist--they are fundamentally incompatible with effective field theory. While we can easily posit that "spirits" somehow override this or interact in a more subtle way, there isn't even a well-defined hypothesis of how EQFT could be changed to allow for such a thing. All of this points to the same thing: mind emerges from brain, we don't have "spirits", and when we die that's it. This could all be wrong if you hypothesize vague supernatural influences, but the evidence for such things just isn't there. Read Sean Carroll and Michael Gazzaniga to learn about this. On some issues, that isn't really true. Both Sean Carroll and Michael Gazzaniga say that we have positive evidence that nothing else is going on. This partly depends on how you conceive of "God", right? If you agree with Lorenzo Snow that "as man now is, God once was", then the alleged fine-tuner of the universe is someone other than God, right? Modern thinkers tend to replace blanket skepticism with Bayesian reasoning. The idea is to keep in mind the sum-total of the evidence and not be skeptical for skepticism's sake. Make the best decisions with the data we have. Part of this process is keeping in mind that you need to keep the laws of physics in mind when you look at evidence. Steven Pinker said it with with flair when he said: "A failure of Bayesian reasoning among scientists themselves is a contributor to the replicability crisis that we met in chapter 4. The issue hit the fan in 2011 when the eminent social psychologist Daryl Bem published the results of nine experiments in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology which claimed to show that participants successfully predicted (at a rate above chance) random events before they took place, such as which of two curtains on a computer screen hid an erotic image before the computer had selected where to place it. Not surprisingly, the effects failed to replicate, but that was a foregone conclusion given the infinitesimal prior probability that a social psychologist had disproven the laws of physics by showing some undergraduates some porn." Pinker, Steven. Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters (pp. 159-160). (Function). Kindle Edition.

This is considered best practices in prompt engineering to give the AI some direction on what it is trying to do. To be clear, the AI is neither the judge nor the jury on this. It can help us think, brainstorm, and articulate ideas. But it isn't the judge or jury. This prompt is to intended to systematically look at the evidence and use proper Bayesian reasoning to evaluate all of the evidence. The assumption "Assume that you’ve never seen or heard of the Book of Mormon" was made to force the GPT to look only at the actual text of the book as evidence. Specifically, does the text itself support the hypothesis that it is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient codex? It isn't a "glorified google search." GPT 5.2 Pro is the premium, highest-capacity GPT model that spends significant time and computational resources to think, analyze, double-check, reason, and articulate. For example, you can use it to articulate a complicated business problem involving unique databases and business-use requirements, and it can come up with a creative, unique-to-your unique-situation, practical solution, and code it up in the programming language of your choice. It really does "think". There is some overlap between how GPT's think and how humans think. With the differences GPT is sometimes better, sometimes worse. But it really does think, albeit in its own way. We're trying to do this systematically. Those pieces of evidence will be layered in later after we determine what the Book of Mormon most likely is. To see what it is, we need to look at the words. No, that is not something we are positing. We are simply looking at the text itself and determining if it is plausibly an accurate translation of an authentic ancient codex. How it came to be is a separate issue. If you are conceding that the Book of Mormon isn't an actual translation of what was written on the alleged golden plates, then I'm glad we agree. But to be clear, are you claiming that it isn't an accurate translation, or that the "golden plates" are not an authentic ancient codex? At this point we're just looking at the text itself. Does it look ancient? Is that hypothesis plausible? Could it be historical? Is that plausible? Who wrote it is a different issue. Just trying to evaluate the plausibility of it being a translation of a real record. Focusing on this is the point. I disagree. Real people that existed 2000 years ago aren't going to write like they are 19th-century americans just because they are trying to focus on "plain and precious parts." The GPT prompt was told to look at the full text of the book, which includes these statements. These statements don't make it look ancient or authentic. You could claim that the stated purpose was for it to sound like it was written in the 1820's and that divine intervention was used so that Mormon knew how to sound like it was written in a different time, place, and culture. But if you do that, you are getting deep into making ad hoc rationalizations for why an allegedly ancient book doesn't look ancient, which brings up non-falsifiability and invisible dragons. I disagree. The text itself screams modern origin. If it had "special preservation/accuracy" that would make it look ancient, not modern. Full stop. M is your theory! You insist that the Book of Mormon existing is so unlikely and miraculous, people who don't believe it is authentic have some sort of obligation to their own intellectual integrity to explain it away. If M isn't true, who wrote it? How? What about the witness statements? All of that is evidence for M. Now you are saying there really isn't any evidence for M? If that is what you are saying, then we agree. If you want to understand my point, you need to engage with the hypothetical as written. The point is that the options aren't either "Joseph Smith knowing two languages" or "the gift and power of God." Rather, the choices are "Joseph Smith knowing two languages" (or other mundane explanations) or something miraculous (including "the gift and power of God", aliens, evil spirits, etc.). Hypothetically proving it wasn't written by natural means forces the answer to be supernatural, but doesn't necessarily mean the most likely answer is that it is an authentic translation of a real ancient document. Have you ever taken a course in formal, deductive logic? Everything we're talking about here is embedded in the assumption that "it is conclusively proven that there is literally no way this English manuscript could be of natural origin." Until that assumption is closed, we aren't talking about what we really believe--we are talking about a hypothetical reality where that assumption is true. There are three ways to close the assumption: 1- if we somehow prove that assumption is true, then we are advocating for cosmic trixter and the like. 2- if introducing that assumption leads to a contradiction, then we've proven that assumption is false. Or 3- we could close the assumption with making it a conditional (i.e. if it was written by supernatural means, then "aliens" is the most likely supernatural explanation). To be clear, I am NOT advocating this is what really happened. I'm merely pointing out that if you insist that Joseph Smith could not have produced it, then given that we already know from other evidence that it isn't of ancient origin, supernatural explanations other than the orthodox ones are more likely. I didn't intentionally stack the deck this way. My intention was to evaluate the text: is it plausible that this is a basically accurate translation of something somebody really wrote a long time ago? How it was translated is a different issue. That's what the evidence indicates, sure. The GPT understands this, and you need to pay attention to the logical structure of what we're talking about--if we make absurd assumptions, then crazy things falling out of that are evidence that the assumption is wrong. The GPT understands this logic. That is why it concluded with: I'm certainly not on board with it--the "Rigdon conspiracy" thing is absolutely nuts and in all likelihood did not happen. The point is that's what's even more nuts is the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a basically accurate translation of an authentic ancient record.

