Dan Peterson Takes on the "No Evidence At All for The Book of Mormon" Argument

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

That doesn't really contravene the point. Dr. Carroll isn't merely pointing out that the concept of "immaterial matter" is self-contradictory, nor is he saying that every physical effect must have a physical cause. Rather, he is claiming that "the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178)) He is claiming that the most robust theories in all of science offer compelling, positive evidence that if anything like "spiritual matter" existed and was strong enough to have even the subtlest of influence on the neurons in the human brain, physicists would have discovered it by now.

You and the guy you are quoting are demonstrating the logical error of  reductionism.

It's an error many people make.  The issue is FAR more complex.  And of course it is obvious that "immaterial matter" is contradictory- it is poetry designed to indicate that matter and energy are one.

It's a "fundamentalist" way of seeing the world, taking statements literally even when the intended statement is clearly figurative

Remember the term "immaterial matter" was used by Joseph at least a hundred years before the atomic bomb, which I think convinced everyone that there's energy in matter.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

 

Too many one-liners without clarification for me to continue the conversation. Sorry Mark. 

If one wants clarification, one asks questions.

But yeah, that's fine with me.  To me it is all quite simple and the "one liners" are meant to go directly to the answer.

But I agree that a major flaw in the way I explain things is skipping steps.  I have been thinking about these matters for a long time, actually a lifetime and I am seeing the whole picture and no longer the dots making it up

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

No, you completely missed the point.

Not so, but perhaps I should clarify a bit more.  In your statement you said:

That doesn't really contravene the point. Dr. Carroll isn't merely pointing out that the concept of "immaterial matter" is self-contradictory, nor is he saying that every physical effect must have a physical cause. Rather, he is claiming that "the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178)) He is claiming that the most robust theories in all of science offer compelling, positive evidence that if anything like "spiritual matter" existed and was strong enough to have even the subtlest of influence on the neurons in the human brain, physicists would have discovered it by now.

First of all, immaterial matter and spiritual matter are not the same thing, and I think most of us (LDS) would agree that there is no such thing as immaterial matter.  Spiritual matter, on the other hand, is matter and the term merely refers to pure and fine particles of matter in contrast to the matter we usually see.  But all of it is matter, whether we refer to it as spirit matter or some other type of matter.

So maybe the point this Dr. Carroll is making is that there is no such thing as immaterial matter, to which we (LDS) agree.  But there is spirit matter and it merely pertains to matter that is more pure or fine than the matter we usually see.  Tiny little particles invisible to the naked eye without some means to magnify them so that we may see them, similar if not exactly the same as to how we need microscopes or some other vision enhancement to see atoms and atomic particles.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Take out the word "NOT" and you'll be a lot closer to stating the truth.  Like this:

if/when one actually reads Alma 32 and applies it to discovering truth, the objective is NOT should be to find objectivity or correct history by a FEELING OF SWEETNESS IN ONE'S HEART regarding what objectivity and correct history is.

False.

That is begging the question.  You are only saying that one should "study it out" in your mind- and that is already IN Alma 32 without changes.

Even in your statements the goal is a sweet feeling in your heart.  THAT FEELING of sweetness is what defines truth for you.  

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

False.

That is begging the question.  You are only saying that one should "study it out" in your mind- and that is already IN Alma 32 without changes.

Even in your statements the goal is a sweet feeling in your heart.  THAT FEELING of sweetness is what defines truth for you.  

My goal when trying to learn is to learn what is true... the study it out (and pray about it) in my mind part... and as I do so and get closer to discovering the truth I then get feelings and thoughts of sweetness... the God part... that tell me what the truth is.

So, yes, it is a combination of both.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

That doesn't really contravene the point. Dr. Carroll isn't merely pointing out that the concept of "immaterial matter" is self-contradictory, nor is he saying that every physical effect must have a physical cause.

Surely you realize that we, as Latter-day Saints, don't believe in "immaterial matter," and hence don't feel obliged to address its self-contradiction?

I mean, it's right there in our scriptures:

Quote

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

(D&C 131:7-8)

See also D&C 93:33 ("The elements are eternal").

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Rather, he is claiming that "the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178))

Wow.  And as a scientist, he has demonstrated that, has he?  It's an objective fact?  Not open for discussion or debate or disagreement?

Meanwhile, I thought this critique of his claim was interesting:

Quote

Now, why the adjective poetic is standing there in front of naturalism is an important question we shall consider shortly. First, however, I should note that Carroll is a physicist, and I am not. My academic fields are the philosophy of science and evolutionary biology. Thus, when Carroll asserts that “the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known” (p. 178), the “audacious claim” (his description) for which Carroll is arguably best known, my lowly status as a physics tyro compels me to answer, with a polite nod, “Well, if you say so, Sean.”

For the sake of argument, let us grant this point to Carroll. Repeat after me: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known. For ease of reference, I’ll call this claim complete physics, with the caveat that by complete physics, Carroll means only those aspects of physical law that bear on (for instance) flying in airplanes, mountain erosion, cell biology, the behavior of roulette wheels, or why your mobile phone grows warm after long use. Carroll is not claiming, therefore, “that all the laws of physics are known, only a restricted set that suffices to describe what happens at the level underlying everyday life” (179).

