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

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'd say you believe in superstition. 

What is "superstition" to you is to me "a field of legitimate inquiry which gleefully steps on the toes of metaphysical positivism." 

[Analytics]

Using philosophy to rationalize beliefs that are incompatible with the robust findings of science seems to be missing the point.

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

This is a different test of NDEs.  Not proof one way or another, but a serious assessment I made a while back.

 

There is nothing serious at all about the investigation.  

1.  Can it be proven by empirical means?

2.  Can it be proven by statistical/empircal means?

3.  Can it be proven anecdotally by accepted anecdotal evidence?

No, no and no.  

That is why the way the Bible accounts were witnessed, and the way the Book of Mormon plates were witnessed, are so interesting.  These qualify as proofs.  

Edited March 16, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

What is "superstition" to you is to me "a field of legitimate inquiry which gleefully steps on the toes of metaphysical positivism." 

I remember as a young deacon being fascinated by a campfire discussion by a bishop's counselor (later bishop) who talked about how he was able to locate a hundred-year-old water main using a divining rod at his project he bought at Bear Lake, a hundred year old house on the east shore.   I was convinced by his account.  Now I see it as foolish superstition.  

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Using philosophy to rationalize beliefs that are incompatible with the robust findings of science seems to be missing the point.

Believing that science can produce any beliefs without robust grounding in philosophy misses just as badly. 

All science is philosophical in nature, hence why it was originally known as "natural philosophy". Philosophy is the first thing we encounter when determining how to interpret findings anyhow. It's not like nature is self-interpreting. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by OGHoosier

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

There is nothing serious at all about the investigation.  

1.  Can it be proven by empirical means?

2.  Can it be proven by statistical/empircal means?

3.  Can it be proven anecdotally by accepted anecdotal evidence?

No, no and no.  

That is why the way the Bible accounts were witnessed, and the way the Book of Mormon plates were witnessed, are so interesting.  These qualify as proofs.  

The argument for many NDEs is that they do, in fact, satisfy condition 3, and NDEs have been shown to make predictions which satisfy condition 1. 

Also the whole structure you have here is basically just garden-variety positivism. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Believing that science can produce any beliefs without robust grounding in philosophy misses just as badly. 

All science is philosophical in nature, hence why it was originally known as "natural philosophy". Philosophy is the first thing we encounter when determining how to interpret findings anyhow. It's not like nature is self-interpreting. 

It seems to me the overarching message of philosophy since Plato has been to question your own beliefs so that you are open to better ideas if and when they come along. Science is built upon the strong philosophical position of methodological empiricism.

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It seems to me the overarching message of philosophy since Plato has been to question your own beliefs so that you are open to better ideas if and when they come along. Science is built upon the strong philosophical position of methodological empiricism.

One of the definitions of "scientism" is "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques."  See also here:

Quote

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.
...
More generally, scientism is interpreted as science applied "in excess". This use of the term scientism has two senses:

1. The improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
2. "The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience". Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture." Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

Hoo, boy, does that summarize what I've been seeing in this thread.

I am a big fan of science.  Scientism, not so much.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It seems to me the overarching message of philosophy since Plato has been to question your own beliefs so that you are open to better ideas if and when they come along. Science is built upon the strong philosophical position of methodological empiricism.

There is science as an ongoing, self-correcting endeavor, and empiricism, which has undergone significant reflection:

Quote

Now the versions of empiricism which were current in the 1950’s took these criticisms into account. The importance of theoretical terms and non-observable entities in science was recognized. But it was still assumed that there are fixed observational data free from any theoretical interpretation. Nagel, Hempel, Braithwaite, Popper, and others¹ pictured two distinct levels in science: an unproblematic lower level of unchanging, objective data, describable in a pure observation language on which all observers can agree; and a separate upper level of theoretical constructs, acknowledged as products of man’s creative imagination. In this scheme, the experimental data provide a neutral and impartial court of appeal for testing predictions deduced from alternative theories. The firm foundations of the scientific edifice are the solid data common to all observers. Here was an emphasis on both theory and observation, with a sharp distinction between them.

But during the 1960’s even these modified versions of empiricism came under attack. Kuhn, Hanson, Polanyi, Feyerabend, Toulmin and others² concluded from their work in the history of science that the philosophers and logicians who set forth the empiricist position had not looked carefully enough at the real work of scientists. There are no bare uninterpreted data. Expectations and conceptual commitments influence perceptions, both in everyday life and in science. Man supplies the categories of interpretation, right from the start. The very language in which observations are reported is influenced by prior theories. The predicates we use in describing the world and the categories with which we classify events depend on the kinds of regularities we anticipate. The presuppositions which the scientist brings to his enquiry are reflected in the way he formulates a problem, the kind of apparatus he builds, and the type of variable he considers important. Here the emphasis is on theory and the way it permeates observation.

In N. R. Hanson’s oft-quoted words, ‘All data are theory-laden.’ The procedures of measurement and the interpretation of the resulting numerical values depend on implicit theoretical assumptions. Most of the time, of course, scientists work within a framework of thought which they have inherited. Most scientists in their day-today work presuppose the concepts and background theories of their day; in testing theories of limited scope they can therefore obtain unambiguous data which can be described in a commonly accepted observation-language. But, says Feyerabend, when the background theory itself is at issue, when the fundamental assumptions and basic concepts are under attack, then the dependence of measurement on theoretical assumptions is crucial.

From Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-6-paradigms-in-science/

And this from Alan Goff:

Quote

Always, always it should be remembered that “the language and rhetoric of positivism is most often invoked (perhaps unconsciously) when ideology is most nakedly displayed.”³⁹ The reader needs to appreciate the irony that ideology is never more manifest than when its advocates assert the absence of ideology.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-inevitability-of-epistemology-in-historiography-theory-history-and-zombie-mormon-history/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[CA Steve]

Interesting discussion.

I would note that it is taking place on the internet.