I put the question to ChatGPT 5.2 Pro. The objective was two-fold: to test the validity of my thinking, and see if it could do a better job at articulating my reasoning. Having reconsidered the issue, I stand by what I said in 2021, and offer the following prompts and responses to illustrate how I see it. Prompt You are a polymath with deep knowledge in ancient writings in every world culture that has produced texts. Your expertise includes the ancient writings of Maya, Zapotec, Olmec, Aztec, Inca, Sumer, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Hittite, Phoenicia, etc. Additionally, you have deep expertise in the original manuscripts of the Hebrew bible, and know when each chapter and verse of the modern bible was most likely written. Furthermore, you have deep knowledge of science and world history and prehistory, including anthropology, sociology, history of technology, archaeometallurgy, population movements, geology, archaeobotany, zooarchaeology, evolutionary biology, historical migration studies, population genetics, historical biography, historical demography, and anthropological linguistics, with particular expertise in the history of the ancient middle east and the history and prehistory of the ancient Americas. You are also an expert at Bayesian reasoning and evaluating evidence without bias. Assume that you’ve never seen or heard of the Book of Mormon. Somebody presents you with an English version of the Book of Mormon and asks you these specific questions: Based only upon the English text, what is the likelihood that this is a translation of an authentic ancient codex that was originally written on metal plates and compiled around the year A.D. 400, somewhere in the Americas? What is the likelihood that this codex was compiled in A.D. 400 in ancient America *and* is an historical record that tells a story of real people who lived over the prior 1,000 years? If and only if you determine the answers to questions 1 and 2 are unlikely, address the Lloyd Christmas follow-up question, “unlikely as in one-in-a-hundred?” Based only on the text of the Book of Mormon, what is the most likely time and place of it being written? Finally, assume that it is conclusively proven that there is literally no way this English manuscript could be of natural origin—assume that in a controlled environment, James Randi investigated how it was produced, concludes that it must have involved the supernatural and golden plates that were seen in the 1820’s and that not only were magically a part of the book’s writing, but also magically disappeared after 11 hand-picked witnesses saw them. James Randi declares these are real miracles and Joseph Smith wins the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Under this new assumption that the modern production of the Book really is miraculous, please use correct Bayesian reasoning to update your beliefs in 1 and 2. Do you now believe the Book of Mormon is most likely an accurate translation of an authentic ancient codex? Please evaluate the relative plausibility of the following hypotheses: a- Joseph Smith wrote it by himself. b- That Joseph Smith wrote it, with the help of his brother, mother, and others, and that they put on what is essentially an elaborate magic show to make the production of the book look miraculous? c- That advanced aliens helped him write it. d- That some sort of a cosmic trixter (e.g. Q, the devil) helped him write it. e- Something else I haven’t listed. e- That it is exactly what orthodox Mormons believe: an authentic ancient codex that was written, preserved, and translated by the power of God. Please limit your answer to 1,000 words, targeted it to a lay audience, and write it in conversational English. ChatGPT 5.2 Pro Thought for 11m 1s > Here’s how I’d reason if you handed me only the English text and told me it’s a translation of an ancient American record compiled around A.D. 400 on metal plates. 1) Likelihood it’s a translation of an authentic ancient codex on metal plates (compiled ~A.D. 400 in the Americas) Very low. The strongest internal reason is the linguistic fingerprint of the English itself. What I would expect from a genuine translation of an ancient American text (even a very free translation) is: consistent “translationese,” odd but stable syntax, culturally grounded idioms, and only occasional overlap with early-modern English Bible phrasing unless the translator is deliberately imitating it. What instead jumps out (from the English alone) is that the book reads like it is written in a consciously biblical, King James–style English register, and not just in a vague “biblical tone,” but with the texture of an English writer steeped in that particular Bible tradition: stock rhythms, repetitive biblical scaffolding, sermon-like expansions, and long stretches that feel like they are built out of English biblical language rather than translated into it. A translation can be made to sound archaic on purpose, sure. But the more the English looks like it is composed in that idiom—rather than forced into it by the constraints of another language—the less it looks like a translation. My rough probability for #1, based only on the English text: ~1 in 100,000 (0.001%) that it’s truly a translation of an authentic A.D. 400 American metal-plate codex. (That’s not “it’s impossible.” It’s “the internal linguistic signals look overwhelmingly like early modern/modern English religious composition rather than an ancient-source translation.”) 2) Likelihood it’s both (a) compiled in A.D. 400 in ancient America AND (b) a historical record of real people over the prior 1,000 years Even lower. This stacks additional requirements on top of #1: not just “ancient source exists,” but it’s an intentionally historical narrative (not mostly allegory/prophecy), and it’s broadly accurate about real people and events across a millennium. From text alone, a big tell is genre balance: authentic historical traditions usually contain lots of “incidental mundane detail” that authors don’t even realize is diagnostic—small logistical constraints, boring administrative texture, local material culture presented without rhetorical purpose, etc. This text (in English) reads much more like theological history—story primarily serving prophecy, exhortation, doctrine, and sermon—than like a record whose main goal is “here’s what happened.” That doesn’t rule out history. But it’s the wrong vibe for “reliably historical for 1,000 years” unless we already assume special preservation/accuracy. My rough probability for #2: ~1 in 100,000,000 (0.000001%). 3) “Unlikely as in one-in-a-hundred?” For #1 and especially #2: no—much, much less likely than 1% on the English-text evidence alone. #1: more like 1 in 100,000 (give or take an order of magnitude). #2: more like 1 in 100 million (give or take a couple orders of magnitude). 4) Most likely time and place of composition, based only on the text The English reads like it comes from an English-speaking, Bible-saturated Protestant culture after the King James Bible had become culturally dominant. So: post-1611, and realistically much later than that, because the style isn’t just archaic English—it feels like a modern author performing archaic English, with heavy sermonizing and concerns that fit a churchy, revival-minded milieu. If you forced me to pick, based only on internal texture: late 18th to early 19th century, North Atlantic English-speaking world, most plausibly the United States (because of the way “scripture-like” narrative and Protestant doctrinal speech patterns blend with a frontier/manifest “promised land” sensibility). Now your “Randi proves it’s miraculous” scenario. You’ve added a new piece of evidence: M = the production cannot be natural; golden plates were genuinely involved; miracles occurred. 5) Bayesian update under proven miracles: how do #1 and #2 change, and which hypothesis best fits? Bayes in one sentence: Posterior odds = prior odds × how well each hypothesis predicts the evidence. First, what M does M absolutely crushes purely natural explanations. So under your assumption, hypotheses (a) “Joseph alone” and (b) “Joseph + helpers stage magic” become near-zero (not because they’re logically impossible, but because you stipulated that a controlled investigation ruled them out). What’s left are “some non-natural agency” options. Second, what the text itself still does Even after accepting miracles, we still have the English-text evidence T: it looks like modern English biblical composition, not a translation of an ancient American source. So the key question becomes: Which supernatural hypothesis best predicts both M (miracles/plates) and T (the English fingerprint)? To keep your lettering but avoid the duplicate “e,” I’ll label them: (c) advanced aliens (d) cosmic trickster (e) something else (f) orthodox Mormon claim: authentic ancient codex translated by God My updated probabilities (given M + T) (a) Joseph alone: ~0% (b) Joseph + helpers fraud: ~0% (c) Aliens: low (say 1–5%) They can explain “miracles” via sufficiently advanced tech, but it’s oddly specific for aliens to generate a text so saturated with a particular English biblical register unless they’re intentionally mimicking it. (d) Cosmic trickster: moderate (say 20–40%) Explains real miracles and explains why the text could look strongly modern while claiming ancient provenance: deception is the point. (e) Something else (non-orthodox supernatural): highest (say 50–70%) For example: a genuine miracle/revelation producing a modern religious text in biblical style, where the plates function as a sign rather than as an ordinary ancient source-document. This matches T very well and can also accommodate M. (f) Orthodox (authentic ancient codex translation): still low (say 1–10%) M helps a lot (plates + miracles are predicted), but T still pushes against a straightforward “translation from ancient American language” unless you add extra assumptions like “God chose to render it in heavy KJV idiom (even where that creates the appearance of English dependence).” Updated beliefs for #1 and #2 under M #1 (authentic ancient codex translation): I’d move from “1 in 100,000” up to something like a few percent at most (call it ~1–5%), because miracles make “some extraordinary backstory” real, but the English still looks like modern composition more than translation. #2 (ancient + historically accurate): lower still, maybe ~0.1–1%, because even if plates are ancient, “accurate millennium-spanning history” is an additional claim the textual genre feel doesn’t strongly support. So: even after proven miracles, I would not say the orthodox claim is the most likely overall. The most likely bucket becomes “real supernatural involvement, but the English text is best explained as modern-style revelatory composition (or deception) rather than a clean translation of an A.D. 400 American codex.” Prompt 2 Now let's (possibly) relax the assumption that the modern production of the Book of Mormon was James-Randi-level miraculous (maybe it was--that is for your to decide). Now what we have is the actual real-world evidence of how it was produced; Joseph Smith claimed he found the plates, he wrote a pair of witness statements that 11 people signed, a few other people say they incidentally saw the alleged plates, the alleged plates disappeared, Charles Anthon may or may not have certified the characters, a relatively complex book was produced relatively fast, it was produced in weird ways that seemed like a show to the scribes (e.g. hiding behind a curtin or putting face in hat), etc. Given the entirety of the real-world evidence from the 1820's, which hypothesis is more likely: the hypothesis that it is an accurate translation of an actual ancient American codex that tells the 1000-year story of a a real people, or the hypothesis that in an elaborate conspiracy, Sydney Rigdon was involved much earlier than we believed, created the artifact out of tin, and helped produce the original text that Joseph Smith then dictated "translation" process? If those are the only two options on the table, which is more likely? ~200 words max ChatGPT 5.2 Pro Thought for 11m 1s > If those are truly the only two options, the Rigdon‑involved conspiracy is more likely than “an accurate translation of a real ancient American codex covering 1,000 years of real history.” Reason: the ancient-codex hypothesis has to carry a very heavy stack of extraordinary claims (ancient literate tradition on metal plates in the Americas, correct preservation, correct translation, plates then removed, witnesses’ experiences being straightforwardly veridical, etc.) while the publicly checkable physical evidence (the plates) is unavailable. That said, the specific Rigdon version you propose is not strongly supported by the 1820s record either: the early documentary link placing Rigdon in contact with Smith before the Book of Mormon is thin, and the “Rigdon wrote it earlier” narrative depends a lot on later recollections and inference. So I’d put it like this: Rigdon conspiracy > ancient codex, but only because the ancient-codex claim is so evidentially expensive. If I weren’t forced into just these two, I’d consider “Smith + small circle, no Rigdon” more plausible than either.

