SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 26 minutes ago, CV75 said: Is that how the Monty Hall Problem is presented? That would certainly eliminate the odds of door 2 being the one to hide the car. I haven't watched the game that closely, but the statistics of his behavior would interesting. In the typical presentation it’s ignored: (from wiki) ”Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?”
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 My favourite take on the Monty Hall problem: 'The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman'.
smac97 Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Analytics said: It's an important principle. Sure. But stating it is also a way to avoid debating the actual issues. I'm happy to debate "the actual issues." Empirically disproving the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. just hasn't happened. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Another important principle that is applicable to my point is that: reasonable people can believe things that are not supported by well-reasoned arguments. Sure. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Saying a person is either reasonable or stupid/evil/dishonest is not only a false dichotomy, it is also a red herring. Unless the implication has been made, as you seem to have done here. You are in the pursuit of truth, and the rest of us are not. Right. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote See, the really important things are, in the end, untestable. I disagree. I know that. But quoting a theory posited by Carroll that "provisionally" "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. doesn't do much. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote You have previously asserted that "science" (specifically, "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla") has disproved the existence of "spirits and revelation." I found that assertion absurd on its face, and an abuse of "science," and an abject example of scientism. I am perfectly fine with you not believing in these things, though. Not because "science" has done what you say, but because I think a reasonably intelligent person living in 2021 can arrive at that conclusion. Such a person can reach such a conclusion because, well, reasonable minds can disagree about such things. The data are inconclusive. This is an excellent example of the issue and a case study worth exploring in detail. Okay. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: But to be sure I understand where you are coming from, are you accusing me of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the argument that Sean Carroll has articulated, or are you accusing him of being guilty of the sin of scientism and not understanding the physics well enough to know that the data are inconclusive? I am suggesting that you are significantly overstating the competencies and capacity of "science" to empirically disprove the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. I am suggesting that you are overstating what Carroll has said. I am suggesting that Carroll's assessment of these things is not a sufficient basis for your overconfident statements about what "science" and "rationality" have proved or can prove. I am suggesting that you are in the thrall of scientism. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: In either case, claiming the data are inconclusive and "reasonable minds can disagree" is an example of not defending your position. Well, no. My position is that the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. is not empirically testable. That these things cannot be definitively proven or disproven. You keep citing Carroll's theory which "provisionally" (as Carroll elsewhere put it) "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of spirits. More particularly, you said that Caroll's theory is "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla" and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." "Proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." "Proves." "Proves." This, you confidently declare, is "science." Oh. When I previously said that "science, in its present form, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the existence of spirits," you responded with "Do you know how silly that sounds?" That sounds like "an example of not defending your position." 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Whether God exists is a different question that whether there are spirits and revelation. Huh. You previously said: Quote The state of the world is that one of the following two things must be true: Effective quantum field theory is fundamentally wrong, despite all of the evidence indicating the opposite within the energy levels, time intervals, and distances in space that are applicable. Spirits, revelation, etc. really don't exist. ... That is the reality of where we are with science--the laws of physics really do rule out spirits, revelation, and such. I would've thought your "etc." and your "and such" references would encompass the existence of God. Are you now stating that "science" has, using "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science" that is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," "proven" (your word) that "spirits and revelation don't exist," but that the question of the existence of God is still open? Oh. Funny how you have definitively indisputably unraveled the mysteries of the universe while the rest of us weren't looking. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: If you understood the science Carroll teaches on the subject, you wouldn't conflate these issues. I didn't. I was following your lead. You: "Spirits, revelation, etc. really don't exist." Also you: "{T}he laws of physics really do rule out spirits, revelation, and such." If you weren't including God in the ambit of what "the laws of physics really do rule out," then . . . okay. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: This doesn't mean you are stupid, evil, or dishonest. When you contrast your motives ("I want to get to the truth of the matter") while stating that others who disagree with you have - as you put it - "different goals" (than "get{ting} to the truth of the matter"), that sure comes across as a implicit claim about the latter being stupid, dishonest, ignorant, etc. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: It just means you haven't seriously considered the argument defending a position you find to be absurd. What argument? About Carroll? The one that we discussed extensively in March? See your post here and its subsequent follow-ups? The one where I addressed your use of Carroll's theory extensively? Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here? Candidly, no, I have not seriously considered your argument. I have found your characterization of Carroll way off the mark. Exaggerated. Steeped in overenthusiastic neophyte scientism and presentism. You have repeatedly and emphatically declared that "science" has empirically disproven the existence of spirits, revelation, "and such" (which I previously took to include the existence of God, but I'm open to correction on that point). I find the claim facially unserious and absurd, an assessment that becomes only further entrenched when you (perhaps accidentally) admit to gargantuan-but-plainly-unproven-and-unstated premises like "If such things {spirits, revelation, 'and such'} did exist, they would have manifest themselves in specific experiments that have been exhaustively performed." To quote a guy: "Do you know how silly that sounds?" When you characterize Carroll's theory as "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist," and when it turns out that this theory "provisionally" (as Carroll elsewhere put it) "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of spirits, yeah, it's hard to take your further pronouncements about such things seriously. I'm open to the possibility that you are right and I am wrong. It seems you will not or cannot reciprocate the sentiment. And I think that is borne of an infatuation with scientism and positivism. Again: Nobody is "ignor{ing} scientific arguments." We are all fine with science within its sphere and element. But science, in its present form, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the existence of spirits. You feel otherwise. You think science has disproven the existence of spirits, revelation "and such." I just don't think that has happened. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 7, 2021 by smac97 2