[Analytics]

As a refresher, I brought up an example of a top-tier scientist who claims there is "no evidence" that effective quantum field theory fails to describe reality within its domain of applicability to the degree of accuracy that the theory posits. His arguments are detailed, subtle, and qualified. He talks about the nature of the theories, the experimental evidence supporting them, and how the theories themselves have limits of what they can and cannot predict. He also goes into great length to talk about how these arguments are different than claims in the past that were made about science being near to having figured everything out. If he is right about this, then there is "no evidence" that  it is the least bit plausible for the "supernatural" elements of religion to be real.

I brought this up because it is an important example of the vast library of evidence against the Church that apologists ignore.  

I have also referenced scholars who point out that extremely intelligent people often use their intelligence to rationalize false beliefs rather than to overcome their cognitive biases and work towards the best understanding of reality that is suggested by the data.

References to Kuhn and accusations of positivism and scientism don't deal with Carroll's arguments, much less give any indication that those arguments are understood. Quite the opposite, in fact. It certainly doesn't refute my point that this evidence is ignored by apologists.

Each of us need to decide if we are using philosophy to best understand reality or using it as an excuse to ignore scientific arguments that we don't like because the arguments holding water would require us to make our own mental revolutions about what paradigms are most consistent with reality.

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

As a refresher, I brought up an example of a top-tier scientist who claims there is "no evidence" that effective quantum field theory fails to describe reality within its domain of applicability to the degree of accuracy that the theory posits. His arguments are detailed, subtle, and qualified. He talks about the nature of the theories, the experimental evidence supporting them, and how the theories themselves have limits of what they can and cannot predict. He also goes into great length to talk about how these arguments are different than claims in the past that were made about science being near to having figured everything out. If he is right about this, then there is "no evidence" that  it is the least bit plausible for the "supernatural" elements of religion to be real.

I brought this up because it is an important example of the vast library of evidence against the Church that apologists ignore.  

I have also referenced scholars who point out that extremely intelligent people often use their intelligence to rationalize false beliefs rather than to overcome their cognitive biases and work towards the best understanding of reality that is suggested by the data.

References to Kuhn and accusations of positivism and scientism don't deal with Carroll's arguments, much less give any indication that those arguments are understood. Quite the opposite, in fact. It certainly doesn't refute my point that this evidence is ignored by apologists.

Each of us need to decide if we are using philosophy to best understand reality or using it as an excuse to ignore scientific arguments that we don't like because the arguments holding water would require us to make our own mental revolutions about what paradigms are most consistent with reality.

I haven't yet seen you apply Carroll's arguments in any way that threatens what Latter-day Saint's actually and specifically believe. Latter-day Saints don't believe people are bending spoons with their minds every day (an example of the type of supernaturalism, which you brought up, that you think Carroll's research disproves). Part of the problem is that Carroll's confidence (probably overconfidence) in how well scientists understand quantum phenomena really doesn't matter. That is a lower order of observation that can't of itself explain many higher-level phenomena. 

Latter-day Saints believe that the only regular, everyday "supernatural" events in our lives come through subtle spiritual impressions which affect our mind and in some cases other physical sensory perceptions. Therefore, the regular-occurring "supernatural" phenomenon that you think Carroll has disproved concerns human consciousness, a phenomenon which science admittedly cannot yet explain. Despite our growing understanding of the quantum realm, we still don't know how the processes in the body result in consciousness. And that means that science can't even come close yet to disproving that spiritual influences could be interacting with our minds on a regular basis. Why should theists have to explain how a spiritual entity might interact with our consciousness when scientists can't even explain how ordinary consciousness works. 

As for much rarer "supernatural" phenomena, such as nature miracles, I'm not sure that Carroll's argument has anything much to say about them either. Science tells us how certain phenomena work under normal conditions. But we have no idea why the laws exist the way that they do or where the laws came from. If a divine being can override or in some way alter current natural laws, or introduce or engage new ones (as Latter-day Saints typically believe), then there is no reason that we have to come up with a theory of how supernatural phenomena have to conform to or interact with known laws as they operate under regular conditions. Unless Caroll can get away with arbitrarily stuffing God into a very confining box of Carroll's own creation, his argument is fundamentally impotent (at least as you have articulated his views).

Edited March 16, 2021 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Part of the problem is that Carroll's confidence (probably overconfidence) in how well scientists understand quantum phenomena really doesn't matter. That is a lower order of observation that can't of itself explain many higher-level phenomena. 

The argument isn't about how well scientists understand quantum mechanics. The argument is how well they can use the model to predict what will happen in the real world. It turns out the model explains what's going on extremely well, and leaves no room for other forces to exist within its domain of applicability. There are different interpretations of what the models actually mean, but those have no bearing on the argument. The models accurately predict what happens.

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Latter-day Saints believe that the only regular, everyday "supernatural" events in our lives come through subtle spiritual impressions which affect our mind and in some cases other physical sensory perceptions. Therefore, the regular-occurring "supernatural" phenomenon that you think Carroll has disproved concerns human consciousness, a phenomenon which science admittedly cannot yet explain.

According to mainstream Quantum Physics, "subtle spiritual impressions" must originate within you own brain--there isn't and can't be ghost in the machine, and there aren't and can't be transmitters and receivers of "subtle spiritual impressions" from other beings or other realms. The fields of Quantum Biology and Neuroscience come to the same conclusion from different angles. References to all of this are in this thread.

All of this means that although science can't explain much about human consciousness, mainstream science is basically certain that whatever it is, it emerges from the brain, not from something outside of it.

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Despite our growing understanding of the quantum realm, we still don't know how the processes in the body result in consciousness. And that means that science can't even come close yet to disproving that spiritual influences could be interacting with our minds on a regular basis. Why should theists have to explain how this might work when scientists can't even explain how ordinary consciousness works. 

This is the exact point of the metaphor about the gold mining. That guy from the Discovery Institute says, "all science can do is tell us that the gold is somewhere in the crust of the earth. What good is that?!" I'm responding that just because we haven't found the gold in the ground doesn't me we haven't disproved that it is in the air. We know it isn't in the air because we know gold doesn't float.