Huh.  So Carroll's claim is not quite as "comprehensive" as it sounds, or as you characterized it.

Quote

The Incompleteness of Complete Physics. But what follows from complete physics? Carroll thinks a great deal; from my reading of Big Picture, however, I have to say — almost nothing. Not strictly nothing, to be sure; indeed, quite the opposite: the hard-won body of scientific knowledge that comprises our current understanding of physics makes possible technologies that would have seemed frankly magical to our great-grandparents, not to mention anyone who lived before them. That warm cell phone in your hand, on which you are texting with a friend thousands of miles away, is the prodigious child of highly reliable physical knowledge, painstakingly coaxed from nature herself over centuries, when that knowledge is mated with human creativity.

But Carroll thinks complete physics tells us that our consciousness “emerges from the collective behavior of particles and forces” (158), that “there is no life after death” (218), that “there is no overarching purpose to human lives” (220), and that the origin of life is “a matter of solving puzzles within the known laws of nature, not calling for help from outside of them” (270). These conclusions, however, are not supported by a bridge of sturdy argument, starting with complete physics, which would enable us to walk alongside Carroll, as he signals back to our location from the other side of the philosophical chasm where he is presently standing. Put another way, we can agree with complete physics — we just did so, in fact, two paragraphs ago — and yet wonder how Carroll knows that his own consciousness emerges from particles and forces, or that the origin of life occurred by the known laws of nature. How exactly did Carroll get over there, to poetic naturalism, where he is waving for us to join him? We started with him on the premise of complete physics, but we are still standing where we began — whereas Carroll now claims to know a whole lot of other stuff as well.

Yeah, that's my question as well.  My law degree, my training and experience as an attorney, certainly informs my worldview, including my perspective of things outside the law.  I have often found principles of law helpful in creating analogies and analytical frameworks for other aspects of life, including the Restored Gospel and our understanding of it.  I feel pretty comfortable in doing such things because I am not trying to declare that my sphere of advanced and specialized knowledge - modern American real property and business law - carries within it the Be-All-End-All answers to God, the Universe and Everything.  This body of knowledge is helpful, but not definitive or sufficient.  

And here (same link) :

Quote

A Poetic Problem. Suppose you own a precious metals mining company, and are looking for new sites to develop. I come to you with what I claim is a valuable lead for gold ore — a lead worth many millions of dollars, actually. So we draw up a contract, and on the appointed day, in your office, with a smile and a whisper, I triumphantly reveal what I know: “The crust of the Earth contains many atoms of gold.” Then I hold out my hand for your check.

Should you pay me? After all, what I said is perfectly true. It is also perfectly useless. Dig somewhere on this planet. You knew that.

Is this a fair characterization of Carroll's argument?  Is he telling us "Here are the specific coordinates, down to degrees, minutes and seconds, where you will hit paydirt," or is he instead using high-falootin' mumbo jumbo, bolstered by a jumble of academic credentials after his name, to tell us something that, in the end, is "perfectly useless?"

We report, you decide!

Quote

Complete physics may be true, but after we accept its truth, we are no better off — with respect to solving the problem of the origin of life, or consciousness, for example, using only known physical laws — than we were before we accepted it. The uncompromising details of what cells need to exist, such as their incredibly specific instructions for building hundreds of different proteins, are nowhere contained in complete physics. If those details were there, Carroll could turn the gears of current physical theory, show how cells arose from nonliving chemical constituents, and win himself at least a couple of Nobel prizes. Carroll’s chapters on the origin of life in Big Picture don’t do that, and it would have been flat-out miraculous if they did.

What?!  Carroll can't even explain something as simplistic as how life began on this Big Blue Marble?  Surely if he has the Answers to Everything, explaining and demonstrating the origins of life should be well within his wheelhouse.  And yet...

Quote

The scientific details for understanding the origin of life aren’t there in complete physics, and they never will be, because the latter is the wrong level of scientific description and explanation. A cell is an organism, and the rules and principles that govern organisms simply have no counterparts down among the nuts and bolts of electromagnetism or atomic theory. You don’t expect the guy who fixes your car to know about quantum field theory, although way, way down in the atomic lattice of the metal alloys composing the engine block and pistons, that theory applies. You want the mechanic to know how a fuel injector works. Starting down at the bottom, however, with quantum field theory alone, or even complete physics, one could never derive, or deduce, the existence of a fuel injector. It would be madness to try.

Thoughts?

Quote

Carroll knows this, because he discusses the issue at length in Big Picture — and now we come to his adjective of choice: poetic. Plain old naturalism claims “that there is just one world, the natural world” (3–4), and God does not exist. Poetic is tucked in front of naturalism as a modifier to remind us “that there is more than one way of talking about the world” (4).

Hmm.

Quote

But don’t kid yourself, Carroll would add — gently, but with total conviction — that our different ways of talking correspond to reality. Ultimate reality is physics, and only physics.

Sure.  But I think we kid ourselves if we think we have a complete and pristinely accurate understanding and command of "physics."