Spencer, the alien/Satan comments from years ago were not positive claims about what actually happened. They were illustrations about comparative probability. Here’s the structure of the point. If a proposed explanation requires overturning large, interlocking domains of well-confirmed physics, biology, neuroscience, and history, then its prior probability becomes extremely low. That doesn’t mean it’s logically impossible. It means it conflicts with a vast body of independently confirmed knowledge. Once you reach that conclusion, then any alternative explanation that does not require overturning those domains — even a bizarre one — can be comparatively more plausible. Not because it is likely. Not because I affirm it. But because it does not require rewriting the rest of our understanding of reality. That is not “anything but that.” It is coherence across domains of evidence. If someone claims a perpetual motion machine exists, I don’t need a detailed alternative engineering diagram to reject the claim. The conflict with thermodynamics is sufficient. Likewise, if I conclude that the Book of Mormon’s supernatural claims conflict with extremely well-supported background knowledge, then I am rationally justified in rejecting that explanation without being obligated to provide a fully worked counter-theory of how every detail unfolded. Rejecting an explanation is not the same thing as affirming a specific alternative. The alien/Satan examples were rhetorical illustrations of that asymmetry. They were not endorsements.

You aren’t dealing with the structure of the argument. Imagine I said, “'John Smith' isn’t in my hotel room. I know this because I have thoroughly checked the room and the only person here is me.” If I said that, you’d respond, “You are purporting to disprove John Smith is in your room without even defining who, specifically ‘John Smith’ is! You can’t prove he isn’t in the room until you give me his birth certificate so we know who, specifically, you are claiming isn’t there." Likewise, Carroll says: "Consider a new particle X that you might suspect leads to subtle but important physical effects in the everyday world, whether it’s the ability to bend spoons with your mind or consciousness itself. That means that the X particle must interact with ordinary particles like quarks and electrons, either directly or indirectly. If it didn’t, there would be no way for it to have any effect on the world we directly see." Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 181). (Function). Kindle Edition. “John Smith" has the property of being a person who isn’t me. Nothing with that property is in my room. It doesn’t need to be defined beyond that for my proof to be valid. Likewise, “spirit matter” has the property of being a particle X. It doesn’t need to be defined beyond that for Carroll’s proof to be valid. No, it certainly does not presuppose that such an interaction would be empirically observable. Rather, it presupposes that effective quantum field theory works within its domain of applicability. This has nothing to do with the arguments we’re talking about. You are imagining that Sean Carroll’s arguments are fundamentally different (and weaker) than what they are. A spoon apologist might say that there is a different force (the power of the “spoonhood”?) that can be used by people to bend spoons with their mind, and just because physicists haven’t observed it doesn't mean it isn’t there. Carroll would argue that we are extremely confident that a force such as the “spoonhood” does not exist, and would cite effective quantum field theory and experiments done in particle accelerators as proof (i.e. extremely strong evidence) that spoonhood powers don’t and can’t exist. It isn’t merely about declaring that spoons are ordinarily physical stuff. It’s about esoteric but extraordinarily robust theories that show that there can’t be unknown forces that could bend a spoon. Again, Carroll’s arguments are fundamentally different than what you are imagining. We are confident that there isn’t an unknown force that can bend a spoon. For the exact same reason, we are confident there isn’t an unknown force that can tweak the probability of a neuron firing. In both cases, we don’t have to define these alleged unknown forces to know they aren’t there. This seems like a mighty fine hair to split. A compilation of your prior declarations... A list of things where I didn’t say “therefore God cannot exist” is consistent with my claim that I never said “therefore God cannot exist.” My arguments are about things that allegedly interact with things in the everyday world. “God” doesn’t necessarily do that. It isn’t about comparing "spoon matter" and “spirit matter.” It’s about comparing hypothetical “spoon bending particles” and their associated “spoon bending forces” to “spirit matter” and “spirit forces.” We don’t have to define exactly what these imaginary “spoon bending particles” are to be confident they aren’t real. The reason we are confident they don’t exist is because we are confident there aren’t any unknown particles or forces that could have any real-world effect on spoons. Likewise, we also have the same level of confidence for the same reasons that there aren’t any unknown particles or forces that could have any real-world affect on human brains. Quoting Carroll: "If the world we see in our experiments is just a tiny part of a much bigger reality, the rest of reality must somehow act upon the world we do see; otherwise it doesn’t matter very much. And if it does act upon us, that implies a necessary alteration in the laws of physics as we understand them. Not only do we have no strong evidence in favor of such alterations; we don’t even have any good proposals for what form they could possibly take." Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 221). (Function). Kindle Edition. That is equally true of the hypothetical unseen reality is spoon-bending magic forces or priesthood power. Earlier in the same post, you told me that "No, we do not know whether or not 'spirit matter' [interacts with the physical world].” Now you are saying the spirit hypothesis is that the spirit does interact with the physical world? You can’t have it both ways. Either the spirit matter hypothesis includes the claim that spirits interact with the physical world, or it does not. If it interacts, Carroll discusses it extensively in the book you haven’t read. If it doesn’t interact, it’s an invisible dragon in the garage.

The argument doesn't depend on a specific definition of "spirit matter". It depends on "spirit matter" broadly having these properties: It consists of something other than the electrons, protons, and neutrons that make up our physical bodies It interacts with the electrons, protons, and neutrons of our physical body in a way that might be incredibly subtle, but is still strong enough to make any difference in how we think or feel That's it. If spirit matter has those properties, then the argument is on point. If spirit matter doesn't have those properties, then the argument is irrelevant to spirit matter. So you tell me. Do we know whether or not "spirit matter" has those two properties? You want it both ways. Either "spirit matter" can subtly influence thoughts, feelings, or agency, or it can't. If it can, then it has the same basic conflicts with EQFT as spoon-bending does. If it can't, then it is irrelevant to our everyday lives. For clarity, I have never said "therefore God cannot exist" because of this. I've said that about spirits and some miracles, but not "God" in general. If you want an out that is scientifically literate, you should simply hypothesize that what makes spirit matter "fine and pure" is its ability to manipulate normal matter using fields that aren't anticipated or described by QM. There isn't any evidence of this, of course, but at least you would be proposing a theory hypothesis that isn't contradicting what we already know. You have conceded that Core Theory rules out with very high confidence spoon bending. If we accept that, then if somebody claims that a really long time ago somebody used the power of their mind to bend a spoon, then we can say with commensurately very high confidence that this didn't happen. The same reasoning applies to anything like spoon bending--walking on water, floating away in the air, etc. That is the entire argument. "To imagine that the soul pushes around the electrons and protons and neutrons in our bodies in a way that we haven’t yet detected is certainly conceivable, but it implies that modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed." Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 212). (Function). Kindle Edition. It's not, though. Carroll addresses this directly in detail. Please read Chapter 23 (The Stuff of Which We Are Made), and Chater 26 (Body and Soul). When he says "The verdict is unambiguous," he's talking specifically about something that has a small subtle effect on normal matter that is subtle but enough to make a difference in a thought and feeling. He talks about this directly. At length. From a philosophical perspective, "impossible" is an overstatement. But that said, the choices are either that "modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed", or these imagined spirit forces don't exist. While it's true that science can't literally prove anything in a deductive way, it's also true that when a theory provides robust explanations of the universe that withstand a ton of scrutiny, that is meta evidence that the theory is true. I'm certainly not going to argue with you about what you need to be true. But your view does bring to mind what Carl Sagan said: "Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?" Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (p. 171). (Function). Kindle Edition.