The idea that consciousness emerges from the brain is consistent with everything we know about physics and neuroscience. The assertion that consciousness is a "ghost in the machine" contradicts the robust findings of physics and neuroscience.

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

As for much rarer "supernatural" phenomena, such as nature miracles, I'm not sure that Carroll's argument has anything much to say about them either. Science tells us how certain phenomena work under normal conditions. But we have no idea why the laws exist the way that they do or where the laws came from. If a divine being can override or in some way alter current natural laws, or introduce or engage new ones (as Latter-day Saints typically believe), then there is no reason that we have to come up with a theory of how supernatural phenomena have to conform to or interact with known laws as they operate under regular conditions.

What's the difference between saying that God can "introduce or engage new [laws of physics]" whenever He wants to and saying that there really aren't any laws at all? Here is a quote from Carroll about three theories that are equally consistent with the evidence. You can believe any one of them. It's up to you.

Consider three competing theories. One says that the motion of planets and moons in the solar system is governed, at least to a pretty good approximation, by Isaac Newton’s theories of gravity and motion. Another says that Newtonian physics doesn’t apply at all, and that instead every celestial body has an angel assigned to it, and these angels guide the planets and moons in their motions through space, along paths that just coincidentally match those that Newton would have predicted. Most of us would probably think that the first theory is simpler than the second—you get the same predictions out, without needing to invoke vaguely defined angelic entities. But the third theory is that Newtonian gravity is responsible for the motions of everything in the solar system except for the moon, which is guided by an angel, and that angel simply chooses to follow the trajectory that would have been predicted by Newton.

Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (pp. 79-80). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

If you find the results of mainstream physics inconvenient to your faith, it is actually quite easy to come up with theistic explanations that are consistent with the evidence. That doesn't change the ad hoc nature of them. Since such ad hoc rationalizations are, by construct, impossible to disprove it's hard to call them scientific hypotheses or theories. They could be right of course, but the scientific approach to choosing between one and the other is an appeal to Occam's Razor. Yes, it could be wrong. But when you claim that since we don't fully understand the law of gravity that it's just as likely that an angel is responsible for the orbit of the moon, you are rejecting science and abusing philosophy to rationalize your theism.

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Unless Caroll can get away with arbitrarily stuffing God into a very confining box of his own creation, his argument is fundamentally impotent (at least as you have articulated his views).

See above.

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Each of us need to decide if we are using philosophy to best understand reality or using it as an excuse to ignore scientific arguments that we don't like because the arguments holding water would require us to make our own mental revolutions about what paradigms are most consistent with reality.

No, we need to make sure that our interpretations of observations are philosophically sound. Given that all interpretation in science proceeds from our philosophical priors, this exhortation gets the cart before the horse. 

53 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to mainstream Quantum Physics, "subtle spiritual impressions" must originate within you own brain--there isn't and can't be ghost in the machine, and there aren't and can't be transmitters and receivers of "subtle spiritual impressions" from other beings or other realms. The fields of Quantum Biology and Neuroscience come to the same conclusion from different angles. References to all of this are in this thread.

Where are these references you speak of? Unless you're just referring to Carroll. Even so, his assertion does not establish the truth of that assertion. I don't believe that spiritual impressions must originate within your own brain any more than I believe that sight originates in our own brain. You keep saying "aren't" and "can't be" but the mere assertion of scholarly authority isn't enough to establish that. Prestige in scholarship is not derived by subject matter knowledge alone, but also accession to a particular metaphysics or paradigm of thought. Any such paradigm must be considered, not smuggled in under the pretense of authority.

[Ryan Dahle]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The argument isn't about how well scientists understand quantum mechanics. The argument is how well they can use the model to predict what will happen in the real world.

If the model is so able to predict the real world, why can't it predict what I am going to think next, much less be able to discern my awareness by analyzing my brain activity? Seems like a pretty big problem if you are trying to disprove that God is interacting with people's thoughts. 

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to mainstream Quantum Physics, "subtle spiritual impressions" must originate within you own brain--there isn't and can't be ghost in the machine, and there aren't and can't be transmitters and receivers of "subtle spiritual impressions" from other beings or other realms. The fields of Quantum Biology and Neuroscience come to the same conclusion from different angles. References to all of this are in this thread.

At best, science can identify some interplay between consciousness and brain activity. But we are still mostly groping in the dark. This is hardly the type of "robust" data needed to disprove supernatural interaction, which is the claim you are so adamantly asserting.

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What's the difference between saying that God can "introduce or engage new [laws of physics]" whenever He wants to and saying that there really aren't any laws at all?

Probably the same difference as saying that the people developing a video game can introduce and adjust the physics of the game in ways that the average player can't. It doesn't mean there are no laws. It just means that there is a big disparity in our ability to understand and manipulate those laws for desired effect.  

[Kevin Christensen]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

As a refresher, I brought up an example of a top-tier scientist who claims there is "no evidence" that effective quantum field theory fails to describe reality within its domain of applicability to the degree of accuracy that the theory posits. His arguments are detailed, subtle, and qualified. He talks about the nature of the theories, the experimental evidence supporting them, and how the theories themselves have limits of what they can and cannot predict. He also goes into great length to talk about how these arguments are different than claims in the past that were made about science being near to having figured everything out. If he is right about this, then there is "no evidence" that  it is the least bit plausible for the "supernatural" elements of religion to be real.

I brought this up because it is an important example of the vast library of evidence against the Church that apologists ignore.  

I have also referenced scholars who point out that extremely intelligent people often use their intelligence to rationalize false beliefs rather than to overcome their cognitive biases and work towards the best understanding of reality that is suggested by the data.

References to Kuhn and accusations of positivism and scientism don't deal with Carroll's arguments, much less give any indication that those arguments are understood. Quite the opposite, in fact. It certainly doesn't refute my point that this evidence is ignored by apologists.

Each of us need to decide if we are using philosophy to best understand reality or using it as an excuse to ignore scientific arguments that we don't like because the arguments holding water would require us to make our own mental revolutions about what paradigms are most consistent with reality.