I have no idea how Jesus turn water to wine, or multiplied the loaves and fishes.  But I believe He did so by deploying natural law, rather than circumventing it.

Quote

Reality and Philosophy. Rather, I take another critical perspective on Carroll’s “poetic” bubble wrap. He spends many pages extolling the virtues — indeed, the necessity — of different “ways of talking” about the world, and warning about the dangerous incoherence that inevitably ensues when we mix up the different vocabularies and concepts of separate discourses: “Rather than acknowledging that there is one way of talking about the world in terms of quantum fields…and another way in terms of electrochemical signals traveling between cells, and yet another way in terms of human agents with desires and mental states, we fall into the trap of using multiple vocabularies at the same time” (374).

But why should using multiple vocabularies simultaneously be a trap, if there is only one reality — namely, the physical? Surely we can learn to describe and explain human moral categories, for instance, without the pesky verbiage of concepts such as “right” and “wrong”?
...
Consider that fuel injector again, but this time, from the perspective of a world-class particle physicist who never bothered to learn how his car worked. The engine is malfunctioning, so the physicist has the car towed to his local mechanic — who happens to know that the physicist is a hard-core reductionist. The mechanic is feeling mischievous that afternoon, so he brings the physicist into the repair bay. “You should be able to fix this engine yourself,” he tells him. “Just start with physics, and build up. Here are my tools. Roll up your sleeves. I’m going for coffee.”

"Just start with physics, and build up" to morality, to right and wrong.

"Just start with physics, and build up" to joy and sadness.

"Just start with physics, and build up" to beauty.

"Just start with physics, and build up" to love and hate.

Carroll's got a "comprehensive" explanation for everything, after all.

Quote

From one critical perspective, we could say that poetic is thus pastel-colored bubble wrap surrounding the icy and brutal truth of naturalism. Eventually the bubble wrap must come off, as it did for Matthew Arnold in the last stanza of his heartbreaking poem “Dover Beach” (1867):

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Richard Dawkins strips away the Victorian elegance of Arnold’s poem while keeping its bleak message. “The universe we observe,” he writes, “has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
...
...{L}ook at the date of Matthew Arnold’s poem — it’s 1867, although the poem was probably written well before its publication date. The current theories of physics that Carroll extols could not have been imagined by Arnold, or any of his contemporaries, but in the mid-nineteenth century, naturalism was flourishing as a worldview. The philosophy, poetic or not, has been around for a long time, indeed. One can find all of its major claims in antiquity, in the writings of the Greek atomists, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Naturalism does not need, and never has required, the support of physics, because naturalism is not a scientific proposition at all. Any connection to genuine science is secondary and incidental — like red dye in the cake batter, or air freshener sprayed last night that lingers in the corners of the room.

And that explains how Carroll can go from complete physics — we let him have that, remember? — to “there is no life after death” (218) and “there is no overarching purpose to human lives” (220). Complete physics did not tell him that. It can’t.

Science will not tell us what only philosophy can, and philosophies — true, false, coherent, incoherent — need to be engaged on a different playing field. Carroll could have saved himself about 450 pages. I learned some physics from reading this book, and I am thankful for that, but naturalism can be learned in its entirety from the four stanzas and 37 lines of “Dover Beach.”

Good stuff.

See also here:

Quote

Pinker's triumphalist tall tales continue on page 385 where he quotes a bogus brag by physicist Sean Carroll, who claimed that the laws of physics underlying everyday life are “completely known.” Pinker says, “It's hard to disagree that this is 'one of the greatest triumphs in human intellectual history.'” But there is no basis other than egotism and hubris for claiming that the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known. Future physicists will look back on such a statement with scorn. As discussed here, we don't even understand why the space surrounding us isn't vastly denser than steel as predicted by quantum field theory, which predicts a cosmological constant at least 10⁶⁰ times greater than the one we observe. 

The flaw in postulating an absolute is, well, this.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

He is claiming that the most robust theories in all of science offer compelling, positive evidence that if anything like "spiritual matter" existed and was strong enough to have even the subtlest of influence on the neurons in the human brain, physicists would have discovered it by now.

"Physicists would have discovered it by now?"  How does he know this?

When did the deadline pass?  Date and time, please, so I can check for myself.

What are your thoughts about "dark matter?"  As I understand it, we currently have difficulty declaring success in having detected it (though efforts such as DAMA/Nal, DAMA/LIBRA, ANAIS and other experiments offer some scintillating information).  Can we deny the existence of "dark matter" by declaring that, as of March 11, 2021 "physicists would have discovered it by now?"  Ought we?  Or perhaps . . . we should keep an open mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

My goal when trying to learn is to learn what is true... the study it out (and pray about it) in my mind part... and as I do so and get closer to discovering the truth I then get feelings and thoughts of sweetness... the God part... that tell me what the truth is.

So, yes, it is a combination of both.

If you could keep this view consistently we could agree on this as stated.  For me these words are perfect, but I think they do not represent what you usually present as who you are.  You are here defining truth as the feelings you get in your heart.  Yep I agree.