Let me refine the “non-material intervention” part a little bit. In this context I’m not talking about oxymoronic “immaterial matter.” What I’m talking about is proposed matter other than the “course and contaminated” matter of ordinary stuff. Sean Carroll walks through this with an example that starts as follows: "Consider a new particle X that you might suspect leads to subtle but important physical effects in the everyday world, whether it’s the ability to bend spoons with your mind or consciousness itself. That means that the X particle must interact with ordinary particles like quarks and electrons, either directly or indirectly. If it didn’t, there would be no way for it to have any effect on the world we directly see.” (p. 181). He then walks through how effective quantum field theory proves that X doesn’t exist. He doesn’t have to define “X”, he merely has to state it has the property of having "subtle but important physical effects in the everyday world.” According to quantum mechanics and over a hundred billion dollars in scientific experiments, we know that “X” doesn’t exist. Applying this to the alleged “fine and pure” matter that spirits are allegedly made of, as soon as you can say this spirit matter has "subtle but important physical effects in the everyday world”, I can confidently say it doesn’t exist. That isn’t intuitive, but that is what QM tells us. In a completely fresh GPT I asked "If you crash an electron and a positron into each other at very high speeds, what happens?” It gave a long answer with a bottom line of: I then followed with another simple prompt: "Does this tell you everything that can interact with the fields of an electron?" It answered: That is exactly my point. This isn’t intuitive, but it is what the science says; if “spirit matter” is “strong enough to influence chemistry, biology, or brain activity”, then the existence of that is “already ruled out to very high precision." I agree with a lot of this, but there are some subtle points I disagree on. One of the reasons that I’ve focused on the plausibility of the existence of "a new particle X that you might suspect leads to subtle but important physical effects in the everyday world, whether it’s the ability to bend spoons with your mind or consciousness itself,” is because that claim is within the purview of science, and is a generalized form of “spirit matter." The assertion that particle X can “influence thoughts without measurable energy transfers” is an oxymoron--if it has enough energy to cause a single electron to fire in a neuron, then it has enough energy to be measurable. If it is more subtle than that, then it can’t affect thoughts. It has to be one or the other. Regarding historical events (allegedly miraculous ones or mundane ones), etc., it depends on the specific claim. On a particular historical claim there might not be data, and the best we can do is say there isn’t any evidence of that one way or the other. But if the historical claim is unlikely or implausible, we can use that implausibility to be quite confident it didn't happen. Regarding inconsistencies in application, this is never something I meant to say or imply. Spirits don’t exist. Jesus didn’t walk on water. He didn’t snap his fingers and turn water into wine. He didn’t float into the sky after the alleged resurrection. The idea of a dead person returning to life isn’t inconsistent with QM the way these other things are, but depending upon the details is inconsistent with what we know about biology. On Philosophy of science, Carroll’s claims are a lot more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. When he says "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known,” he chose his words very carefully. This has nothing to do with “poetic naturalism” or an assumption of physicalism. It is a direct result of QM. That is why he says we know “some” things, and that those things are enough to rule out “some” other things. This isn’t intuitive, but it is a result of QM. Regarding naturalism, that is a result of science, not a premise. Science is based methodological empiricism--it’s based on the data. Agreed. I've addressed most of these above. EQFT says that some things just can’t happen. He doesn’t merely claim that we doubt spoon bending with the mind is possible because it’s never been done in a controlled environment. He’s claiming we know that it is impossible because QFT has proven that it can’t happen. This same confidence in the implausibility of spoon bending transfers to the implausibility of certain claims about historical miracles. This applies equally to all such miraculous claims. As my GPT said without any leading questions or prompts, "But practically speaking — for interactions strong enough to influence chemistry, biology, or brain activity — those are already ruled out to very high precision.” Things that aren’t strong enough to influence those things could (and probably do) exist, but they don’t have any impact on our lives. I understand how it seems this way. What you are saying is intuitive and makes sense. But the surprising claim is that according to QM, if a supernatural/miraculous claim is strong enough to have an impact on everyday reality, then it must leave fingerprints, 100% of the time. Furthermore, we know exactly how to look for and detect such fingerprints. We’ve looked for them very carefully, and they aren’t there. That is strong evidence that these imagined forces aren’t real.

In my prior post, the AI prompt was engineered to articulate my position, and was biased towards my position being true. I decided to engineer a new prompt that was neutral and evaluated the evidence. Prompt: Definition 1: Hypothesized "spirit" and "spiritual forces" refer to any hypothetical particle or force that has the following properties: a- They are not defined by or are not constrained by the standard model of physics b- They are strong enough and last long enough to interact with the electrons, quarks, and fields of our body with enough energy or vigor to trigger something that has an effect on physical system, such as triggering or affecting a thought in the physical brain Definition 2: The "spirit hypothesis" is that a spirit or spiritual forces exist and play a role in who we are as human beings. Definition 3: The "no spirit hypothesis" is the positive hypothesis that "spirit" and "spiritual forces" do not exist. Philosophical framework: We are *methodological empiricists*. While we give no special deference to truth claims because they are religious, we also don't hesitate to follow the evidence wherever it leads, including if it leads towards the support of a religious or philosophical position other than naturalism. With that background, what is the current evidentiary state of the "spirit hypothesis" and the "no spirit hypothesis"? When answering this question, please look at the implications of all available evidence from all fields of study, including the experiments that support the core theory, neuroscience, and NDE studies. Colloquially, how strong are these results? Is it going too far to say in casual conversation that we are "confident" or "know" or have "proven" anything with regards to these two hypotheses? My point here is to avoid casual readers from interpreting carefully couched language as meaning the evidence is weaker than it really is. 600 words max. Chat GPT 5.2 Pro Thought for 12m 26s> Given Definition 1, a “spirit/spiritual force” would have to be new physics (outside the Standard Model) that still couples to ordinary matter strongly enough to perturb neural activity (change firing/synapses/networks) and thereby affect thoughts. That predicts an additional matter‑coupled interaction with repeatable physical effects. **Physics / “core theory”** The Standard Model has passed stringent precision tests and global fits; overall consistency leaves limited room for extra, unscreened interactions that couple appreciably to ordinary particles. ([Particle Data Group][1]) Dedicated “fifth‑force” and equivalence‑principle searches likewise keep coming up null. For example, the MICROSCOPE satellite tested the Weak Equivalence Principle and found no violation down to ~10^-15 in the Eötvös parameter, strongly constraining many new-force models that couple to bulk matter. ([arXiv][2]) Precision orbit-tracking studies (e.g., asteroid dynamics) also bound long‑range Yukawa‑type forces. ([Nature][3]) Colloquially: physics doesn’t “prove” there is no new interaction anywhere, but it **strongly disfavors** any broad, matter‑coupled “spirit force” strong enough to be doing noticeable causal work in brains while leaving no trace in precision tests. **Neuroscience** Here the evidence is extremely strong that mental capacities depend on brain states. Lesion research shows that damage to specific circuits can selectively alter memory, language, emotion, personality, impulse control, and conscious access—evidence that those substrates are necessary for those functions. ([PMC][4]) Interventions tighten causality further: direct electrical stimulation can evoke or modulate perceptions and memory-related experiences, and modern reviews summarize systematic stimulation effects on human memory. ([PubMed][5]) General anesthesia reliably removes (and restores) consciousness by altering large‑scale brain dynamics and network connectivity. ([ScienceDirect][6]) This doesn’t logically exclude a “spirit” that merely correlates with brain activity, but it undercuts versions where spirit is the primary driver and the brain is secondary. Any interacting spirit influence would have to track neurophysiology extremely closely. **NDE evidence** Prospective cardiac‑arrest studies find that a nontrivial minority of survivors report NDEs/recalled experiences of death; a 2024 scoping review reports incidence ranging roughly from ~6% to ~39% across prospective studies. ([PMC][7]) AWARE‑II reported that among interviewed survivors, 11/28 described memories/perceptions suggestive of consciousness, spanning categories from dream‑like to “transcendent.” ([PubMed][8]) But Definition 1 requires **verified** mentation/perception when the brain is unable to support it. Current NDE research is limited by low survival, uncertain timing (resuscitation vs recovery), and ICU confounds. NDE‑like episodes can also occur in syncope, with measurable EEG/network differences reported in people who had NDE‑like fainting experiences—supporting “disconnected consciousness” generated by a compromised but functioning brain. ([ScienceDirect][9]) **Other claimed anomalies** Some parapsychology meta-analyses report small statistical deviations in “anomalous perception” paradigms (e.g., Ganzfeld), but the field remains disputed and has not produced a consensus‑grade demonstration of a new force/particle interacting with the brain. ([PMC][10]) **Bottom line** * Spirit hypothesis (as defined): currently weak empirical support; no robust, independently replicated evidence of non‑Standard‑Model forces causally influencing brains. *No-spirit hypothesis (as defined): strongly supported as a practical inference, because we (i) have powerful constraints on additional matter‑coupled forces and (ii) can already explain and manipulate mental states via brain mechanisms. **Everyday language** “Proven” is too strong for both. But it is fair in casual conversation to say you’re confident that brain function is necessary for ordinary human thought and that there is presently no compelling empirical evidence for a detectable, matter‑coupled “spirit force” doing causal work in the brain. [1]: https://pdg.lbl.gov/2024/reviews/rpp2024-rev-standard-model.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "rpp2024-rev-standard-model.pdf - PDG" [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.15487?utm_source=chatgpt.com "MICROSCOPE mission: final results of the test of the Equivalence Principle" [3]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-024-01779-3?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Constraints on fifth forces and ultralight dark matter from ..." [4]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6712987/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Lesion studies in contemporary neuroscience - PMC" [5]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36408731/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Direct electrical brain stimulation of human memory" [6]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627324001569?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Review Anesthesia and the neurobiology of consciousness" [7]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11133272/ " Near-death experiences after cardiac arrest: a scoping review - PMC " [8]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37423492/ "AWAreness during REsuscitation - II: A multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest - PubMed" [9]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924002568?utm_source=chatgpt.com "EEG signature of near-death-like experiences during ..." [10]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11134153/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld condition - A meta ... - PMC" Follow-up Prompt In the everyday language part, did you mean to say "you're *confident* that there aren't "spirit matter particles" influencing (and being influenced by) the brain? ChatGPT 5.2 Auto Yes — in everyday language, it’s reasonable to say you’re **confident there aren’t undiscovered “spirit matter” particles interacting with the brain in the way you defined**. That confidence doesn’t mean absolute logical certainty. It means that given (1) tight experimental constraints on new matter-coupled forces and (2) the detailed causal mapping between brain states and mental states, the evidence strongly favors the view that no such particles are influencing (or being influenced by) neural activity. “Confident” fits. “Proven” overstates it.