But some of the most important observations that Kuhn makes about paradigm debate are these:

Quote

In learning a paradigm, the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture. Therefore, when paradigms change, there are usually significant shifts in the criteria determining the legitimacy both of problems and solutions....

"To the extant... that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what is a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent...

[S]ince no paradigm ever solves all of the puzzles it defines and since no two paradigms leave all the same problems unsolved, paradigms debates always involve the question: Which problems is it more significant to have solved?" (Kuhn 109-110) 

The point is, in this kind of debate, we all get to choose which problems are more significant to have solved.  Frankly, I am in no hurry to surrender my paradigm to anyone who simply announces that there is no evidence for the supernatural, based on experients and theories that do not bother to predict or explain in any significant detail the kinds of evidence that convinces me personally that there is.  I am willing to give things time on that side since LDS thought is open-ended, offering not a closed "Big Book of What to Think" but a covenant community in process of constantly seeking "further light and knowledge."

In playground terms, people confronting different paradigms get to say "So what?"  I am not forced to accept the rules, methods, problems, and standards of solution that a critic uses to say "So what?" to the things that I find convincing.  What I can to is ask what testable puzzles are around?  What predictions are made?  How accurate are those solutions?  Given the network of assumptions involved in testing from different perspectives, what happens to the conclusions if one or more of those assumptions is faulty?  How comprehensive and coherent is an explanation?  And to say, "Carroll has proven that the supernatural does not and cannot exist" may imply that Joseph produced the Book of Mormon "somehow" does not necessarily define a notable set of testable puzzles. Rather, it simply ignores all of the puzzles and tests and answers that we have offered as part of problems we see as "more significant to have solved."  How fruitful is it?  What do can a person experience inside one paradigm that may not even be imagined within another?  Which is simplest, aesthetically pleasing?  Which has the most future promise?    Shall I have faith in my own personal omniscience to settling eternity right now?  Or, shall I start by assuming that there might be more things in heaven and in earth that are dreampt of in my philospophy?   If I took a page from the complete works of William Shakespeare, and blasted a page with a bit of ink on it with a beam of charged particles in light of the latest theories of Quantum Physics, what would the emerging science tell me about the meaning of life and how to best live it?

"One moment in annihilation's waste, the caravan makes for the dawn of nothing.  Oh, make haste!"

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kevin Christensen

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Where are these references you speak of?

I've supported this with references to three books. For your convenience:

• Low-level quantum physics rigorously proves (to the extent that anything in physics has been proved) that that spirits and the supernatural are not plausible. See The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself by Sean Carroll.
• Neuroscientists have concluded that there are no spirits--there is no ghost in the machine. See Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga.
• Many of the biggest mysteries in biology (e.g. how birds use the earth's magnetic field as a GPS system, how the sense of smell works) are now understood to rely on "spooky" quantum mechanic processes in specific ways that we are figuring out. However, how everything the brain does is explained by old-fashioned electromagnetics. See Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden. 

These books all represent mainstream scientific thought, and they all point in the same direction--consciousness emerges from the brain.

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

You keep saying "aren't" and "can't be" but the mere assertion of scholarly authority isn't enough to establish that.

If you'd like to understand the specific arguments I'm referring to, please read Carroll. If you'd like to ignore these specific arguments, please read Mormon apologetics.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If the model is so able to predict the real world, why can't it predict what I am going to think next, much less be able to discern my awareness by analyzing my brain activity? Seems like a pretty big problem if you are trying to disprove that God is interacting with people's thoughts. 

Those questions are outside of the model's domain of applicability. That doesn't mean that the model is wrong about how robustly it answers the questions within its domain of applicability. And it doesn't mean that the implications of the model are wrong, either.

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

At best, science can identify some interplay between consciousness and brain activity. But we are still mostly groping in the dark. This is hardly the type of "robust" data needed to disprove supernatural interaction, which is the claim you are so adamantly asserting.

If you understand his argument well enough to dismiss it then more power to you. I try to read the very best books by physicists and neuroscientists on this topic. Do you have any references that support your conclusions here?

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Probably the same difference as saying that the people developing a video game can introduce and adjust the physics of the game in ways that the average player can't. It doesn't mean there are no laws. It just means that there is a big disparity in our ability to understand and manipulate those laws for desired effect.  

By the same reasoning, just because the idea of floating gold has never been observed and contradicts everything we know about gravity doesn't mean that gold isn't floating all of the place except where we are looking.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

But some of the most important observations that Kuhn makes about paradigm debate are these:

"To the extant... that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what is a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent..."

The point is, in this kind of debate, we all get to choose which problems are more significant to have solved. 

I read this quote as Kuhn being descriptive about how things actually work. It appears you read in a normative way--like Kuhn is giving you permission to frame the questions the way you want and to ignore the evidence that you want to ignore. Of course you can think about anything you want to think about and can believe whatever it is you want to believe. But I don't think Kuhn meant to give you permission to do that. 

As an extreme example to illustrate the point, a "scientific school of thought" might think the big question we really ought to be focused on is whether the earth is flat. From this paradigm, the only evidence that should be taken into consideration is what the Bible implies about the shape of the earth (e.g. how could the earth have "four corners" if it wasn't flat? How could there be a firmament "above" the earth if it wasn't flat?) Was Kuhn's point to say that an extreme bible literalist has permission to do this and still be considered a scientist on equal footing with everybody else?

I agree that from a descriptive sense, Mormons think that their guided interpretations of their feelings and Richard Lloyd Anderson's analysis are extremely important evidence regarding Mormonism's truth claims. And I agree that "is Mormonism true" is a BIG question in this paradigm. And I agree that almost all adherents to the faith are completely oblivious to the implications of quantum field theory on their beliefs. But Kuhn isn't giving Mormon scientists who want to know the truth permission to ignore inconvenient evidence because it falls outside of their pre-established paradigm. If somebody really wants to know the truth, sooner or later they need to evaluate multiple paradigms, understand the issues from multiple perspectives, and then choose the one that really is the best fit. 