But you are always looking for "TRUTH" beyond what you know in your heart.  What you know in your heart may not be in other's heart but the world does not recognize your feelings as the basis for defining "truth" for the universe.

For YOUR universe you are!  But you sound arrogant to keep saying that.

So you can either alienate people or you can teach them.  It's up to you 

It's about how you present your truth

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Surely you realize that we, as Latter-day Saints, don't believe in "immaterial matter," and hence don't feel obliged to address its self-contradiction?

I mean, it's right there in our scriptures:

This was not addressed to me but thanks, I stand corrected.

I have MEANT, by using that phrase that matter and spirit are one- but had forgotten the actual wording of the scriptures.  What I was THINKING is what you are pointing out here.

I could go back and edit every usage of it, but I think no one else cares, but me.

But yes, thank you for the correction!   I need to be more careful in my wording in this area. 

 

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you could keep this view consistently we could agree on this as stated.  For me these words are perfect, but I think they do not represent what you usually present as who you are.  You are here defining truth as the feelings you get in your heart.  Yep I agree.

No, I am not defining the truth as the feelings I get in my heart.  I said the feelings and thoughts I get (from God as I study and ponder the thoughts and feelings I get) tell me what the truth is.  

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But you are always looking for "TRUTH" beyond what you know in your heart.  What you know in your heart may not be in other's heart but the world does not recognize your feelings as the basis for defining "truth" for the universe.

That's okay with me and that is just the way it is.  The truth is out there whether or not anyone knows what the truth is.  All I am trying to do is to help to point out what I see and experience as the truth while trying to tell others how they can know too.

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, I am not defining the truth as the feelings I get in my heart.  I said the feelings and thoughts I get (from God as I study and ponder the thoughts and feelings I get) tell me what the truth is.  

How is "telling you what truth is" different from "the truth"?

How does one distinguish one from the other, for all practical purposes?   Are there two entities- one is the "pointer" and the other "what is pointed to "?   What kind of entities would those be?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Surely you realize that we, as Latter-day Saints, don't believe in "immaterial matter," and hence don't feel obliged to address its self-contradiction?

My point was simply that Carroll was not arguing "spirits don't exist because there is no such thing as immaterial matter." Another poster on this thread was guessing his argument was along those lines, and I was trying to explain that his point is different than that. My appologies for not being more clear.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  And as a scientist, he has demonstrated that, has he?  It's an objective fact?  Not open for discussion or debate or disagreement?

If you'd like to understand precisely what he means by that statement, including its qualifications and basis, feel free to read the book.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, I thought this critique of his claim was interesting:

Paul Nelson, Fellow of the Discovery Institute, doesn't like the book. Not a huge surprise.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  So Carroll's claim is not quite as "comprehensive" as it sounds, or as you characterized it.

Actually it is. I said, "the most robust theories in all of science offer compelling, positive evidence that if anything like "spiritual matter" existed and was strong enough to have even the subtlest of influence on the neurons in the human brain, physicists would have discovered it by now." That is an accurate representation of Carroll's position. When he talks about the level of physics "at the level underlying everyday life," he is talking about extremely tiny, subtle forces. If you want to understand his arguments, feel free to read it. If you'd like to better understand what "rationalization" means, just look at what you are doing right now in order to avoid dealing with Carroll's actual arguments.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Is this a fair characterization of Carroll's argument? 

No. That has absolutely nothing to do with his arguments. I can't tell if the guy who wrote this actually read the entire book, or if he simply failed to understand it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about "dark matter?"  As I understand it, we currently have difficulty declaring success in having detected it (though efforts such as DAMA/Nal, DAMA/LIBRA, ANAIS and other experiments offer some scintillating information). 

Big Picture talks a lot about dark matter. I don't know much about it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Can we deny the existence of "dark matter" by declaring that, as of March 11, 2021 "physicists would have discovered it by now?"  Ought we? 

You are embarrassing yourself now. As I've said over and over, Carroll spends several chapters building up a very specific argument, and you keep demonstrating over and over that you are willing to criticize it without investing any time in trying to actually understand it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or perhaps . . . we should keep an open mind?

You can't keep an open mind unless you open it up first. And you can't do that if you spend all your intellectual energy trying to rationalize your religious preconceptions as opposed to taking a deeper dive into what science has actually figured out. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

How is "telling you what truth is" different from "the truth"?

The truth is independent of what someone says the truth is.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

How does one distinguish one from the other, for all practical purposes? 

One distinguishes something that is from someone saying what something is.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

 Are there two entities- one is the "pointer" and the other "what is pointed to "? 

Yes, and the pointer could either be pointing at something that is or only something the pointer is saying there is.... such as when a pointer is a person and the person is pointing at something that isn't there while saying it is.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

What kind of entities would those be?

All things that exist are true in the sense that they exist and a pointer can be anything that points in any direction whether or not something is there or what is there is what the pointer is saying it is.

[Stargazer]

On 3/9/2021 at 8:54 PM, champatsch said:

 

Allow both meanings and any cogdis will melt away. It's fine to use it only in the original way but adaptive to recognize emerging meaning. Like truth, which now has taken on another sense in expressions like "my truth", a sense closer to 'experience'.