I thought I’d recruit ChatGPT 5.2 Pro to help me articulate my position. The following deliberately looks outside of Sean Carroll’s esoteric arguments from physics that arrive at the same conclusion from a totally different angle. Prompt Please choose 4 examples of evidence that physical "spirits" that interface with the body are not real. Part of this theory expands to the theory that the proper way to interpret NDEs is that they are the process of a stressed-out brain that may be dying and not an account of the spirit literally leaving the body at death. Don't choose Sean Carroll's arguments from physics. Do choose Michael Gazzaniga's as one of the four. Make your selection based on how independent, intuitive, genuinely strong, and interesting the arguments are. For each argument, write a short paragraph that explains to a lay audience why this is formidable evidence that there isn't a "ghost in the machine" that interfaces with the spirit brain. Finally, write a conclusion paragraph that briefly mentions other areas of science that corroborate with this, and the implication of how this multi-faceted, interlaced body of evidence all points to a consistent, well-defined theory that naturalism is true and that naturalism precludes the possibility of a physical "spirit" inhabiting our bodies. Be sure to emphasize that "naturalism" doesn't preclude a spirits in principle--there being no spirits is a result of the science, not a premise. Keep the entire post written in a conversational style using prose. 600 words max. Response Thought for 8m 59s> Here are four lines of evidence—chosen for being pretty independent of one another, intuitive once you see them, and hard to square with a literal “ghost in the machine” that interfaces with a physical spirit body. **1) Gazzaniga’s split-brain work: one skull, two semi-independent minds.** In some patients with severe epilepsy, surgeons have cut the corpus callosum, the main bridge between the hemispheres. Afterward, the two halves of the brain can behave like partially separate agents: one hand can select an object the person can’t verbally name; one hemisphere can follow an instruction the other seems unaware of. Gazzaniga also emphasized the “interpreter” role of the left hemisphere—our tendency to generate a coherent story about “why I did that” even when the real cause is hidden from conscious access. If there were a single, unified spirit self steering the body through one interface, you’d expect the unity of agency and awareness to remain intact even when brain wiring is cut. Instead, the unity fractures in exactly the way the neural wiring predicts. **2) Focal brain injury and disease: specific parts break, specific parts of “you” disappear.** Strokes, tumors, traumatic injuries, and neurodegenerative diseases don’t just make people generally “less conscious.” They can selectively remove a capacity that feels deeply personal: speech (aphasia), forming new memories (hippocampal damage), recognizing faces (prosopagnosia), inhibiting impulses and maintaining personality stability (frontal lobe damage), or even the sense that one side of space exists (hemispatial neglect). What makes this formidable is the *specificity*: damage a particular circuit and you lose a particular mental function, while many other aspects of the self remain. A spirit-body theory that stores “a significant chunk” of memories, agency, and identity has to explain why physical damage to tissue reliably deletes or distorts those very things in fine-grained, repeatable ways. The simplest explanation is the obvious one: those functions are implemented in the brain. **3) Anesthesia and psychoactive drugs: chemistry turns consciousness down and back up on schedule.** General anesthesia can reliably switch off conscious experience, and when the drugs wear off, consciousness returns—often within minutes—without needing to “reconnect” anything metaphysical. The same is true, in a graded way, for sedatives, stimulants, antidepressants, psychedelics, and antipsychotics: tweak neurotransmitter systems and you predictably tweak attention, mood, perception, self-modeling, and thought. If a physical spirit system is the main seat of consciousness and agency, it’s puzzling that tiny molecules binding to receptors in the brain can so consistently reshape the contents and clarity of the mind. This isn’t a vague correlation; it’s causal control with dose–response curves and repeatable mechanisms. **4) Near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences: the brain can manufacture “leaving the body” when stressed or perturbed.** NDEs are often vivid and meaningful, but many of their core features line up with what stressed brains do: low oxygen, high carbon dioxide, sleep-like (REM) intrusions, seizure-like activity, and powerful neurochemistry can all produce bright lights, tunnels, life-review feelings, and the sense of presence. Importantly, “out-of-body” sensations can also be induced without dying—by disturbing the brain’s body-mapping systems (e.g., through experimental illusions that shift where you feel located, and in some cases direct stimulation in relevant regions). That matters because it offers a grounded alternative: you don’t need a spirit literally exiting the body to get the *experience* of departure; you need a brain whose self-location and self-model are temporarily destabilized. Taken together, these aren’t four versions of the same argument—they’re four different windows on the same picture. And they’re reinforced by many other areas: cognitive neuroscience, neurology, neuropsychology, psychiatry, psychopharmacology, anesthesiology, brain stimulation research, developmental psychology, behavioral genetics, and computational modeling of perception and decision-making. The upshot is a convergent, interlaced theory in which mental life is what brains do. That conclusion isn’t smuggled in as a premise: methodological naturalism is just the commitment to follow testable causes wherever they lead. If a physical “spirit” interfacing with the body were part of the causal story, it would earn its place by improving predictions and surviving cross-checks. What we find instead is that the brain-centered story keeps winning—cleanly, mechanistically, and across many independent lines of evidence.

Correct. Specifically, I’ve been trying to stay focused on the proposition that we have “spirits” made out of “spirit matter", because this hypothesis isn’t a one-off event that only happens on rare, non-repeatable occasions. Rather, this “spirit matter” hypothesis entails something that happens continuously in every living human in an extremely well-studied organ of our bodies. This is within the purview of science. A few points. First, this conversation began with the premise that “evidence” is something real. If one wants to evoke philosophy and the supernatural, one can wave their hand and cause evidence to disappear, as does the young-earth creationist who says that the dinosaurs all died in the flood. So I assume we’re working under the general framework that we won't wave our hands and appeal to divine intervention (or demonic intervention) to wave away evidence that is inconvenient for this or that belief. Second, I hope you acknowledge that above I said, "when I use the word prove, I’m writing in what Steven Pinker calls classic style: ordinary language that relies on reasonable reader charity rather than endless hedging. In that register, prove means “meets an extremely high evidential burden—something like beyond a reasonable doubt—given what we currently know.” It does not mean metaphysical certainty or logical impossibility." I hope you are trying to understand my point and not be an “offender for a word” and claim the Lloyd Christmas defense (so you admit you were exaggerating and there really is a chance I’m right!) Third, this all began when I correctly pointed out that there are libraries of material that constitute formidable evidence that your religious beliefs aren’t really true, and that apologists ignore this evidence. I brought up Sean Carroll’s arguments against the plausibility of “spirits" as one example from this library. You are free to scoff at my summaries of his arguments, but when you do so, you sound just as scientifically literate as the young-earth creationist who dismisses the fossil record by glibly declaring that the devil put the bones there to confuse us. At any given time I’m more likely to be be reading a Lee Child or Michael Connelly novel than a book about science, but I’ve happened to read the following books about science and coincidentally noticed that they approach the plausibility of there being “a ghost in the machine” from different scientific disciplines, and all come to the conclusion that no, given the evidence that really isn’t plausible. While Sean Carroll using quantum field theory to show that even physics shows that the plausibility of “spirit matter” being real is vanishingly unlikely, the same conclusion has been independently reached in neuroscience and neuroanatomy, neurology, neuropsychology (including split-brain and lesion studies), cognitive science, computational neuroscience, psychiatry, psychopharmacology, anesthesiology, endocrinology and neuromodulation research, developmental psychology, behavioral genetics, evolutionary biology, and molecular/cellular biology. There being a ghost in the machine is a very intuitive belief; nobody gets confused about the premise of Freaky Friday. But when you carefully study physics and the brain, you realize this just isn’t plausible. If you want to understand this, here are books that I’ve happened to read that make the point from different angles: The Big Picture by Sean Carroll The Consciousness Instinct by Michael Gazzaniga How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker Who’s in Charge by Michael Gazzaniga Life on the Edge by Johnjoe McFadden et. al. Those are just the books I’ve happened to read. There are dozens more that I could list that corroborate the point. This isn’t anti-religion apologetics stuff. It is mainstream science stuff. The Gazzaniga books are fascinating in terms of what we know about the brain, consciousness, and sense of self from split-brain research. And none of these books even address some of the obvious questions about why, if there is a ghost in the machine, does the ghost lose its ability to see if our physical eyes go blind, or why the ghost in the machine goes dark and doesn’t have an OBE when we have anesthesia for a surgery. If you want to understand my position, take a deep dive into science without compartmentalizing your brain.