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Frankly, I am in no hurry to surrender my paradigm to anyone who simply announces that there is no evidence for the supernatural, based on experients and theories that do not bother to predict or explain in any significant detail the kinds of evidence that convinces me personally that there is.  I am willing to give things time on that side since LDS thought is open-ended, offering not a closed "Big Book of What to Think" but a covenant community in process of constantly seeking "further light and knowledge."

The LDS Church does make truth claims, some of which contradict what we know about physics and as it turns out, contradicts them in inextricable ways. You can ignore all of that or put all of that on the shelf. The fact that that is what's happening was one of my original points on this thread.

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

In playground terms, people confronting different paradigms get to say "So what?"  I am not forced to accept the rules, methods, problems, and standards of solution that a critic uses to say "So what?" to the things that I find convincing.  What I can to is ask what testable puzzles are around?  What predictions are made?  How accurate are those solutions?  Given the network of assumptions involved in testing from different perspectives, what happens to the conclusions if one or more of those assumptions is faulty?  How comprehensive and coherent is an explanation?

Of course you get to say "so what?" when I point out from a scientific paradigm, the truth-claims of your religion are not plausible. Of course you get to focus on the questions you want to and ignore the questions you want to. Of course you get to say it's God's prerogative to break the laws of Quantum Field Theory whenever He has a revelation to give. Of course of course of course. 

Having conceded all that, allow me to quote myself from earlier in this thread. Maybe what I said will now make more sense.

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.

It's the same way with the Book of Mormon. The specially arranged showing of the plates to a handful of Joseph Smith's most loyal associates and to nobody else for the express purpose of proving their existence without subjecting them to public viewing or expert examination is evidence that he showed them something. Sure. But given how thoroughly anachronistic the actual text of the Book of Mormon is, any explanation is more likely than it being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript....

Of course you can and undoubtedly do disagree with what I just said. But when people say there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon at all, that is what I think they are intending to imply.

...The actual situation is that the apologists don't present coherent evidence because they don't have a coherent, well-defined comprehensive theory for what the Book of Mormon being "true" actually means. They have little pieces of evidence that they promote while there are entire libraries of contradictory evidence that they ignore and put "on the shelf." 

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And to say, "Carroll has proven that the supernatural does not and cannot exist" may imply that Joseph produced the Book of Mormon "somehow" does not necessarily define a notable set of testable puzzles. Rather, it simply ignores all of the puzzles and tests and answers that we have offered as part of problems we see as "more significant to have solved."  How fruitful is it?  What do can a person experience inside one paradigm that may not even be imagined within another?  Which is simpliest, aesthetically pleasing?  Which has the most future promise?

The theory that within its domain of applicability, Quantum Field Theory is the way the world works has been tested and tested and tested. Several tens of billions of dollars have been spent using particle accelerators in attempts to disprove Quantum Field Theory. They have all failed. Instead, all of this has proved that within its domain of applicability, this is how the world works. Without exception. And one of the implications of Quantum Field Theory is that there are no spirits, no revelation, and no supernatural. I am not making an "appeal to authority" here. I am referring you to Carroll's specific arguments and explanations, which are available and accessible.

Saying all of that must be wrong because the "God did it" hypothesis is the best explanation for the Book of Mormon doesn't seem to be very fruitful, simple, or aesthetically pleasing, much less does it define a set of testable puzzles. 

[Ryan Dahle]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If the model is so able to predict the real world, why can't it predict what I am going to think next, much less be able to discern my awareness by analyzing my brain activity? Seems like a pretty big problem if you are trying to disprove that God is interacting with people's thoughts. 

Those questions are outside of the model's domain of applicability. That doesn't mean that the model is wrong about how robustly it answers the questions within its domain of applicability. And it doesn't mean that the implications of the model are wrong, either.

But I thought we were discussing the model's ability to disprove that God (or other spiritual entities) are somehow influencing our consciousness--the only everyday miracle assumed by Latter-day Saints. How can the model begin to disprove that phenomenon if it is inherently outside of its "domain of applicability"? Is there some reason we should assume that spiritual interaction with our consciousness must be discernable at the quantum level? After all, our thoughts themselves aren't discernable at that level, and yet we all have ample subjective reasons to believe that they exist (despite science's current inability to detect them). 

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Probably the same difference as saying that the people developing a video game can introduce and adjust the physics of the game in ways that the average player can't. It doesn't mean there are no laws. It just means that there is a big disparity in our ability to understand and manipulate those laws for desired effect.  

By the same reasoning, just because the idea of floating gold has never been observed and contradicts everything we know about gravity doesn't mean that gold isn't floating all of the place except where we are looking

False analogy and an irrelevant deflection.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

But I thought we were discussing the model's ability to disprove that God (or other spiritual entities) are somehow influencing our consciousness--the only everyday miracle assumed by Latter-day Saints. How can the model begin to disprove that phenomenon if it is inherently outside of its "domain of applicability"?

Just because we don't know how consciousness emerges from the atoms of our brain doesn't mean there are tenable alternatives to that being what's going on.

Quote

 Is there some reason we should assume that spiritual interaction with our consciousness must be discernable at the quantum level?

If "spiritual interaction" were more subtle than what happens on the quantum level, it wouldn't be strong enough to actually affect the neurons firing in our brain.

Quote

After all, our thoughts themselves aren't discernable at that level, and yet we all have ample subjective reasons to believe that they exist (despite science's current inability to detect them). 

Here is part what Carroll says about this topic:

One of the most impressive properties of the Core Theory of the physics underlying everyday life is its rigidity. We specify a particular physical situation, such as a configuration of atoms and ions in a neuron in your brain, and the theory predicts with magnificent accuracy how that situation will evolve. At the microscopic scale, quantum mechanics implies that individual measurement outcomes are expressed in probabilities rather than certainties, but those probabilities are unambiguously fixed by the theory, and when we aggregate many particles the overall behavior becomes fantastically predictable (at least in principle, to a Laplace’s Demon–level intellect). There are no vague or unspecified pieces waiting to be filled in; the equations predict how matter and energy behave in any given situation, whether it’s the Earth revolving around the sun, or electrochemical impulses cascading through your central nervous system.