 

On 3/9/2021 at 1:30 AM, mfbukowski said:

Look it up.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html#:~:text=The fallacy of begging the,called arguing in a circle.

 

On 3/8/2021 at 8:13 PM, Ahab said:

To beg a question is to assume a conclusion?  What conclusion would someone be assuming by begging a question?  A conclusion to what?

By knowing that I am a comedian you have arrived at the conclusion that I am funny otherwise you would not know that I am a comedian.  Do you have a question you are begging to ask me about this?

 

And then we have Stephen Fry, who, for all his other quirks and other annoying behaviors and beliefs, has this to say about the subject:

 

[Analytics]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Suppose you own a precious metals mining company, and are looking for new sites to develop. I come to you with what I claim is a valuable lead for gold ore — a lead worth many millions of dollars, actually. So we draw up a contract, and on the appointed day, in your office, with a smile and a whisper, I triumphantly reveal what I know: “The crust of the Earth contains many atoms of gold.” Then I hold out my hand for your check.

Should you pay me? After all, what I said is perfectly true. It is also perfectly useless. Dig somewhere on this planet. You knew that.

Is this a fair characterization of Carroll's argument?  Is he telling us "Here are the specific coordinates, down to degrees, minutes and seconds, where you will hit paydirt," or is he instead using high-falootin' mumbo jumbo, bolstered by a jumble of academic credentials after his name, to tell us something that, in the end, is "perfectly useless?"

I’ve been thinking about that analogy and how it can be fixed to better represent Sean Carroll’s position, and came up with something like this.

Everybody agrees that there must be some gold someplace on this planet. But Lando Calrissian struggled to find gold in the ground. Since eleven reliable witnesses from the early 19th century signed a statement that they saw an angel tell them that streets of heaven are in fact paved with gold, he deduced gold must float. Lando decided to open a gold mining enterprise in the sky. He mined and mined and never found any gold, but maintained faith that the gold is up there.

Sean Carroll responded by saying that because of what science has discovered about the density of gold, the density of air, and gravity, the gold simply must be in the crust of the earth and not floating somewhere in the sky. After explaining that we have robust theoretical and experimental evidence that indicates the gold must be in the ground and not in the sky, he asks the people who have faith that gold is floating in the air to explain how the theory of gravity could possibly be modified to allow for gold that floats. He claims this isn't optional to people who want to hold belief in gold that floats. He says yes, looking for gold in the crust of the earth is hard, but we know that is where it must be because we know from science that it is impossible for it to be floating. Therefore it must be in the ground. 

Summarizing my thoughts on apologists for floating gold, I declare that given the overwhelming scientific evidence that the theory of gravity correctly describes how planets, air, and gold interact, there is essentially no evidence that there is gold dust perpetually floating in the air. Daniel Peterson takes issue with me and states that the eleven witnesses constitutes some evidence that gold floats. The Discovery Institute declares the only way to disprove the floating-gold hypothesis is to locate the specific location of all of the gold in the crust. Smac says “Reasonable minds can disagree about this issue. Science doesn’t know for a fact that gold can’t float. Scientists have been wrong before. And what about dark matter? Maybe that accounts for how gold floats. Sean Carroll should keep an open mind about whether gold can float.”

Edited March 12, 2021 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Ahab said:

The truth is independent of what someone says the truth is.

One distinguishes something that is from someone saying what something is.

Yes, and the pointer could either be pointing at something that is or only something the pointer is saying there is.... such as when a pointer is a person and the person is pointing at something that isn't there while saying it is.

All things that exist are true in the sense that they exist and a pointer can be anything that points in any direction whether or not something is there or what is there is what the pointer is saying it is.

Jibberish.

Sorry.

[rodheadlee]

On 3/11/2021 at 6:00 AM, Analytics said:

That doesn't really contravene the point. Dr. Carroll isn't merely pointing out that the concept of "immaterial matter" is self-contradictory, nor is he saying that every physical effect must have a physical cause. Rather, he is claiming that "the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178)) He is claiming that the most robust theories in all of science offer compelling, positive evidence that if anything like "spiritual matter" existed and was strong enough to have even the subtlest of influence on the neurons in the human brain, physicists would have discovered it by now.

The hubris in that statement is remarkable, it also stifles scientific innovation. That statement has been made before at the turn of the 19th century. It will take me awhile to dig out the quote. I will give you one word to dispute that. Gravity.

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

I’ve been thinking about that analogy and how it can be fixed to better represent Sean Carroll’s position, and came up with something like this.

Everybody agrees that there must be some gold someplace on this planet. But Lando Calrissian struggled to find gold in the ground. Since eleven reliable witnesses from the early 19th century signed a statement that they saw an angel tell them that streets of heaven are in fact paved with gold, he deduced gold must float. Lando decided to open a gold mining enterprise in the sky. He mined and mined and never found any gold, but maintained faith that the gold is up there.