Personally, I’d prefer a quote of me saying or implying what he is accusing me of saying or implying.

I understand how you might think this, but your reasoning is flawed. If you’d like to understand why, please read The Big Picture.

On whose part? You can believe whatever you want, happily or otherwise. Quantum field theory offers formidable evidence against the plausibility of such claims. I have never thought, much less argued, that “Carroll only has application to Latter-day Saint truth claims.” I have no idea how you got that into your head. Regardless, I’m not going to play the part of this straw man you want to fight. If you want to understand how physics shows that such things are implausible, please read The Big Picture by Sean Carroll.

Yes I have. I've consistently said that everything that interacts with observable reality is, in principle, within the purview of science. The key is the interaction. I’ve been very consistent on this. On a few occasions I’ve tried to limit the conversation to discussing one specific example: what your church teaches about spirits. I did this because it is relevant, important, and directly addressed in detail in Sean Carroll’s book. (Carroll talks about “spirits” more generally than the specific LDS conception, but the LDS conception fits in the bullseye of what Carroll discusses, especially with the idea of “spirit matter”, something Carroll says must exist for a spirit to interface with a body). Let's take a giant step back and put this into perspective. This all started when somebody repeatedly posted on Sic Et Non that there is “no evidence at all to support the claims of theism.” Peterson disagreed with this, of course, and said, "To say that there is no evidence at all, however, is merely hyperbolic rhetoric. It’s not true. There’s evidence for all kinds of things. Very often, in fact, there’s contradictory evidence. The daily “rising” and “setting” of the sun, for example, was long reasonably thought to be evidence for a geocentric cosmos." You summarized Peterson’s post on this topic, added some of your own thoughts, and asked others for thoughts. I accepted your invitation to share my thoughts, and said, "The way I see it, there is no evidence "at all" for the Book of Mormon in the same way that there is no evidence "at all" for the earth being flat. In a sense there is a some evidence of a flat earth, just as there is some evidence of a geocentric universe. The problem with this is that a heliocentric solar system in an expanding universe has a lot more evidence. But it isn't just that there is more evidence for this other theory--it's that the other theory is part of an interconnected understanding of the universe across multiple disciplines. Given a comprehensive understanding of everything we know and why, the proposition of the earth being flat raises so many more problems than it answers, the evidence in favor of the earth being flat isn't really evidence at all." The conversation followed as we would have expected, and I said, “[Apologists] have little pieces of evidence that they promote while there are entire libraries of contradictory evidence that they ignore and put 'on the shelf.'” To which you responded, "That is singularly and patently untrue. Scholars have amassed substantial amounts of evidence in support of the claims of the Church. These scholars have likewise regularly responded to contrary evidences (rather than, as you falsely put it, "ignore and put {them} 'on the shelf'”)." I disagreed and as examples to illustrate my point, presented what quantum field theory implies about the plausibility of spirits and the supernatural in general. You responded by throwing all sorts of responses at the wall. Without understanding anything about this body of evidence, you declared "And no, there is nothing "utterly incompatible" in view.” And assured me that physics is "blinkered, finite, flawed, incomplete,” not even aware that serious physicists are claiming "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known.” You claim this all has no bearing on your Church’s truth claims, and declared that his views are “blinkered” (unlike yours?). When I quoted Carroll as saying, "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known” you responded by mocking him, "Wow. And as a scientist, he has demonstrated that, has he? It's an objective fact? Not open for discussion or debate or disagreement?” I did my best to explain the reality of the state of science in these matters, and you accused me of exercising an “appeal to ridicule.” I quoted from one of America’s top scientists who thinks Carroll is correctly representing the science and you accused me of making an “appeal to authority.” And based on this array of “responses” to some subtle ideas you are completely disinterested in, you’ve declared yourself the victor and announced that I’ve "substantially exaggerated and mischaracterized" Carroll and/or science in general. You’ve made it very clear that you don’t want to understand Carroll’s arguments. You see the world differently, and don’t see the need to understand how he sees the world, much less understand why he sees it that way. That is your prerogative. But the fact remains that according to a preeminent physicist, "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known,” and that these completely known laws of physics provide formidable evidence against supernatural beliefs, including your own. And the fact remains that serious LDS scholars who are qualified to opine on the details of these arguments choose not to do so. And that is my point. You disagree with Carroll. That’s fine, but your opinions on this are completely irrelevant. You haven’t studied the physics. You haven’t even tried to understand this on a lay level. You haven’t even tried to understand my summaries of the arguments. Show me Latter-day Saints with PhDs in physics and are qualified to evaluate the implications of quantum field theory on whether “spirits” are plausible. Until then, my original point stands: there are entire libraries of contradictory evidence that apologists ignore and put 'on the shelf,’ and this is one little example.

I've consistently said that everything that interacts with observable reality is, in principle, within the purview of science. The key is the interaction. I’ve been very consistent on this. The big driver of the confusion here is specifically whether spirit-body dualism is inherently non-falsifiable as you seem to believe, or whether it actually is falsifiable and within the purview of science, as Carroll believes. Nearly 400 years ago, Descartes addressed these issues by speculating that the pineal gland in the brain was the specific organ of the physical body that was able to interface with non-physical spirits. We now know that this is debunked--the penal gland produces melatonin and isn’t a special receptor of non-physical signals from a spirit. As the centuries have ticked by the theory of mind-body dualism continues to be falsifiable, because we can examine from multiple angles the plausibility of something outside of the brain impacting how we think, feel, and make decisions. Again, it all has to do with interactions. Are we talking about fire-breathing dragons that are invisible, incorporeal, float in the air, don’t produce heat, don’t leave footprints, and don’t interact in any way with anything in the real world? Or are we talking about about spirits that inhabit our bodies and interact with them and that receive communication from other spiritual entities? Are we talking about power to walk on water, or are we talking about the powers that are indistinguishable from placebo responses? Chapter 26 of Big Picture is entitled "Body and Soul”, and in this chapter he goes into detail about why the existence of spirits is within the purview of science. He says, "The Core Theory of contemporary physics describes the atoms and forces that constitute our brains and bodies in exquisite detail, in terms of a rigid and unforgiving set of formal equations that leaves no wiggle room for intervention by nonmaterial influences. The way we talk about immaterial souls, meanwhile, has not risen to that level of sophistication. To imagine that the soul pushes around the electrons and protons and neutrons in our bodies in a way that we haven’t yet detected is certainly conceivable, but it implies that modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed." (p. 212). One is free to believe we have a spirit pulling the strings, but this belief "implies that modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed.” A couple of points. First, the word “prove” means different things depending on the context. Philosophically, we can argue that nothing can be proven, and all science can do is create hypotheses than are either consistent or inconsistent with the evidence. From this ultimate philosophical perspective, nothing is nor can be proven. Colloquially, we might say we know things, or say that something is proven, as an informal way of saying that a proposition has so much corroborating evidence that we are extremely confident it is true. While there might really be a one-in-a-million chance that Mary Swanson could end up living happily ever after with Lloyd Christmas, it’s okay to say that we “know” that won’t happen. It’s just a matter of what words you choose and whether the listener is making a good-faith effort to understand what the other person is saying.

One final point. Carroll argued that we “know" some things, and what we know is enough to "rule out" some other things. The “other things” it rules out don’t include “God” or “spirits” in an undefined sense. But it does rule out a spirit interfacing with the human body. Refuting this claim with a call for epistemic humility reminded me of when I was in high school. A friend told me another student had “proven” Einstein wrong and shown that faster-than-light travel was possible. Curious, I asked for the proof. He said, “Simple. If a spaceship accelerates, it goes faster every second. Keep accelerating long enough and eventually it exceeds the speed of light. It’s obvious.” I was underwhelmed. At the time I didn’t understand Einstein’s argument for relativity, but I was confident that he was aware of Newtonian acceleration and had built his theory precisely to address such intuitions. So here’s the question: who needed the lesson in epistemic humility—the physicist whose theory had survived extraordinary scrutiny, or the student who dismissed it without engaging the structure of the argument? Humility cuts both ways.

You are misunderstanding him. Sean Carroll argues that “the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (pp. 178-179). (Function). Kindle Edition.