mfbukowski Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, webbles said: According to quantum theory, things around us are actually in a quantum wave that "collapse" at some point to become the things we interact with. The famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is based on that: The cat is both dead and alive because (through a geiger counter) quantum particle can trigger or not trigger the death of the cat. It isn't until the wave collapses, that we know whether the cat is dead or alive. The problem, though, is what triggers the collapse of the wave. There are a LOT of theories (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics for a subset of them), but one of the theories is called "Consciousness causes collapse" (or Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation). That theory can be summarized as: So, according to that theory, our thoughts and feelings literally cause the collapse of the wave functions. And since the universe is basically made up of wave functions, then yes, they "literally set the rules for how the universe works" Now, you might disagree with that theory but it currently can't be proven/disproven anymore than the other theories. And some physicists/mathematicians/philosophers accept it. I think it needs to be stated a little differently for clarity- though you are technically right. We are limited to our PERCEPTIONS of these CONSTRUCTS we CALL "wave functions etc." Where these PERCEPTIONS/ APPEARANCES exist is in our consciousness - not out there "in the world" necessarily. We have developed the best PARADIGM and we CALL these observations "wave functions"- IN THE PARADIGM. These "wave functions" are products of HUMAN APPEARANCES to CAUSES WE DEFINE. There IS a "cause" of the appearances but we cannot help to see it as HUMANS see it- not necessarily "AS IT IS" So let's take the original sentence: The PARADIGM is made of words/ math/ logic CONSTRUCTED by humans = without humans THERE COULD BE NO PARADIGM/THEORY. The universe would go on without us- but the letters that say "wave function" would have never existed- that THOUGHT only exists because science has created the THEORY/PARADIGM to fit what our MINDS tell us about the APPEARANCES we EXPERIENCE. The way we OBSERVE phenomea rules everything!! So yes in a literal way, without humans there would be no phenomena we CALL "wave functions". THEREFORE Let's take the origninal sentence: Quote So, according to that theory, our thoughts and feelings literally cause the collapse of the wave functions. And since the universe is basically made up of wave functions, then yes, they "literally set the rules for how the universe works" Another way of saying it would be: ""So, according to that theory, our thoughts and feelings literally cause US TO OBSERVE the collapse of the wave functions. And since the universe is basically made up of OUR PERCEPTIONS OF wave functions, then yes, they "literally set the rules for how the universe works" " Results in errors of the measuring of particles and waves etc can also distort and add uncertainty to the results. This is PRECISELY what Rorty is saying in my siggy, which I have been over 97.3 million times (kidding) on this board: " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations." See also "The Observer Effect" https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983 And so also, there would be no "death" before the fall until the word was invented. Edited December 7, 2021 by mfbukowski
Olmec Donald Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: One of my favorites. It makes no intuitive sense but is absolutely correct. Intuition is not your friend in this case; pessimism is. Let's look through pessimistic eyes: There's a 2/3 chance that your first guess is WRONG. Even after Monty Hall has eliminated one of the unpicked doors, there's STILL a 2/3 chance that your first guess is WRONG. Therefore, there's a 2/3 chance that the car is behind the remaining unpicked door.
mfbukowski Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 (edited) Remember also that science is about evidence that multiple people can "verify" Therefore private subjective feelings, like what gives MY life meaning CANNOT by definition be called "empirical evidence" On the other hand- billions of people throughout history have had their own "evidence" of the exstence of God. Does that qualify as empirical evidence? It is interesting to think about that- at least I find it so. Wikipedia: Quote Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law. There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined. Often different fields work with quite different conceptions. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what determines whether holding a certain belief is rational. This is only possible if the evidence is possessed by the person, which has prompted various epistemologists to conceive evidence as private mental states like experiences or other beliefs. In philosophy of science, on the other hand, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories. For this role, it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states, so that evidence may foster scientific consensus. So science rules out private mental states by definition, regardless of whether or not an individual has had SENSE EXPERIENCE of God's existence. It is simply RULED OUT, so by definition there can be nothing called "purpose" or "religion" which can be verified by science! Science by definition cannot disprove the existence of God. Edited December 7, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It is simply RULED OUT, so by definition there can be nothing called "purpose" or "religion" which can be verified by science! It is essentially arguing that, because temperature cannot be measured with a ruler, heat isn't real ... and then claiming that anyone who questions this conclusion isn't rational enough to believe in or defend length. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 47 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: It is essentially arguing that, because temperature cannot be measured with a ruler, heat isn't real ... and then claiming that anyone who questions this conclusion isn't rational enough to believe in or defend length. Excellent analogies Again, William James' Radical Empiricism solves that problem by including private experience. All relevant experiences are fair game for study, no aspects of human experience are immune from investigation.
Analytics Posted December 7, 2021 Author Posted December 7, 2021 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I'm happy to debate "the actual issues." Unless the issue is Sean Carroll's arguments. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I am suggesting that you are overstating what Carroll has said. Carroll's actual words were: "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." Those are his exact words. How have I overstated them? How could I? In an article published by Scientific American, he said: "Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there's no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter? "Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren't any sensible answers to these questions. Of course, everything we know about quantum field theory could be wrong. Also, the Moon could be made of green cheese." Those are Carroll's words. Not mine. In these conversations, I'm endeavoring to do nothing more nor less than relay Carroll's message with the same level of certainty that he has. There could be spirits in the same way the Moon could be made of green cheese. If I've inadvertently overstated what science (according to Dr. Carroll) says, I apologize and scale it back to the level of certainty expressed by Carroll in the quotes above. And if I've been duped and am listening to somebody who doesn't know anything about science, could you provide a well-reasoned rebuttal of his arguments so I have a chance of disabusing myself? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Well, no. My position is that the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. is not empirically testable. That these things cannot be definitively proven or disproven. That seems like an admission that God, spirits, revelation, etc. are not real or at the very least are hidden and do not interact with observable reality. In principle, the existence of real things that interact with observable reality can be scientifically observed, measured, and described. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I would've thought your "etc." and your "and such" references would encompass the existence of God. I can tell you haven't read The Big Picture. "And such" refers to ESP, bending spoons with your mind, priesthood blessings, etc. The existence of "God" isn't even a well-defined question, and whether or not "God" is a part of everyday life isn't something theists agree upon. We know what it means to bend a spoon with your mind, and we know enough about physics to positively say it is impossible. We know what it means to say "his spirit left his body and he hovered above the room and as a disembodied ghost thought about his life." And we know enough about physics to say that is impossible. In contrast, what is "God"? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Are you now stating that "science" has, using "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science" that is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," "proven" (your word) that "spirits and revelation don't exist," but that the question of the existence of God is still open? It would be more accurate to say the question of the existence of God hasn't been raised in a coherent way. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Funny how you have definitively indisputably unraveled the mysteries of the universe while the rest of us weren't looking. Actually, all I did was read a book about science by a preeminent physicist. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Candidly, no, I have not seriously considered your argument. I have found your characterization of Carroll way off the mark. Exaggerated. Steeped in overenthusiastic neophyte scientism and presentism. If you haven't read Carroll, how do you know that my characterization of his arguments are way off the mark? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: You have repeatedly and emphatically declared that "science" has empirically disproven the existence of spirits, revelation, "and such" (which I previously took to include the existence of God, but I'm open to correction on that point). I find the claim facially unserious and absurd, an assessment that becomes only further entrenched when you (perhaps accidentally) admit to gargantuan-but-plainly-unproven-and-unstated premises like "If such things {spirits, revelation, 'and such'} did exist, they would have manifest themselves in specific experiments that have been exhaustively performed." To quote a guy: "Do you know how silly that sounds?" When you characterize Carroll's theory as "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist," and when it turns out that this theory "provisionally" (as Carroll elsewhere put it) "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of spirits, yeah, it's hard to take your further pronouncements about such things seriously. I'm open to the possibility that you are right and I am wrong. It seems you will not or cannot reciprocate the sentiment. And I think that is borne of an infatuation with scientism and positivism. Again: Nobody is "ignor{ing} scientific arguments." I didn't characterize any theory of Dr. Carroll as "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science." Rather, I relayed what Dr. Carroll says about quantum field theory--the theory that allows us to confidently know spirits don't exist. In Carroll's own words: 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. Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Note that when he says Quantum field theory is powerfully restrictive, he's saying that spirits, life after death, and bending spoons with your mind are among the "many things that simply cannot happen." According to him, these are the positive results of science. Quote Sean Carroll's Scientific American article, with my emphasis added: Quote Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of "spirit particles" and "spirit forces" that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham's razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know. But let's say you do that. How is the spirit energy supposed to interact with us? Here is the equation that tells us how electrons behave in the everyday world: Don't worry about the details; it's the fact that the equation exists that matters, not its particular form. It's the Dirac equation -- the two terms on the left are roughly the velocity of the electron and its inertia -- coupled to electromagnetism and gravity, the two terms on the right. As far as every experiment ever done is concerned, this equation is the correct description of how electrons behave at everyday energies. It's not a complete description; we haven't included the weak nuclear force, or couplings to hypothetical particles like the Higgs boson. But that's okay, since those are only important at high energies and/or short distances, very far from the regime of relevance to the human brain. If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn't exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren't any soul at all, and then what's the point?) So any respectable scientist who took this idea seriously would be asking -- what form does that interaction take? Is it local in spacetime? Does the soul respect gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance? Does the soul have a Hamiltonian? Do the interactions preserve unitarity and conservation of information? Nobody ever asks these questions out loud, possibly because of how silly they sound. Once you start asking them, the choice you are faced with becomes clear: either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death. It's not a difficult decision, as scientific theory-choice goes." Those are Sean Carroll's words. You think I'm guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanors of scientism. All I've tried to do is understand Carroll's arguments. I think its ironic that you say "nobody is ignoring scientific arguments," while Carroll is saying "nobody ever asks these questions out loud." It would appear everybody who believes in souls is ignoring science because if they paid attention, the choice they are faced with would become clear: " either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death." So where are the "respectable scientists who take these ideas seriously" and are looking for a way to modify the formulas of quantum field theory so that spirit forces and spirit particles can interface with our brains? Or if Carroll is speaking out of line, where are the respectable scientists that explain how? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: We are all fine with science within its sphere and element. The sphere and element of science is observable reality. If you say "God" isn't within the sphere of observable reality then fine, science has nothing to say about God. But the functioning of the human brain is within the sphere of observable reality. You can't say that you are "fine with science" while simultaneously having religious faith that "everything we think we have learned about modern physics" is wrong, which is what needs to happen for there to be life after death. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: But science, in its present form, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the existence of spirits. Just to be clear on how you are using the word "prove" here, do you agree with Dr. Carroll that science can't prove the moon is NOT made of green cheese? Here is a video of Sean Carroll making these same exact points in a conference at Oxford. Where are the respectable physicists who are disabusing the public of what he's saying? It seems really important for you to believe you are on the side of science and I'm just a zealous scientismist. But if I wanted to learn about real science so I understood the details of how spirits and the Dirac equation are compatible, where should I turn? Finally, I'm fine if Dr. Carroll proves to be wrong about all of this. Having a chuckle with him about it all at a pub in the Telestial kingdom would be the highlight of my existence. I'm also fine if you don't really care about science and choose to have religious faith. And I'm also fine if you choose to compartmentalize your thinking. There are more important issues in life than whether you've figured out a way to reconcile your belief in spirits with the positive results of quantum field theory. But please. Don't be so overconfident that you know what science has and has not proven until you have at least taken a couple of hours to read what the physicists think about it. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: No aspects of human experience are immune from investigation. Or sharing. As a PhD student, I was repeatedly struck by how familiar our seminars were. They were basically testimony meetings, with one researcher sharing her/his research findings, and everyone chipping in at the end with his/her own. 2