Sean Carroll responded by saying that because of what science has discovered about the density of gold, the density of air, and gravity, the gold simply must be in the crust of the earth and not floating somewhere in the sky. After explaining that we have robust theoretical and experimental evidence that indicates the gold must be in the ground and not in the sky, he asks the people who have faith that gold is floating in the air to explain how the theory of gravity could possibly be modified to allow for gold that floats. He claims this isn't optional to people who want to hold belief in gold that floats. He says yes, looking for gold in the crust of the earth is hard, but we know that is where it must be because we know from science that it is impossible for it to be floating. Therefore it must be in the ground. 

Summarizing my thoughts on apologists for floating gold, I declare that given the overwhelming scientific evidence that the theory of gravity correctly describes how planets, air, and gold interact, there is essentially no evidence that there is gold dust perpetually floating in the air. Daniel Peterson takes issue with me and states that the eleven witnesses constitutes some evidence that gold floats. The Discovery Institute declares the only way to disprove the floating-gold hypothesis is to locate the specific location of all of the gold in the crust. Smac says “Reasonable minds can disagree about this issue. Science doesn’t know for a fact that gold can’t float. Scientists have been wrong before. And what about dark matter? Maybe that accounts for how gold floats. Sean Carroll should keep an open mind about whether gold can float.”

[ttribe bows in respect for the Lando Calrissian/Cloud City metaphor]

[OGHoosier]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

I’ve been thinking about that analogy and how it can be fixed to better represent Sean Carroll’s position, and came up with something like this.

Everybody agrees that there must be some gold someplace on this planet. But Lando Calrissian struggled to find gold in the ground. Since eleven reliable witnesses from the early 19th century signed a statement that they saw an angel tell them that streets of heaven are in fact paved with gold, he deduced gold must float. Lando decided to open a gold mining enterprise in the sky. He mined and mined and never found any gold, but maintained faith that the gold is up there.

Sean Carroll responded by saying that because of what science has discovered about the density of gold, the density of air, and gravity, the gold simply must be in the crust of the earth and not floating somewhere in the sky. After explaining that we have robust theoretical and experimental evidence that indicates the gold must be in the ground and not in the sky, he asks the people who have faith that gold is floating in the air to explain how the theory of gravity could possibly be modified to allow for gold that floats. He claims this isn't optional to people who want to hold belief in gold that floats. He says yes, looking for gold in the crust of the earth is hard, but we know that is where it must be because we know from science that it is impossible for it to be floating. Therefore it must be in the ground. 

Summarizing my thoughts on apologists for floating gold, I declare that given the overwhelming scientific evidence that the theory of gravity correctly describes how planets, air, and gold interact, there is essentially no evidence that there is gold dust perpetually floating in the air. Daniel Peterson takes issue with me and states that the eleven witnesses constitutes some evidence that gold floats. The Discovery Institute declares the only way to disprove the floating-gold hypothesis is to locate the specific location of all of the gold in the crust. Smac says “Reasonable minds can disagree about this issue. Science doesn’t know for a fact that gold can’t float. Scientists have been wrong before. And what about dark matter? Maybe that accounts for how gold floats. Sean Carroll should keep an open mind about whether gold can float.”

I'd actually argue that the 11 reliable witnesses' statement cannot only tenuously be interpreted to mean that gold can float, since the gold is in fact on the ground in heaven (paving the streets) and heaven is not necessarily "floating in the sky" in a terrestrial sense. Therefore this whole analogy is a strawman. 

Also, for what it's worth, some comments: Dr. Paul Nelson happens to have a Ph.D in philosophy of biology and evolutionary theory from the University of Chicago, hardly a backwoods institution. He studies this professionally. Even if he does engage in wrongthink I would consider that to be worth more than an offhand dismissal based on his affiliation with the Discovery Institute. Unless you've got some Ph.D's you're hiding back there he has more expertise on the subject than both of us combined. 

"Dan Vogel, frequent author at Signature Books, doesn't like the book. Not a huge surprise." - OGHoosier, from this point forward, every single time Dan Vogel comments on anything.

Finally, I would argue that Dr. Carroll's assessment of "total physics" is meaningless because laws of physics generally arise as a means of explaining observed phenomena. Therefore, since observed phenomena lead to laws we cannot have a closed set of laws unless we have a closed set of phenomena. We have not yet observed all the phenomena necessary for life on earth, and even a broad sweep of science of the mind can demonstrate that. I would also contend that we can never be confident that we have observed all phenomena necessary to life, and therefore Carroll's "total physics" is a theoretical impossibility. 

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I'd actually argue that the 11 reliable witnesses' statement cannot only tenuously be interpreted to mean that gold can float, since the gold is in fact on the ground in heaven (paving the streets) and heaven is not necessarily "floating in the sky" in a terrestrial sense. Therefore this whole analogy is a strawman.

To clarify the analogy, the "gold" represents scientific understanding of consciousness and the origins of life.

Dr. Carroll claims that we know from the positive results of quantum field theory that on a scale of anything that could be experimentally measured on earth (and on this scale something large enough to have even a subtle effect on brain activity is gigantic), we understand the physics underlying everything with extreme precision (this is the "complete physics" hypothesis that Nelson is referring to). Since we know consciousness interacts with the physical world on this scale, consciousness must be a phenomenon that emerges from atoms of which we are made, not a "spirit" that inhabits the body and pulls the strings. Dr. Carroll's argument on this from physics happens to converge with what neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists have figured out from other angles, but that is outside of the analogy.