This rigidity makes the modern version of Princess Elisabeth’s question enormously more pressing than it had been in the seventeenth century. Whether you are a physicalist who believes that there is nothing to us other than the particles of the Core Theory, or someone who thinks that there is some crucial nonphysical component to a human being, everyone admits that the particles are part of who we are. If you want to say there is something else, you have to explain how that something else interacts with the particles. How, in other words, the Core Theory is incomplete, and has to change.

To address this issue seriously, we wouldn’t necessarily need to have a “Soul Theory” that is as rigorous and well developed as the Core Theory of physics. We would, however, need to be specific and quantitative about how the Core Theory could possibly be changed. There needs to be a way that “soul stuff” interacts with the fields of which we are made—with electrons, or photons, or something. Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge? Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated? Is there “virtual soul stuff” as well as “real soul stuff,” and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles? Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement measurement outcomes? Is the soul a kind of “hidden variable” playing an important role in quantum ontology? If you want to be a dualist and believe in an immaterial soul that plays any role whatsoever in who we are as human beings, these questions are not optional. We’re not rigging the game by demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul itself; we’re simply asking how the soul is supposed to affect the mathematical theory of the quantum fields that we already have.

Put aside for the moment the possibility of an immaterial soul, or other nonphysical effects that could influence our lives here on Earth. Let’s consider the most straightforward construal of our present state of knowledge: the Core Theory underlies everything we witness in our everyday lives, including ourselves. What are the consequences of that picture for our human capacities, as well as for how we think about our place in the cosmos? We’ve already alluded to the most obvious repercussion of the Core Theory: you can’t bend spoons with your mind. Actually you can, but only by the traditional method: sending signals from your brain, down your arms, to your hands, which then pick up the spoon and bend it...

Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (pp. 215-216). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

 

Quote

False analogy and an irrelevant deflection.

No, that analogy is spot on. The difference is that you have a good understanding of the implications of gravity, but don't have a good understanding of the implications of quantum field theory. Both in the case of a spirit interfacing with brain and the case with the gold that floats, you are positing something that contradicts extremely well-specified and highly proven laws of physics but it doesn't reconcile with some religious beliefs.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Analytics

[Analytics]

As I mentioned, the arguments I'm referring to here take several chapters to develop, so it shouldn't be surprising that my brief summaries and quotes seem inadequate. That said, the above reference to Princess Elizabeth refers to Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia who corresponded about the soul with Descartes. She asked Descartes the simple question of how a non-physical soul can push around a physical body. Mormons of course would respond that the soul is actually physical, but simply made out of more "fine and pure" material than normal matter. In theory that's fine, but what makes this "fine and pure" matter capable of manipulating the brain but incapable of being seen by physicists?  

How an immaterial soul might interact with the physical body remains a challenging question for dualists even today, and indeed it has grown enormously more difficult to see how it might be addressed. While Elisabeth pointed out some of the difficulties with the idea, she didn’t offer an incontrovertible argument that souls and bodies cannot interact in any possible way. She simply noted a crucial difficulty with the dualistic worldview: it’s hard to see how something immaterial could affect the motion of something material. Religious believers will sometimes point to an aspect of naturalism that hasn’t yet been fully explicated, such as the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness, and insist that naturalism is therefore defeated; such arguments are rightly derided as “God of the gaps” reasoning, finding evidence for the divine in the gaps in our physical understanding. Likewise, the inability of Descartes and his successors to explain how souls and bodies interact doesn’t undermine dualism once and for all; to pretend otherwise would be indulging in “naturalism of the gaps.”

It does highlight the difficulties that dualism must face. Today, those difficulties are larger than anything Descartes would have imagined. Modern science knows a lot more about the behavior of matter than seventeenth-century science did. 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. How should we modify the Core Theory equation (shown in the Appendix) to allow for the soul to influence the particles in our body? It’s a substantial hurdle to leap.

Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (pp. 212-213). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

As I mentioned, the arguments I'm referring to here take several chapters to develop, so it shouldn't be surprising that my brief summaries and quotes seem inadequate. That said, the above reference to Princess Elizabeth refers to Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia who corresponded about the soul with Descartes. She asked Descartes the simple question of how a non-physical soul can push around a physical body. Mormons of course would respond that the soul is actually physical, but simply made out of more "fine and pure" material than normal matter. In theory that's fine, but what makes this "fine and pure" matter capable of manipulating the brain but incapable of being seen by physicists?  

How an immaterial soul might interact with the physical body remains a challenging question for dualists even today, and indeed it has grown enormously more difficult to see how it might be addressed. While Elisabeth pointed out some of the difficulties with the idea, she didn’t offer an incontrovertible argument that souls and bodies cannot interact in any possible way. She simply noted a crucial difficulty with the dualistic worldview: it’s hard to see how something immaterial could affect the motion of something material. Religious believers will sometimes point to an aspect of naturalism that hasn’t yet been fully explicated, such as the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness, and insist that naturalism is therefore defeated; such arguments are rightly derided as “God of the gaps” reasoning, finding evidence for the divine in the gaps in our physical understanding. Likewise, the inability of Descartes and his successors to explain how souls and bodies interact doesn’t undermine dualism once and for all; to pretend otherwise would be indulging in “naturalism of the gaps.”

It does highlight the difficulties that dualism must face. Today, those difficulties are larger than anything Descartes would have imagined. Modern science knows a lot more about the behavior of matter than seventeenth-century science did. 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. How should we modify the Core Theory equation (shown in the Appendix) to allow for the soul to influence the particles in our body? It’s a substantial hurdle to leap.

Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (pp. 212-213). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

I would ask what we would expect such an action to look like, that we might notice it. What would be the tell that a spiritual force is acting on us? 