webbles Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 38 minutes ago, Analytics said: "Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there's no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter? "Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren't any sensible answers to these questions. Of course, everything we know about quantum field theory could be wrong. Also, the Moon could be made of green cheese." "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood" is vastly overstating what is known. We have two main theories: Quantum mechanics covers extremely small scale things and General relativity covers extremely large scale things. If you notice, neither of them cover every day things. In some situations, it is better to use general relativity to explain every day things. In other situations, quantum mechanics would be used. But you rarely can work with both in the same situation. There's been a LOT of work to resolve this issue, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything. In our everyday life, we are affected by both quantum mechanics and general relativity. But we don't understand how they truly interact with each other. We aren't sure how gravity affects quantum particles. One of the main ideas is that gravity has a correlated particle (called the "graviton") similar to how we have quarks, bosons, electrons, etc. But we haven't yet observed the "graviton", mainly because it requires more energy than any of the existing particle accelerators. There's also "string theory", "m-theory", "loop-quantum theory", etc. Also, what if there was another force that was even weaker than gravity and we haven't yet been able to measure it. It wouldn't be visible in particle accelerators for the same reason the graviton isn't. What if the "Light of Christ" is a name for this other force? It is something that is weaker than gravity but still can affect us. Quote there's no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die We've never put a living brain in a particle accelerator. There could actually be unknown particles in a living brain that aren't in samples of metal. These particles could easily be comprised of the elementary particles (fermions and bosons). In 2021, we just discovered 4 more tetraquarks. It could even be full on elements that exist in a "island of stability" which we haven't yet discovered. 2
rodheadlee Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 I know one thing. There is a lot of irrationality southbound on I-15 around 7AM. 2
OGHoosier Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 51 minutes ago, webbles said: We've never put a living brain in a particle accelerator. There could actually be unknown particles in a living brain that aren't in samples of metal. These particles could easily be comprised of the elementary particles (fermions and bosons). In 2021, we just discovered 4 more tetraquarks. It could even be full on elements that exist in a "island of stability" which we haven't yet discovered. THANK YOU. I tried to make this point but perhaps less directly. We've only been told to expect spirit matter to be associated with living, organic beings. My point was not well received. 1
webbles Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 I came across a paper written by Sean Carroll in January of this year. You can read it at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf. One interesting thing is that he is using the "Core Theory", not the "Standard Model". The "Core Theory" was formulated by Frank Wilczek and it is joining of the quantum equation for the Standard Model with the Einstein-Hilbert action at smaller distances (10s of meters). He then proposes that the Core Theory encompasses everything in everyday life. One problem with that is we currently don't know how quantum physics translate into classic physics. So that equation may or may not be accurate for everyday life because we use classic physics, not quantum physics. He also gives three possible ways that new particles and forces could be found outside of the Core Theory (page 12): Quote A new field could show up as virtual particles mediating a new kind of interaction between the known fields. However, this would essentially modify the low-energy effective action of the Core Theory. This would have no observable effects unless the results deviated significantly from our effective-field-theory expectations, and as we have noted there are good constraints on any such possibility. So we will not consider this alternative in detail. A field could give rise to new long-lived particles that played a distinct dynamical role in macroscopic phenomena, much like electrons, protons, and neutrons do. Such a particle could be ambient in the universe, much like dark matter but possibly with a lower overall energy density. Perhaps a particle of this form participates in the neurochemical processes of conscious creatures (Pullman, 2000). A weakly-interacting bosonic field could condense to give a classical force field, what physicists think of as a “fifth force.” Such a force could conceivably induce interactions between neurons, or even between different brains, as two vivid examples. For the second item, he talks about how we can prove there aren't any more elementary particles that would affect our everyday life. And I agree with that. But we can't prove that there aren't any more particles composed of those elementary particles. He lists "electrons, protons, and neutrons". The electrons and neutrons are elementary particles but the proton isn't. Protons are comprised of 3 quarks. As I mentioned earlier, we are still discovering particles of this nature (such as tetraquarks and pentaquarks). For the third item, he says it would have be weaker than gravity and since gravity is already so weak, this new field would not affect us. I think that is a fault in his logic. For spiritual people, they generally describe the spiritual interaction as extremely weak (still small voice). This force is even weaker than gravity yet apparently is observable by them. Later he also lists some possible loopholes in his argument (page 17-18): Quote Violations of locality. In the context of an EFT, locality of interactions implies that the electromagnetic or gravitational fields (or unknown fifth-force fields) produced by an object are simply the net fields produced by each of the constituent particles individually. Outside the EFT paradigm, we could imagine forces that depend non-locally on sources, so that whether or not a force is produced would depend on the specific arrangement of particles within it. Such a force might not be produced by a collection of electrons, protons, and neutrons in the form of a cantaloupe, for example, but be produced by the same particles when they are in the form of a human brain. To the best of my knowledge, this possibility has not been investigated carefully (and to be honest, there is not a lot of motivation for it). Quantum wave function collapse. In conventional quantum mechanics, the probability of a measurement outcome is given by the absolute-value squared of the corresponding amplitude of the wave function (the Born Rule). Other than that, the process is thought to be entirely random, with no structure other than that statistical rule. But perhaps it is not, and quantum systems evolve in subtle and specific ways to bring about particular outcomes. This scenario has been studied, typically in the context of trying to attain a better understanding of consciousness. Departures from physicalism. Everything we have said presumes from the start that the world is ultimately physical, consisting of some kind of physical stuff obeying physical laws. There is a long tradition of presuming otherwise, and if so, all bets are off. The well-known issue is then how non-physical substances or properties could interact with the physical stuff. He then says the following about the loopholes (page 18): Quote The reasons for denying the claim advanced in this paper, and going for one of the above loopholes instead, generally arise from a concern that the physical dynamics of the Core Theory cannot suffice to account for higher-level phenomena, whether the phenomenon in question is life after death or the experience of qualia. Our considerations do not amount to an airtight proof (which would be essentially impossible), but they do highlight the challenge faced by those who think something beyond the Core Theory is required. The dynamics summarized in equation (7) are well-defined, quantitative, and unyielding, not to mention experimentally tested to exquisite precision in a wide variety of contexts. Given a quantum state of the relevant fields, it accurately predicts how that state will evolve. Skeptics of the claim defended here have the burden of specifying precisely how that equation is to be modified. This would necessarily raise a host of tricky issues, such as conservation of energy and unitary evolution of the wave function. A simpler – though still extremely challenging – alternative is to work to understand how those dynamics give rise to the emergent levels of reality in our macroscopic world. 2
mfbukowski Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Or sharing. As a PhD student, I was repeatedly struck by how familiar our seminars were. They were basically testimony meetings, with one researcher sharing her/his research findings, and everyone chipping in at the end with his/her own. Yes! Testimony/Fast Sunday Meeting becomes our peer review and scientific consensus/journal publication. 2