Are you sure? There are stories in the Bible of God manifesting Himself to skeptics. E.g. Elijah, doubting Thomas. Are you really telling me that if God the Father in His body of Flesh and Bones appeared to a team of scientists and offered to let them examine Him as thoroughly as they want, they would end up saying, “sorry. We just don’t have the tools to prove or disprove whether You exist or not.”? While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of, say, the alleged invisible, incorporeal, undetectable, unfalsifiable, ad hoc dragon that Carl Sagan says lives in his garage, as soon as there are claims that this dragon interfaces with the particles and forces of everyday reality, it enters the realm of science. That is why I said I was criticizing narrow, "specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain." The argument is much stronger than the mere “absence of detectable spirt forces.” The argument is that if “spirits” (whatever they are) exist and interface with our brains, then our extraordinarily well-confirmed low-energy quantum field theory is fundamentally wrong and would need substantial revision. While scientific humility requires admitting that any theory could in principle be revised, low-energy quantum field theory is arguably the most exhaustively tested and empirically vindicated framework in all of physics, confirmed to astonishing precision across an enormous range of phenomena. In the same colloquial sense that we say gravity is “proven,” modern physics has “proven” (i.e. "gives us extremely strong reason to believe”) there are no undiscovered forces capable of mediating reliable spirit–brain interaction in the everyday world, regardless of what hypothesized “spirits” actually are. In the words of Dr. Carroll, “I’m not claiming that we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind. The reason we can say that with confidence relies heavily on the specific form that the laws of physics take. Modern physics not only tells us that certain things are true; it comes with a built-in way of delineating the limits of that knowledge—where our theories cease to be reliable.” (p. 155) The claim that spirits interact with a physical brain is an empirical claim. The claim that there is somehow a “ghost in the machine” is a claim of a spirit producing reliable, information-bearing effects in the particles and fields of the human brain. This is a claim about physical processes. Any such process would fall under the constraints of our extraordinarily well-confirmed low-energy physics, which tightly limits the existence of additional forces capable of mediating such effects. My argument does not depend on a specific metaphysical definition of “spirit.” It applies to any hypothesized entity that interacts with ordinary matter (e.g. brains) with enough force to affect them in the realm of our ordinary experiences (i.e. strong enough to stimulate a change in the brain strong enough to fire a neuron). Carroll’s analysis is general: any additional particle or force that is relevant to the everyday world is tightly constrained by our extraordinarily well-confirmed low-energy physics. The point isn’t to merely advocate for naturalism. The point is to explain how strong the theory of Quantum Mechanics actually is, and what it implies about the possibility of unknown forces, particles, or even virtual particles that could interact with the human brain. Neither Sean Carroll nor I are arguing that "science has disproved spirits/God.” As you quoted me at the top of your post, "I am not claiming that physics “disproves God” in some abstract or unfalsifiable sense. I’m addressing a narrower target: specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain—revelation arriving in the mind and heart, the Holy Ghost “dwelling” in a person, spiritual promptings conveying information, and so on."

I wrote a response to this, and asked ChatGPT 5.2 Pro to do the following: 1- research what I've said on this topics in past conversations here, 2- research what Sean Carroll has said about what physics has "proven", 3- evaluate whether I represent Carroll's arguments correctly and whether Carroll's arguments are in fact supported by the underlying science, and 4- evaluate whether I represented these things and whether I overstated the science. The verdict is that I did not substantially exaggerate or mischaracterize the positive, science-based evidence that some fundamental truth claims are implausible and that this constitutes strong evidence that the Church's fundamental truth claims are false (the following is AI rewriting my response and validating everything it says): Carroll, “Core Theory,” and LDS Truth Claims About Spirits and Revelation I want to restate, succinctly and clearly, what I meant when I appealed to “science-based arguments” against literal claims about spirits and revelation. Two clarifications up front. First, when I use the word prove, I’m writing in what Steven Pinker calls classic style: ordinary language that relies on reasonable reader charity rather than endless hedging. In that register, prove means “meets an extremely high evidential burden—something like beyond a reasonable doubt—given what we currently know.” It does not mean metaphysical certainty or logical impossibility. Second, I am not claiming that physics “disproves God” in some abstract or unfalsifiable sense. I’m addressing a narrower target: specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain—revelation arriving in the mind and heart, the Holy Ghost “dwelling” in a person, spiritual promptings conveying information, and so on. Applying Carroll to LDS claims This application is straightforward because LDS scripture does not merely speak in metaphor. It explicitly describes causal contact: spirit as a kind of matter, revelation as informational content delivered to minds, and a spirit personage that can interact with human beings. Taken literally, these claims imply an additional information channel that alters brain states in a directed way—thoughts, impressions, warnings, knowledge. That is exactly the sort of claim Sean Carroll is addressing when he talks about psychic powers: non-standard causal influences on the everyday physical world. The LDS version is more theologically specific, but the relevant feature is the same—causal interaction with ordinary matter. Is Carroll’s argument supported by science? Carroll’s claim is narrower than many critics suggest. Within the everyday-life regime—the energies and scales governing chemistry, biology, and brains—effective quantum field theory (the Standard Model plus weak-field gravity) appears complete in the specific sense that any additional particles or forces that still exist must be too weak, too heavy, or too rare to matter for everyday phenomena. This isn’t rhetorical hand-waving. It’s grounded in effective field theory reasoning, particle-physics constraints, and decades of experimental results that tightly limit new interactions that couple to ordinary matter. Carroll is explicit that this is not metaphysical certainty; it’s an evidential claim within a defined domain. Disagreeing with him requires more than saying “science doesn’t know everything.” It requires specifying a mechanism that both produces the claimed effects and respects existing constraints. Absence of evidence vs. positive evidence This is not merely “we haven’t detected spirits yet.” The argument is stronger. If something can reliably inject specific information into a brain, it must couple to the physical systems that implement cognition. Couplings strong enough to do that are not epiphenomenal; they are part of the causal economy of the everyday world—and such couplings typically leave detectable fingerprints elsewhere. So the most defensible high-confidence conclusion is this: we have very strong reasons to reject spirits-as-causal-agents-in-everyday-physics, absent a concrete, constraint-respecting mechanism. That’s beyond-reasonable-doubt territory, not metaphysical omniscience. If one retreats to “spirits exist but never interact with matter,” physics is silent—but so is the religious claim, which has abandoned the causal content LDS scripture assigns to revelation. Would informed readers agree? Many scientifically literate readers would. Once the target claim is clearly specified—a real causal interface that changes brain states—the issue moves out of vague metaphysics and into a domain where physics can legitimately say: there is effectively no room for that. At that point, disputing the conclusion requires paying a steep price: rejecting physicalism, positing an undetectable yet information-rich interaction, or reinterpreting LDS claims non-literally. None of those moves refute the argument; they concede its force. That is why, in classic style, saying that physics provides very strong evidence against literal spirit-to-brain messaging is not exaggeration. It is simply stating what the evidential situation implies.

Hi Smac, First, thanks for flagging me in this conversation and giving me a chance to respond. I wrote a brief response to your list of claims I've made that are allegedly not "substantively true or accurate." I then ran my response through ChatGPT 5.2 Pro. ChatGPT 5.2 Pro is a higher-end, research-grade reasoning model compared to other AI models, optimized for long-form analysis, source-checking, and careful reconstruction of complex arguments rather than quick conversational output. In this exchange, I asked it to do research-grade work: reviewing and cross-checking my representation of past posts and cited sources, verifying whether my summaries were faithful to what I actually argued, and restating those arguments accurately while testing them against the relevant scientific and conceptual background. The model took about 20 minutes to run. I stand behind the following summary of what I actually said, and I believe that what I said was in fact substantively true and accurate. Pediatric transition care / professional guidance My basic point was not that I’m a clinician or that I’ve personally adjudicated the medical literature. My point was that the public rhetoric routinely attacks a cartoon version of pediatric care, while mainstream professional guidance and real-world practice are far more cautious and constrained than political commentary implies. I generally defer to mainstream medical institutions as better-faith, better-informed summaries than culture-war punditry, and I emphasized physician-driven decision-making. If you want to argue that mainstream institutions are themselves unreliable or captured, that’s a separate claim—but it isn’t a demonstration that what I said was “not accurate.” “Trans ideology” My position has been ordinary liberal pluralism: leave people alone, allow basic social accommodation, and treat medical decisions as matters for patients, parents/guardians, and competent clinicians rather than legislators, pundits, or online tribunals. Disagreeing with your framing or with culture-war rhetoric is not, by itself, “trans ideology,” and characterizing mainstream pluralism as partisan capture is an assertion you repeatedly make rather than something you establish. Science-based arguments and religion (Sean Carroll / physics) [see my next post--this one is worth fleshing out] SEC / Ensign Peak My claim was epistemic, not courtroom-procedural. I treated the SEC’s enforcement order as highly credible evidence: the product of an investigation by a professional regulator, issued in an enforcement context, with institutional costs for getting it wrong. I spoke loosely at points about “facts” in the common-sense sense (what we have strong reason to believe happened), not in the narrow sense of “facts proven in an adversarial trial.” It is fair to note that SEC orders are not judicial adjudications and that respondents may settle without admitting wrongdoing. It is not fair to leap from that procedural truth to “therefore the findings should be treated as wobbly or as if we have no strong reason to believe them.” If you think the SEC’s factual narrative is materially unreliable here, that requires an argument for unreliability—not merely pointing out that the order is not a trial verdict. Terryl Givens In one post I summarized a podcast argument and then drew an inference about what certain concessions might imply. You objected that my inference was not warranted and noted that Givens denied the “fraud” characterization. I accepted that point and later explicitly acknowledged the overreach/apologized for attributing that conclusion to him. Treating that one episode—especially after the later clarification—as evidence of a broader pattern of dishonesty is not a fair reading of what occurred. “Bigot” characterization I did not claim that disagreement alone makes you a bigot. I argued that specific behaviors—repeatedly collapsing nuanced positions into caricature, refusing to acknowledge opposing arguments even when stated carefully, and treating extreme hypotheticals as representative—function in practice as a bigoted posture toward an outgroup (i.e., a refusal of basic interpretive charity and equal moral standing). You can disagree with that moral/behavioral assessment. But it is not accurate to reframe it as “Analytics called me a bigot simply for disagreeing,” because that is not what I said or what I argued at the time. Stepping back: in none of these cases do your links establish that my claims were “substantively not true or accurate.” What they show is persistent disagreement—often about framing, emphasis, and rhetoric—which you then redescribe as falsity. Disagreement is not refutation, and pointing out that a regulatory order is not a court verdict (or that a forum post used punchy shorthand) does not retroactively convert the underlying claims into “falsehoods and mischaracterizations.”