Let's look at your response to Ryan's comment about thoughts. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

One of the most impressive properties of the Core Theory of the physics underlying everyday life is its rigidity. We specify a particular physical situation, such as a configuration of atoms and ions in a neuron in your brain, and the theory predicts with magnificent accuracy how that situation will evolve. At the microscopic scale, quantum mechanics implies that individual measurement outcomes are expressed in probabilities rather than certainties, but those probabilities are unambiguously fixed by the theory, and when we aggregate many particles the overall behavior becomes fantastically predictable (at least in principle, to a Laplace’s Demon–level intellect). There are no vague or unspecified pieces waiting to be filled in; the equations predict how matter and energy behave in any given situation, whether it’s the Earth revolving around the sun, or electrochemical impulses cascading through your central nervous system.

This rigidity makes the modern version of Princess Elisabeth’s question enormously more pressing than it had been in the seventeenth century. Whether you are a physicalist who believes that there is nothing to us other than the particles of the Core Theory, or someone who thinks that there is some crucial nonphysical component to a human being, everyone admits that the particles are part of who we are. If you want to say there is something else, you have to explain how that something else interacts with the particles. How, in other words, the Core Theory is incomplete, and has to change.

To address this issue seriously, we wouldn’t necessarily need to have a “Soul Theory” that is as rigorous and well developed as the Core Theory of physics. We would, however, need to be specific and quantitative about how the Core Theory could possibly be changed. There needs to be a way that “soul stuff” interacts with the fields of which we are made—with electrons, or photons, or something. Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge? Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated? Is there “virtual soul stuff” as well as “real soul stuff,” and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles? Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement measurement outcomes? Is the soul a kind of “hidden variable” playing an important role in quantum ontology? If you want to be a dualist and believe in an immaterial soul that plays any role whatsoever in who we are as human beings, these questions are not optional. We’re not rigging the game by demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul itself; we’re simply asking how the soul is supposed to affect the mathematical theory of the quantum fields that we already have.

Put aside for the moment the possibility of an immaterial soul, or other nonphysical effects that could influence our lives here on Earth. Let’s consider the most straightforward construal of our present state of knowledge: the Core Theory underlies everything we witness in our everyday lives, including ourselves. What are the consequences of that picture for our human capacities, as well as for how we think about our place in the cosmos? We’ve already alluded to the most obvious repercussion of the Core Theory: you can’t bend spoons with your mind. Actually you can, but only by the traditional method: sending signals from your brain, down your arms, to your hands, which then pick up the spoon and bend it...

This doesn't get at Ryan's objection. Carroll presents a well-formulated case for determinism but that doesn't address Ryan's point: that we can't identify thoughts (or mental states generally) by looking at such a level. I'll let Ryan run with that point but I'll take up my own here. We cannot identify thought without relying on subjective reports. How would we be able to identify choice? 

Yet the identification of choice is critical to identifying its causes because, again, you cannot identify causes without identifying the phenomenon being caused...which is the critical point against complete physics. It would seem that the only way you could determine whether or not a spiritual influence is involved is to take your current state (in both quantum and classical terms) as it is and demonstrate the ability to predict your following states or actions. It is unlikely that we can ever be able to do this, which means that unpredictable determination -> unfalsifiable determination. Not a disproof, certainly, but it dramatically weakens the argument's ability to compel me to give up on other things which I have observed, ie free will, evidence of substance dualism, and the Spirit. 

Also, the validity of Carroll's discussion assumes the correctness of one particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are other interpretations which do not imply determinism. Since Carroll is making an exclusionary claim, his interpretation needs to be decisively true. Let everyone decide for themselves whether or not that is the case.  

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Put aside for the moment the possibility of an immaterial soul, or other nonphysical effects that could influence our lives here on Earth. Let’s consider the most straightforward construal of our present state of knowledge: the Core Theory underlies everything we witness in our everyday lives, including ourselves. What are the consequences of that picture for our human capacities, as well as for how we think about our place in the cosmos?

I want to follow up on this further. Believe it or not, I actually do read from Carroll's blog every now and then, though I haven't bought any books of his. Thus I'd say that, though I'm perhaps not an expert on Carroll's thought on the same level as yourself, I'm not entirely an unwashed barbarian either. 

If Carroll's blog posts are any indication, a central theme of his thought is captured by the excerpt above that I snipped from your quote. It's similar to Graham Oppy's "Best Argument Against God" in that it is based entirely on the perceived simplicity and parsimony of a naturalistic theory compared to a theistic one. Several critiques of this mode of thought are available but I'd focus on the obvious: this mode of argument can be disarmed if certain observations which complicate the theory are viewed as resistant to whatever the counter-explanations would be. Cue @Kevin Christensen and his discussion about paradigms. You have depicted his arguments as merely ways to dismiss whatever evidence is inconvenient, but frankly, he's right that evaluation of a paradigm depends on which problems are more important to solve. Take for an example the universal intuition about free will. Both Carroll and Gazzaniga (for those that don't want to buy Who's In Charge, you can look up his 2009 Gifford Lectures which are the basis for the book) go to lengths to try and make space for our intuitive understanding of free will as a representation, the "poetry" in poetic naturalism, if not a true depiction of reality. Why? Because we can't get on without it. That's Christof Koch's argument for the existence of free will: science recognizes the reality  (or at least approximate reality) of things which are necessary to explain the world, and free will is a necessity in every social science.  Furthermore, per phenomenal conservatism I have an exceptionally good prima facie reason to believe that free will is real, pace Carroll. If I observe things which are contrary to his extrapolations of the consequences of Core Theory, can his interpretation of Core Theory really be said to underlie everything I witness? Which is more important? Maintaining free will, which accords with my direct observations and every form of explaining life with my fellow beings? Or do I prioritize having a theory that is consistent with certain prominent interpretations of physics, damn the torpedoes? Does it make a difference that there are other interpretations of the data which do not require so extreme a conclusion? Weighty questions, and they aren't ones that can just be determined by a magisterial handwave towards the data. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Analytics]

52 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I would ask what we would expect such an action to look like, that we might notice it. What would be the tell that a spiritual force is acting on us? 