Dr. Nelson's original analogy disregards Dr. Carroll's actual argument and declares that until science has a complete handle on consciousness and the origins of life the "complete physics" hypothesis is useless. My point is that the "complete physics" hypothesis has big implications--if Carroll is right, we know that life and consciousness both emerge from mundane chemical processes, and that "spirit" has nothing to do with it. That's an important clue of where to look--just as we should look for gold in the crust of the earth and not in the sky, we should look for the emergence of consciousness in the chemical processes of the brain and not by hunting for ghosts.

Quote

Also, for what it's worth, some comments: Dr. Paul Nelson happens to have a Ph.D in philosophy of biology and evolutionary theory from the University of Chicago, hardly a backwoods institution. He studies this professionally. Even if he does engage in wrongthink I would consider that to be worth more than an offhand dismissal based on his affiliation with the Discovery Institute. Unless you've got some Ph.D's you're hiding back there he has more expertise on the subject than both of us combined. 

This section of the book is about effective quantum field theory, which is pretty far outside Dr. Nelson's expertise. I'm sure he's a brilliant guy, but that doesn't mean his analogy is a fair representation of Dr. Carroll's point. And in context, smac97, another very intelligent guy, read and quoted from this review because in an exercise of rationalization, he was mining the internet for material he could use to dismiss The Big Picture without reading it. If smac97 isn't going to seriously consider Dr. Carroll's actual arguments, why should I seriously consider a negative book review from an extremely biased source that he found?

Quote

Finally, I would argue that Dr. Carroll's assessment of "total physics" is meaningless because laws of physics generally arise as a means of explaining observed phenomena. Therefore, since observed phenomena lead to laws we cannot have a closed set of laws unless we have a closed set of phenomena. We have not yet observed all the phenomena necessary for life on earth, and even a broad sweep of science of the mind can demonstrate that. I would also contend that we can never be confident that we have observed all phenomena necessary to life, and therefore Carroll's "total physics" is a theoretical impossibility. 

Just to make sure I understand where you are coming from, you have such a strong handle on effective quantum field theory that you can dismiss Carroll's arguments without even needing to read the book?

Edited March 13, 2021 by Analytics
formatting, typo

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

The hubris in that statement is remarkable, it also stifles scientific innovation. That statement has been made before at the turn of the 19th century. It will take me awhile to dig out the quote. I will give you one word to dispute that. Gravity.

Ironically, the statement is made by a preeminent theoretical physicist who like thousands of others would love nothing more than to learn something new. To better understand his point, which takes several chapters to fully explain, here is an extended quote from chapter 23:

Quote

Quantum field theory is an immensely powerful framework. If Godzilla and the Hulk had a baby, and that baby was a framework describing a certain kind of physical theory, that baby would be quantum field theory.

“Powerful” doesn’t mean “capable of smashing cities to rubble.” (Although quantum field theory is that, since it’s the only way we have of describing one kind of particle transforming into another one, which is a crucial part of nuclear reactions and therefore nuclear weapons.) When we’re talking about scientific theories, powerful actually means restrictive—a powerful theory is one in which there are many things that simply cannot happen. The power we’re talking about here is the ability to start with very few assumptions and draw conclusions that are reliable and wide-ranging in their scope. Quantum field theory doesn’t knock down buildings lying in its path; it knocks down our speculations about what kinds of things can happen in physical reality

The claim we’re making is pretty audacious:

Claim: The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known.

An assertion like that invites a great deal of skepticism. It’s bombastic, self-congratulatory, and it doesn’t seem that hard to think of plausible ways in which our understanding could be dramatically incomplete. It sounds an awful lot like all the many times throughout history when some great thinker or another boasted that the quest for perfect knowledge was nearly complete. Every one of which turned out to be hilariously premature.

But we’re not claiming that all the laws of physics are known, only a restricted set that suffices to describe what happens at the level underlying everyday life. Even that sounds pretty presumptuous. Surely there must be all sorts of ways to add new particles or forces to the Core Theory that could be important to everyday-level physics, or for that matter new kinds of phenomena that fall outside the scope of quantum field theory entirely. Right?

Not so. The situation now really is different from the way it has ever been at previous moments in the history of science. Not only do we have a successful theory, but we also know how far that theory can be extended before it ceases to be reliable. That’s just how powerful quantum field theory is. 
The logic behind our audacious claim is simple:

1. Everything we know says that quantum field theory is the correct framework for describing the physics underlying everyday life.
2. The rules of quantum field theory imply that there can’t be any new particles, forces, or interactions that could be relevant to our everyday lives. We’ve found them all.

 Again, it takes several chapters to flesh this out. The important thing to understand is that he isn't making a philosophical claim here. He is describing quantum field theory and the evidence that supports it.

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I'd actually argue that the 11 reliable witnesses' statement cannot only tenuously be interpreted to mean that gold can float, since the gold is in fact on the ground in heaven (paving the streets) and heaven is not necessarily "floating in the sky" in a terrestrial sense. Therefore this whole analogy is a strawman. 