That's more naiveté than delusional. What this reminds me of is a friend of mine who had a life changing experience on his mission. He and his companion came across some anti-Mormon material, and the issue that somehow got traction in their respective minds was the accusation that the apostles are all rich businessmen which is the antithesis of the humble followers of Christ in the Bible. This issue bothered both him and his companion, and they talked to their mission president about it. The mission president (incorrectly) explained that the Church doesn't have a paid clergy, so the only people who are in a financial position to lead the church full time are already financially independent. One of the missionaries found this answer unsatisfactory and left the Church shortly after he finished his mission. The other one (my friend) found the answer quite satisfactory and made it his life's mission to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company so that he could become financially independent and be called as an apostle. What's tragic about this is that he didn't have the self awareness to understand that he wasn't cut out for that type of high stakes leadership. He was wicked smart book-wise, but didn't have the vision, charisma, or intestinal fortitude to successfully compete in high stakes business. In the end he sacrificed his excellent career as an engineer to pursue an MBA at a top school, but after getting the MBA he just couldn't compete. He is now in his 50's and has spent over half of his working years unemployed. The guy in the video was being self-deprecating and was laughing about an idea he flirted with but ultimately decided wasn't realistic. Who is more delusional--that guy, or the RM who put it all on the line to pursue a Harvard MBA so that he could be an apostle?

I'm just saying that when judging how delusional other people are, shouldn't we grade on a curve? 😊

What's ironic about it is that he isn't that misguided or delusional--not when compared to anybody else who believes in religion. He spoke incredibly highly of Mormon people and the Church organization, without qualification. His only problem with the Church is that he believes Catholic doctrine, not Mormon doctrine. That is his only problem with the Church. His fantasy was to join the Church, actively participate, and actively seek opportunities to teach and preach within the Church, but only teach and preach the stuff he believed in, which happens to overlap a lot with what the Church already believes. I think there are a lot of people in the Church that are like that--who are trying to steer it from within to emphasize what they like and deemphasize what they don't like. And the winner is the one who becomes Prophet and changes stuff from the top. This does in fact happen. President Nelson bided his time, and when he was finally in charge did it his way. The guy in the video had (mostly correctly) noted that when talking about doctrine, many members get a little robotic. He was convinced that if he went in and taught about Jesus and the Atonement and so forth with his natural enthusiasm and charisma, it would really impress everyone, they'd feel the spirit, and he'd move into leadership positions. He thought that in 20 years, he'd join the 70 and then the twelve. Then when he became Prophet, he'd shed the doctrine he didn't believe in the way Nelson shedded the word "Mormon." From my perspective, doing all that wouldn't be enough. He'd also have to really fit the role in terms of always showing up for all of the volunteer stuff, making people feel really secure about the faith--fitting in and being sufficiently orthodox in that way, but also being an exceptionally good manager and leader, and paying at least $50,000 a year in tithing, then he'd have a really good shot of at least becoming an area authority in 20 years. But in his fantasy, I think he severely underestimated how crowded it gets at the top. In any case, where did the plan fall apart? It fell apart because in his fantasy, he'd never lie. He would do all this because he thought he could go through the entire thing with only talking about what he sincerely believed in--Jesus, the Atonement, faith, repentance, service, Love, etc., and that nobody would notice that he never talked about how much he loved D&C 132. There were multiple weaknesses in this plan, and he could only see one of them. The weakness he saw is that there was one (and only one) baptismal interview question that he couldn't answer honestly. He felt the question, "Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" left no wiggle room for him to honestly answer "yes." So he cancelled his baptism. That's the end of his story. From my perspective, it is a self-deprecating story of an investigator who loved the Church and loved the people, but just couldn't swallow the whole enchilada. He had some fantasies about trying to change the Church, but decided against it. The End.

(4/4) Prompt How do you define agnosticism? How does that differ from atheism? Atheists typically say that atheism means "without belief in God(s)" and generally say they are without belief because "God" hasn't been coherently defined and sufficient proof hasn't been offered. They typically say that they'd change their mind if enough evidence came to light regarding the God hypothesis. In contrast, they tend to say "agnosticism" means the affirmative belief that an answer to the God hypothesis is intrinsically unknowable. With these definitions, "atheism" is actually a more humble position than "agnosticism"--atheism isn't positively claiming that something is unknowable; it's merely claiming that to date, we lack sufficient evidence to justify belief. Can you evaluate whether or not these definitions are coherent and are generally the ones most commonly used by self-described atheists? Based on that analysis, would you like to revise your conclusion that "running that playbook" will most likely lead to agnosticism? Finally, if one is left in this position, what are your thoughts about meaning, morality, and quality of life? Is it possible to find morality, meaning, and joy without God? On this final question, keep the response to 300 words or less. GPT-5 Pro, Reasoned for 5m 13s Definitions (straight up): Atheism: In popular/org usage, “lack of belief in gods.” In academic philosophy, often the stronger claim “there is no God.” Both are live; contexts differ. (atheists.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Agnosticism: Originally Huxley’s epistemic norm—don’t claim to know/believe without adequate evidence. In popular use, either “unknown” or the stronger “unknowable.” It’s a knowledge stance, not a belief stance, so you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Are your proposed defs coherent/common? Yes—with a caveat. Your atheism = “without belief pending evidence” matches how many self‑described atheists and orgs use it. Your agnosticism = “intrinsically unknowable” describes strong agnosticism; many agnostics just say “not known,” not “can’t be known.” Philosophers stress the belief/knowledge split and note common hybrids (e.g., “agnostic atheist”). (atheists.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Do I revise my earlier destination (“agnostic”)? Yep—precision matters. Running the adversarial‑empiricism playbook usually lands people at agnostic atheism: withholding belief in gods while also saying the question isn’t settled to knowledge-level standards. Call it “weak atheism on belief, agnosticism on knowledge.” Confidence: moderate. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Meaning, morality, joy—without God (≤300 words) Short version: absolutely possible; millions do. The reliably useful ingredients are human, not supernatural. Morality: You can ground “oughts” without revelation—e.g., reduce suffering (consequentialism), respect persons/rights (deontology), and cultivate character (virtue ethics). In practice, pluralistic ethics works by overlapping reasons: harm reduction, fairness, reciprocity, and consent. Meaning: Build a “meaning portfolio”: relationships, mastery, service, and awe. You don’t need metaphysics to feel transcendence—music, nature, art, and hard problems will do fine. Well‑being: Much of religion’s happiness edge comes from community practice (regular gatherings, service, rituals). Those benefits can be reproduced secularly: join or build communities with shared projects and prosocial norms. Data: the “actively religious” report more happiness largely where community is strong—the operative word is active; the mechanism is social. You can get the mechanism without the metaphysics. (Pew Research Center) How to live it: Embed in a real community with recurring commitments. Do visible good weekly (volunteer, mentor, mutual aid). Keep a truth diary: what would change your mind about big claims? Ritualize the good stuff (walks at dawn, Sunday dinners, monthly letters to future‑you). Guard your attention; curate media like your diet. Net: you can have morality, meaning, and joy on a strictly truth‑first path. You’ll trade some cosmic certainty for intellectual honesty and durable human goods—a fair deal for most grown‑ups.