That is a question for people who believe spiritual forces are real. How do they propose that "fine and pure" matter than can only be discerned with "spiritual eyes" is capable of pushing around a physical body?

52 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Let's look at your response to Ryan's comment about thoughts. 

This doesn't get at Ryan's objection. Carroll presents a well-formulated case for determinism but that doesn't address Ryan's point: that we can't identify thoughts (or mental states generally) by looking at such a level. I'll let Ryan run with that point but I'll take up my own here. We cannot identify thought without relying on subjective reports. How would we be able to identify choice? 

Yet the identification of choice is critical to identifying its causes because, again, you cannot identify causes without identifying the phenomenon being caused...which is the critical point against complete physics. It would seem that the only way you could determine whether or not a spiritual influence is involved is to take your current state (in both quantum and classical terms) as it is and demonstrate the ability to predict your following states or actions. It is unlikely that we can ever be able to do this, which means that unpredictable determination -> unfalsifiable determination. Not a disproof, certainly, but it dramatically weakens the argument's ability to compel me to give up on other things which I have observed, ie free will, evidence of substance dualism, and the Spirit. 

This view of the issue gets around Carroll's argument by ignoring it--or more accurately of being ignorant of its actual basis.

Carroll's argument takes multiple chapters to flesh out. If anybody is interested in understanding his arguments before declaring that you know more about the implications of quantum mechanics than he does, please read his book. But as a flavor, consider the following quote. He says:

Let’s accept the idea that quantum field theory works in the everyday regime, and ask why there couldn’t be undiscovered particles that are relevant to the everyday world.

First, we need to establish that there can’t be real, tangible particles buzzing around and bumping into us, somehow affecting the behavior of the particles we know about. Then we’ll have to assure ourselves that there aren’t any virtual particles or new interactions that could likewise affect the particles we see. In quantum field theory, virtual particles are ones that quickly flick in and out of existence as quantum fluctuations, affecting what regular particles do without ever being observed themselves. We’ll look at this second issue in the next chapter, and for the moment focus on the possibility of real particles.

The reason why we know there are no new fields or particles that play an important role in the physics underlying our everyday lives is a crucial property of quantum field theory known as crossing symmetry. This amazing feature helps us be sure that certain kinds of particles do not exist; otherwise we would have found them already. Crossing symmetry basically says that if one field can interact with another one (for example, by scattering off of it), then the second field can create particles of the first one under the right conditions. It can be thought of as the quantum-field-theory analogue of the principle that every action implies a reaction.

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.

Interactions between particles in quantum field theory can be visualized by the lovely mechanism of Feynman diagrams. Think of an X particle bouncing off of an electron by the exchange of some other new particle, Y. From left to right in the diagram, an X and an electron came in, exchanged a Y particle, then went off on their own ways.

The diagram [see book for a picture] isn’t just a picture of what can happen; it’s associated with a number, which tells us how strong the interaction is—in this case, how likely an X is to scatter off an electron. Crossing symmetry says that for every such process, there is another process of the same strength, obtained by rotating the diagram by ninety degrees, and switching any lines that changed directions from particle to antiparticles. One result of crossing symmetry is shown in the next figure.

In field theory, every particle has an antiparticle with the opposite electric charge. The antiparticle of an electron is a particle called the positron, which is positively charged. Crossing symmetry says that the first process, scattering of an X off an electron, implies the existence of a related process in which an electron and positron annihilate to create one of our X particles as well as its antiparticle.

Here is the payoff. We have smashed electrons and positrons together, often and with great care. From 1989 to 2000, a particle accelerator called the Large Electron-Positron Collider (predecessor of today’s Large Hadron Collider) operated underground outside Geneva. Within its experiments, electrons and positrons collided at enormous energies, and physicists kept extremely careful track of everything that came out. They were hoping with all their hearts to find new particles; discovering new particles, especially unexpected ones, is what keeps particle physics exciting. But they didn’t see any. Just the known particles of the Core Theory, produced in great numbers. 

The same has been done for protons smashing into antiprotons, and various other combinations. The verdict is unambiguous: we’ve found all of the particles that our best current technology enables us to find. Crossing symmetry assures us that, if there were any particles lurking around us that interact with ordinary matter strongly enough to make a difference to the behavior of everyday stuff, those particles should have easily been produced in experiments. But there’s nothing there.

There are probably more particles yet to be found. They just won’t be relevant to our everyday world. The fact that we haven’t yet found such particles tells us a great deal about what properties they must have; that’s the power of quantum field theory. Any particle that we haven’t yet detected must have one of the following features:

1. It could be so very weakly interacting with ordinary matter that it is almost never produced; or—
2. It could be extremely massive, so that it takes collisions at energies even higher than what our best accelerators can achieve in order to make it; or—
3. It could be extremely short-lived, so that it gets made but then almost immediately decays away into other particles.

If any particle we haven’t yet found lasted long enough and interacted with ordinary matter with sufficient strength that it could possibly affect the physics of everyday goings-on, we would have produced it in experiments by now. 

One as-yet-undiscovered particle we believe exists is dark matter. Astronomers, studying the motions of stars and galaxies as well as the large-scale structure of the universe, have become convinced that most matter is “dark”—some kind of new particle that is not part of the Core Theory. The dark-matter particle must be quite long-lived, or it would have decayed away long ago. But it cannot interact strongly with ordinary matter, or it would have already been found in one of the many dark-matter detection experiments that physicists are currently running. Whatever the dark matter is, it certainly plays no role in determining the weather here on Earth, or anything having to do with biology, consciousness, or human life.

Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (pp. 180-183). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

 

52 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Also, the validity of Carroll's discussion assumes the correctness of one particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are other interpretations which do not imply determinism. Since Carroll is making an exclusionary claim, his interpretation needs to be decisively true. Let everyone decide for themselves whether or not that is the case.  

That is simply false. His analysis has absolutely nothing to do with any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. His argument is based on the rigorousness of the theory and the experimental evidence that supports it. It has nothing to do with how the theory is interpreted.