Also, for what it's worth, some comments: Dr. Paul Nelson happens to have a Ph.D in philosophy of biology and evolutionary theory from the University of Chicago, hardly a backwoods institution. He studies this professionally. Even if he does engage in wrongthink I would consider that to be worth more than an offhand dismissal based on his affiliation with the Discovery Institute. Unless you've got some Ph.D's you're hiding back there he has more expertise on the subject than both of us combined. 

"Dan Vogel, frequent author at Signature Books, doesn't like the book. Not a huge surprise." - OGHoosier, from this point forward, every single time Dan Vogel comments on anything.

Finally, I would argue that Dr. Carroll's assessment of "total physics" is meaningless because laws of physics generally arise as a means of explaining observed phenomena. Therefore, since observed phenomena lead to laws we cannot have a closed set of laws unless we have a closed set of phenomena. We have not yet observed all the phenomena necessary for life on earth, and even a broad sweep of science of the mind can demonstrate that. I would also contend that we can never be confident that we have observed all phenomena necessary to life, and therefore Carroll's "total physics" is a theoretical impossibility. 

Great stuff as usual!

That's true of course for all science. That is so easy to see yet no one sees it. Baffling!!

And Vogel?

Literally "Unbelievable"! 

Edited March 13, 2021 by mfbukowski

[OGHoosier]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Just to make sure I understand where you are coming from, you have such a strong handle on effective quantum field theory that you can dismiss Carroll's arguments without even needing to read the book?

I know enough about quantum physics to know that the Standard Model has trouble explaining gravity, which proves problematic for Carroll's "complete physics" from the start. Carroll's approach, from what I can see of it, is to handwave it by asserting that "We don’t understand the full theory of quantum gravity, but we understand it perfectly well at the everyday level." This appears to me to be an unacceptable dodge. He's using the successes of Newtonian theory to cover for the fact that we don't know how the Standard Model and gravity work together. He's basically saying that "well, they just have to gel, so one day we'll find it, and in the meantime we can be confident that quantum field theory explains everything." Forgive me for not being so sanguine. If we don't know how the Standard Model causes gravity, then we manifestly don't know how it affects all the important forces for life, so "complete physics" is a twinkle in Carroll's eye as opposed to something real. I'd rather stick with that enfant terrible Feynman who argues that a) anybody who says they understand quantum physics doesn't, and b) each answer produces more questions. Lord Kelvin was saying that science was essentially complete back in the 19th century. Let's not repeat his error. 

Your whole line of argument seems to be: introduce Sean Carroll and let him carry my argument to victory. Well, I intend to read his book when I get around to it, but I'm not just going to accept his arguments beforehand, especially when they are in his own words "bombastic and self-congratulatory." These are the problems I see from here and a interdict of "just-read-the-book" is not going to get me to move off of them until I see something more. 

Furthermore, Carroll's argument from QFT, as put forward and discussed elsewhere, assumes that any spiritual force would have to act on the level of the electron when this is not necessarily the case. It also is dependent on Carroll's denial of downward causation, which is not confidently established in my mind. Finally, I still don't see a way around the requirement for a closed set of phenomena in order to have a closed set of explanations. The very idea that you can be confident in a closed set of explanations with an indefinite set of phenomena appears unreasonable. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Ironically, the statement is made by a preeminent theoretical physicist who like thousands of others would love nothing more than to learn something new.

Idealist Fallacy. He'd love to learn something new but if he's already committed to a particular view of quantum theory than the option to "learn something new" which disagrees with said theory will be a lot less compelling. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Well, I intend to read his book when I get around to it, but I'm not just going to accept his arguments beforehand, especially when they are in his own words "bombastic and self-congratulatory."

Why bother?

If his meta-assumptions are as represented, you don't need his map of how to go north, when you are headed south!

Great post!

Cartesian Dualism has been dead for at least 150 years, but only a few physicists ever seem to "get" it.  After all why bother with all that mushy "Humanities" stuff ? 

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Your whole line of argument seems to be: introduce Sean Carroll and let him carry my argument to victory. Well, I intend to read his book when I get around to it, but I'm not just going to accept his arguments beforehand, especially when they are in his own words "bombastic and self-congratulatory." These are the problems I see from here and a interdict of "just-read-the-book" is not going to get me to move off of them until I see something more. 

You misunderstand what the argument is even about. Smac had denied that there are libraries of evidence against Mormonism that apologists ignore or shelve, so I provided this as an example of extremely strong evidence against Mormonism that the apologists completely ignore.

I'm just not interested in discussing the merits of Carroll's arguments with somebody who doesn't understand them.

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

You misunderstand what the argument is even about. Smac had denied that there are libraries of evidence against Mormonism that apologists ignore or shelve, so I provided this as an example of extremely strong evidence against Mormonism that the apologists completely ignore.

I'm just not interested in discussing the merits of Carroll's arguments with somebody who doesn't understand them.

All right then, have a good day. Perhaps one day I shall ascend to the levels of gnosis required to understand Carroll's arguments. 

@mfbukowski You're too kind.