smac97 Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Unless the issue is Sean Carroll's arguments. I've addressed what you've posted about them. A lot. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Carroll's actual words were: "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." Those are his exact words. How have I overstated them? How could I? Easily. You've done it a lot, as I have noted in my previous posts. (Example: Your use of "proved" seems deeply problematic.) See also these further remarks by . . . Sean Carroll: Quote Perhaps, in a short answer, what does it mean ‘The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known.’ This is an important fact about modern physics that we don’t actually advertise as much as we should but every word in that sentence: ‘The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known’ every word matters in that and a lot of people again like to disagree with that sentence by ignoring some of the words. So the word underlying is very, very important. It’s obvious that we don’t understand the laws of physics in large macroscopic configurations of stuff. We don’t know the laws of physics that apply to superconductors for example, high temperature super conductivity, much less higher level things like chemistry or biology or economics. But all of these things: super conductors, chemistry, biology economics, they’re all made of atoms and particles. And so the claim is that we know what the force is and the matter particles are that make up human beings and super conductors and so forth. And we know the laws that govern them and that’s a crucially important, huge fact about life. It does not say that we understand everything about physics. It does not say that physics is almost over. It’s not one of these famously embarrassingly wrong statements that in a few years we will have everything figured out. I have no idea when or if we’ll have everything figured out but the things we have figured out are a large enough domain to include everything happening in your and my bodies and in the rooms we’re sitting in right now. Hmm. All sorts of qualifying language in there. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: In an article published by Scientific American, he said: "Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there's no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter? "Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren't any sensible answers to these questions. Of course, everything we know about quantum field theory could be wrong. Also, the Moon could be made of green cheese." Those are Carroll's words. Not mine. In these conversations, I'm endeavoring to do nothing more nor less than relay Carroll's message with the same level of certainty that he has. These are also Carroll's words: Quote However, whatever a particular belief in the afterlife might be, some scientists are not convinced there is any strong evidence to support the claim of life after death. According to theoretical physicist Sean Carroll, a professor at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the afterlife sounds plausible but unlikely. Appearing on Coast to Coast AM radio, the physicist said: “All these ideas, whether it’s the existence of a deity, the existence of an afterlife, these are perfectly plausible ideas that could be true. “I think based on how modern science has progressed that the likelihood that they’re true is very, very, very small. “But of course, we’re always collecting new data, we’re always trying to do better, and I could be wrong.” Speaking to host George Noory, the physicist argued questions about the afterlife and higher powers are important ones to discuss. But Dr Carroll also said humans are fallible and prone to being wrong, in particular, when discussing Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) and other paranormal phenomena. "I could be wrong." "Humans are fallible and prone to being wrong." Carroll is, at times, more circumspect than you are. And these: Quote Carroll calls his synthesis poetic naturalism. “Naturalism” is the view that the only world is the natural one, which follows unbroken patterns — ultimately the laws of physics — and which we can learn about through the scientific process of hypothesis-testing and observation. There is no supernatural world, no gods nor spirits nor transcendent meanings. By calling his approach “poetic”, Carroll emphasises that there are many ways of talking and telling stories about this one godless world. Its underlying laws are deterministic and impersonal but, at the human level, we can still talk about goals and morals and free will. In effect, poetic naturalism turns hard and negative atheism — the absence of god — into something softer and more positive. Carroll is not an aggressive basher of religion. Like Richard Dawkins, his background was mildly Christian (Anglican/Episcopalian) but unlike Dawkins he recalls boyhood churchgoing with affection. A considerable portion of The Big Picture is devoted to refuting the possibility of any supernatural influence on the universe but Carroll uses gentle intellectual persuasion — and avoids Dawkinsian charges that religion is a dangerous force for harm. The book’s most striking claim is that “the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known”. As Carroll recognises, some might find this bombastic: “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,” he writes. "Hilariously premature." That seems to fit your characterization/caricature of Carroll's claims. And here: Quote Sean Carroll: Yeah. And depending on what tradition you were in, you could have talked about spirit or whatever. Descartes tried his best. Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia tried her best to let him know that he was making some leaps that weren’t quite legitimate, but still again, he was a big part of the scientific revolution. Maybe some of the viewers here don’t know, I’m a super-duper physicalist about these things. I don’t believe there’s any special, extra realm for thought or essence or spirit or mind, but I don’t choose the word materialist in this sense. Obviously one reason is there’s a whole nother definition of materialist that has to do with how much we like money and things like that. But that’s okay. There’s also a whole nother definition of the word naturalist that doesn’t stop me from using that word. But I do think that when you talk about this Newtonian point of view, this gets at why I think materialist is not a good word to describe what I am. And it wasn’t even a good word 400 years ago. It sort of leapt to a conclusion prematurely. The important idea to me, was the idea that there is a physical world, right? There is the natural universe. There’s no separate realm of spirits, or essences, or minds. There’s just the physical natural world. And then it obeys some rules that we can discover. So there’s sort of three pieces to that. Huh. "There's no separate realm of spirits ... There's just the physical natural world." That seems susceptible to jibing with D&C 131:7: "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." Did Joseph Smith reject the same dichotomy that Carroll does (spirit v. matter)? We report, you decide! I think I previously pointed to this critique: What Stands behind the Adjective Poetic That You May Not Want to See An excerpt: Quote 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). 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. Still not seeing the bridge. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: There could be spirits in the same way the Moon could be made of green cheese. Sigh. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: If I've inadvertently overstated what science (according to Dr. Carroll) says, I apologize and scale it back to the level of certainty expressed by Carroll in the quotes above. And if I've been duped and am listening to somebody who doesn't know anything about science, could you provide a well-reasoned rebuttal of his arguments so I have a chance of disabusing myself? I provided the above critique back in March. I felt that was a pretty good starting point, but my recollection was that you gave it no never mind. The critique's "Poetic Problem" seems pretty apt: 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. 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. Yep. Your surmise seems to be a sampling error. You think that it is within the capacity of science to empirically test and disprove the existence of "spirits" and "revelation," concepts you have elsewhere admitted are not even coherently defined in any meaningful scientific sense. To declare that we have disproven the existence that hasn't even been defined seems, as Carroll put it, "hilariously premature." 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Well, no. My position is that the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. is not empirically testable. That these things cannot be definitively proven or disproven. That seems like an admission that God, spirits, revelation, etc. are not real Malarky. To say that the existence of X is not empirically testable is nowhere near a admission that X does not exist. If you are trying to get me to take you seriously, stuff like this will not get you there. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: or at the very least are hidden and do not interact with observable reality. Not sure what you mean by "hidden." The Higgs boson existed prior to 2012, right? Was it "hidden?" Did it not exist because it had not yet been confirmed as "interact{ing} with observable reality"? 3 hours ago, Analytics said: In principle, the existence of real things that interact with observable reality can be scientifically observed, measured, and described. "In principle" being a huge qualifier. One that nearly swallows the rule. I'm reminded of this article in Scientific American I came across in March when we last had this discussion: Quote The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience As time passes, the claim that science can comprehend everything looks increasingly nutty Some excerpts: Quote Does anyone still believe that science can explain, well, everything? This belief was ascendant in the 1980s, when my career began. Bigshot scientists proclaimed that they were solving the riddle of existence. They would soon explain why our universe exists and takes the form it does, and why we exist and are what we are. For years I believed this claim, out of deference to scientists propagating it and desire to believe. The vision of a revelation to end all revelations thrilled me. Eventually I had doubts, which I spelled out in The End of Science and other writings. Lately, I’ve begun to look at the vision of total knowledge as a laughable delusion, a pathological fantasy that should never have been taken seriously, even though brilliant scientists propagated it. The idea that the existence of everything in the universe - including the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. - "can be scientifically observed, measured, and described" seems, well, pretty nutty. Quote Physicists were not the only scientists bewitched by the dream of omniscience. “I take the position that there is nothing that cannot be understood,” Peter Atkins, a religion-bashing British chemist, stated in his 1981 book The Creation. “Fundamental science may almost be at an end and might be completed within a generation.” He added, “Complete knowledge is just within our grasp. Comprehension is moving across the face of the Earth, like the sunrise.” Then there was biologist Richard Dawkins, who declared in his 1986 bestseller The Blind Watchmaker that the mystery of life had already been solved. Our existence “once presented the greatest of mysteries,” Dawkins wrote, but “it is a mystery no longer, because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet.” One of those “footnotes” concerns the problem of consciousness. In the late 1980s Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix (and another hard-core atheist), proposed that consciousness, the subject of interminable philosophical speculation, might be scientifically tractable. Science could “solve” consciousness by finding its “neural correlates,” processes in the brain that correspond to conscious states. In his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis, Crick declared that “’you,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of neurons.” That statement might have been the high water mark of scientism and its corollaries, materialism and reductionism. Hmm. Quote Meanwhile, researchers were claiming that advances in computers and mathematics were illuminating chaotic and complex phenomena that had resisted traditional scientific analysis. These scientists, whom I like to call chaoplexologists, were finding common principles underpinning brains, immune systems, ecologies and nation-states. Economics and other social sciences would soon become as rigorous as chemistry and nuclear physics. Supposedly. To be charitable, all this hubris wasn’t entirely unjustified. After all, in the 1960s physicists confirmed the big bang theory and took steps toward a unified theory of all of nature’s forces, while biologists deciphered the genetic code. You can see how these and other successes, as well as advances in computers and other tools, might have persuaded optimists that total scientific knowledge was imminent. But the concept of scientific omniscience always suffered from fatal flaws. Read Brief History and other books carefully and you realize that the quest for an ultimate theory had taken physicists beyond the realm of experiment. String theory and other major candidates for an ultimate theory of physics can be neither experimentally confirmed nor falsified. They are untestable and hence not really scientific. Golly! Anything else out there that has been theorized but which "can be neither experimentally confirmed nor falsified?" That are "untestable?" Quote Brain scientists still have no idea how our brains make us conscious, and even if they did, that knowledge would apply only to human consciousness. It would not yield a general theory of consciousness, which determines what sort of physical systems generate conscious states. It would not tell us whether it feels like something to be a bat, nematode or smart phone. As I argue in my new book Mind-Body Problems, science appears farther than ever from understanding the mind. We can't even fully grasp how our brains work, but we can confidently declare the non-existence of "spirits," "revelation," and so on? Quote Over the last decade or two, science has lost its mojo. The replication crisis has undermined the public’s confidence in scientists, and scientists’ confidence in themselves. It has made them humble--and that is a good thing. Because what if scientists had somehow convinced themselves, and the rest of us, that they had figured everything out? What a tragedy that would be. We’re better off in our current state of befuddlement, trying to comprehend this weird, weird world even though we know we’ll always fall short. The older I get, the more I appreciate what philosopher Paul Feyerabend said to me in 1992 when I broached the possibility of total knowledge. “You think that this one-day fly, this little bit of nothing, a human being--according to today's cosmology!--can figure it all out?” he asked me with a manic grin. “This to me seems so crazy! It cannot possibly be true! What they figured out is one particular response to their actions, and this response gives this universe, and the reality that is behind this is laughing! ‘Ha ha! They think they have found me out!’” Humility is markedly absent in your declarations about what "science" is capable of proving or disproving. I just don't think you grasp how fully in the thrall you are of scientism and positivism. Consider these words from that bastion of Christian fundamentalism, UC-Berkeley: Quote Science doesn't make moral judgments When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad. ... Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. See also: Science and religion: Reconcilable differences An excerpt: Quote Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, one certainly doesn't have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith. ... 2Ecklund, E.H., and C.P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems 54(2):289-307. See also here: Five Things Science Can't Explain: Quote Science has contributed innumerable benefits to human life on planet Earth. We should be deeply grateful for the hard work of scientists who dedicate their lives to loyal study of this discipline and the advantages scientific advances grant us. Due to its success, there is often a tendency to think that science can explain everything. However, there are actually many things that science cannot prove. Here are five categories of truth that cannot be proven using the scientific method: ... 2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) that goes beyond what merely is. ... 4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truth is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable. Whether the Tower of Babel story is rooted in "historical truth" is something you appear to reject. Because "science," or something. See also here: 10 Questions That Science Can't Answer Yet Quote 8: What Happens When You Die? Everyone on the planet would like a better idea of what happens to them after they die. And hey, there are billions of people who already know the answer to that question. Unfortunately, they can't tell us about it because, well, they're all dead. The subject of the afterlife — or lack thereof — is one of the oldest questions troubling humankind. Will we all float off into eternal bliss? Will the evil among us be damned to the pits of Hell? Will our consciousness merely vanish once our bodies have expired? Or will we all be reincarnated as angry hippos or fluffy cats? Scientist do understand the beginning stages of death. They know how the human body begins shutting down. Like store employees turning of the lights at a megastore after closing hours, your body's cells begin to blink off, one by one, until your heart and brain cease activity. What happens after your brain clicks off, though, is still a complete mystery. Many people who have gone through near-death experiences and then come back to life speak about tunnels of light or flashbacks to life occurrences or conversations with loved ones who've passed away. All of those experiences could have biological origins, perhaps spurred by lack of oxygen or wild biochemical fluctuations. Of the many questions we face about our existence, this is one that may never, ever be answered. Instead, we'll all be left yearning for wondering, searching for sort of meaning in the death. In 2021, "the existence of real things that interact with observable reality can be scientifically observed, measured, and described." Everything, it seems. No caveats. No limitations. The upright bipedal hominids who live on this Big Blue Marbel and consider themselves acolytes of Sean Carroll have definitively answered all the Big Questions. Or . . . not. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: I can tell you haven't read The Big Picture. "And such" refers to ESP, bending spoons with your mind, priesthood blessings, etc. The existence of "God" isn't even a well-defined question, and whether or not "God" is a part of everyday life isn't something theists agree upon. We know what it means to bend a spoon with your mind, and we know enough about physics to positively say it is impossible. We know what it means to say "his spirit left his body and he hovered above the room and as a disembodied ghost thought about his life." And we know enough about physics to say that is impossible. In contrast, what is "God"? Sure seems like we ought to be able to define that before claiming that "science" has disproven it. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: It would be more accurate to say the question of the existence of God hasn't been raised in a coherent way. Sure it has. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Actually, all I did was read a book about science by a preeminent physicist. And then confidently declared that "science" has disproved the existence of spirits, revelation, and so on. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: If you haven't read Carroll, how do you know that my characterization of his arguments are way off the mark? Because it seems pretty apparent even from the smattering of quotes you provided, as well as the interviews of Carroll, and also the other critiques of his book. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: I didn't characterize any theory of Dr. Carroll as "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science." Rather, I relayed what Dr. Carroll says about quantum field theory--the theory that allows us to confidently know spirits don't exist. In Carroll's own words: 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. Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Note that when he says Quantum field theory is powerfully restrictive, he's saying that spirits, life after death, and bending spoons with your mind are among the "many things that simply cannot happen." Yes, so you've been saying. Quantum field theory can disprove the existence of spirits, revelation, God, etc.? I just find that implausible. And Carroll seems to be hedging his bets all over the place. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Sean Carroll's Scientific American article, with my emphasis added: Quote Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of "spirit particles" and "spirit forces" that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham's razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know. Those are Sean Carroll's words. The "because we would have detected them in existing experiments" seems to be where he goes off the rails. No, I'm wrong. He never defines or quantifies "spirit particles" or "spirit forces," does he? How do you disprove the existence of something that you haven't defined? 3 hours ago, Analytics said: You think I'm guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanors of scientism. All I've tried to do is understand Carroll's arguments. I think you've gone way past that. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn't exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren't any soul at all, and then what's the point?) So any respectable scientist who took this idea seriously would be asking -- what form does that interaction take? Is it local in spacetime? Does the soul respect gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance? Does the soul have a Hamiltonian? Do the interactions preserve unitarity and conservation of information? Nobody ever asks these questions out loud, possibly because of how silly they sound. Once you start asking them, the choice you are faced with becomes clear: either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death. It's not a difficult decision, as scientific theory-choice goes." I think its ironic that you say "nobody is ignoring scientific arguments," while Carroll is saying "nobody ever asks these questions out loud." Questions about "an immaterial soul?" Has he even defined that? And how do you square that presupposition with D&C 131:7? Seems like Carroll is speaking in generalities. I don't "believe in an immaterial soul." So where does that take us? I agree that his posed questions sound "silly," because they are based on scientifically undefined concepts. And then there's the whole sampling issue. I just don't believe "science" has the capacity to detect and measure and quantify everything. "In principle, the existence of real things that interact with observable reality can be scientifically observed, measured, and described." "In principle" being distinguishable from "in reality..." 3 hours ago, Analytics said: It would appear everybody who believes in souls is ignoring science because if they paid attention, the choice they are faced with would become clear: " either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death." I love a good false dilemma fallacy. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: So where are the "respectable scientists who take these ideas seriously" and are looking for a way to modify the formulas of quantum field theory so that spirit forces and spirit particles can interface with our brains? I don't understand. Who are you quoting here? 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Or if Carroll is speaking out of line, where are the respectable scientists that explain how? I don't know what other scientists think of Carroll. According to the above link, about half of them have some religious affiliation. There are plenty of scientists who reject your either/or dichotomy. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: The sphere and element of science is observable reality. Right. And our capacity to "observe" is pretty limited, as is our ability to fully grasp what it is we are observing. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: If you say "God" isn't within the sphere of observable reality then fine, I'm saying that the existence of God is not empirically testable. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: science has nothing to say about God. I think that "science" can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: But the functioning of the human brain is within the sphere of observable reality. Right. And there are whole swaths of it that we do not understand. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: You can't say that you are "fine with science" while simultaneously having religious faith that "everything we think we have learned about modern physics" is wrong, which is what needs to happen for there to be life after death. Whom are you quoting here? Are you just making this stuff up? 3 hours ago, Analytics said: It seems really important for you to believe you are on the side of science and I'm just a zealous scientismist. Well, since you are fabricating an either/or dichotomy, and since I think you are vastly overstating and mischaracterizing what "science" can and cannot prove, and since you are declaring - in Fauci-like terms - that you are interested in "truth" and the rest of us are not, I do indeed feel that I should rebut such absurdities. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm also fine if you don't really care about science and choose to have religious faith. Again with the misrepresentations. Do disagree with you is not not "care about science." Sheesh. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: And I'm also fine if you choose to compartmentalize your thinking. Not sure what this means. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 7, 2021 by smac97
CV75 Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: In the typical presentation it’s ignored: (from wiki) ”Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?” I have a presentation where Monty tells the contestant which door to choose, but he's lying.
CV75 Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 14 hours ago, Analytics said: There is a lot of overlap between what you are saying here and my original point in the OP, I think. I'm not sure I follow the biases for preservation/expansion concept though. Pinker talks a lot about how people naturally divide themselves up into tribes, and then get intense "my side" bias and employ "motivated reasoning" in favor of their team. We have layers of bias. A bias for expansion is manifest as “epistemic humility” and a bias for preservation as “epistemic pride”. There may be a bias for justifying either. Then there is of course the original biases of thoughts vs. feelings, things and transactions vs. people and relationships, etc.
Analytics Posted December 7, 2021 Author Posted December 7, 2021 9 hours ago, webbles said: "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood" is vastly overstating what is known. We have two main theories: Quantum mechanics covers extremely small scale things and General relativity covers extremely large scale things. If you notice, neither of them cover every day things. Smac97 quoted Carroll explaining what he meant by this. Carroll isn't claiming that we know everything. He's merely claiming that we have an effective theory of the physics underlying everyday life. "I’m not claiming that we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (p. 155). 9 hours ago, webbles said: In some situations, it is better to use general relativity to explain every day things. In other situations, quantum mechanics would be used. But you rarely can work with both in the same situation. There's been a LOT of work to resolve this issue, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything. I agree, and I would presume Dr. Carroll does too. 9 hours ago, webbles said: In our everyday life, we are affected by both quantum mechanics and general relativity. But we don't understand how they truly interact with each other. We aren't sure how gravity affects quantum particles. One of the main ideas is that gravity has a correlated particle (called the "graviton") similar to how we have quarks, bosons, electrons, etc. But we haven't yet observed the "graviton", mainly because it requires more energy than any of the existing particle accelerators. There's also "string theory", "m-theory", "loop-quantum theory", etc. Also, what if there was another force that was even weaker than gravity and we haven't yet been able to measure it. It wouldn't be visible in particle accelerators for the same reason the graviton isn't. What if the "Light of Christ" is a name for this other force? It is something that is weaker than gravity but still can affect us. This is where effective field theory comes into play. Carroll says: "But how do we know, even if we can’t directly see new particles or fields, that they can’t exert some subtle but important influence on the particles that we do see? The answer can be traced to another feature of quantum fields: an idea called effective field theory. In quantum field theory, the modifier “effective” doesn’t mean something like “does a good job fitting the data.” Rather, an effective theory is an emergent approximation to a deeper theory. A kind of approximation that is specific, reliable, and well controlled—all due to the power of quantum field theory. Given some physical system, there are some things you care about, and some you don’t. An effective theory is one that models only those features of the system that you care about. The features you don’t care about are too small to be noticed, or moving back and forth in ways that everything just averages out. An effective theory describes the macroscopic features that emerge out of a more comprehensive microscopic description."(pp. 186-187). 9 hours ago, webbles said: We've never put a living brain in a particle accelerator. There could actually be unknown particles in a living brain that aren't in samples of metal. These particles could easily be comprised of the elementary particles (fermions and bosons). In 2021, we just discovered 4 more tetraquarks. It could even be full on elements that exist in a "island of stability" which we haven't yet discovered. Perhaps. But the question is how do these "unknown particles in a living brain" interface with known particles? "Whether you are a physicalist who believes 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, or has to change." (pp. 215) Carroll's point isn't about the unknown properties of unknown forces and unknown particles. His point is about the properties of electrons, protons, etc.
OGHoosier Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 I thought I'd put forward a brief article from MindMatters.ai, a blog I follow for their insights on AI and consciousness studies. Yesterday they provided a summary and a link to an article by Marcelo Gleiser, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth College and a very prominent public intellectual in the media of his native Brazil. He happens to specialize in particle physics himself. I shall quote a two-paragraph excerpt from Gleiser's article, entitled A Theory of Everything doesn't make sense: Quote As the physicist Werner Heisenberg, of Uncertainty Principle fame, once wrote, “What we observe is not Nature itself but Nature exposed to our methods of questioning.” What we can say about Nature depends on how we measure it, with the precision and reach of our instruments dictating how “far” we can see. Therefore, no theory that attempts to unify current knowledge can seriously be considered a “final” theory or a TOE, given that we cannot ever be sure that we aren’t missing a huge piece of evidence. How are we to know that there isn’t a fifth or sixth force lurking out there in the depths? We cannot know, and quite often, hints of a “new force” are announced in the media. To put it differently, our perennially myopic view of nature precludes any theory from being complete. Nature doesn’t care how compelling we think our ideas are. Now, as we have seen, Carroll and Analytics step past such objections by stating that they are only talking about an effective field theory, or as Carroll puts it: "one that models only those features of the system that you care about." It seems to me, however, that such constrained theories can never provide a basis for exclusive statements like the kind that Carroll and his disciples make because it cannot make any claims to universal explanation. Carroll's distinction of "effective field theory" is rhetorically elegant but it exposes his flank. He sacrifices claims to universal explanation and as a result his claims of exclusivity are undone by his own words. 2
mfbukowski Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: I thought I'd put forward a brief article from MindMatters.ai, a blog I follow for their insights on AI and consciousness studies. Yesterday they provided a summary and a link to an article by Marcelo Gleiser, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth College and a very prominent public intellectual in the media of his native Brazil. He happens to specialize in particle physics himself. I shall quote a two-paragraph excerpt from Gleiser's article, entitled A Theory of Everything doesn't make sense: Now, as we have seen, Carroll and Analytics step past such objections by stating that they are only talking about an effective field theory, or as Carroll puts it: "one that models only those features of the system that you care about." It seems to me, however, that such constrained theories can never provide a basis for exclusive statements like the kind that Carroll and his disciples make because it cannot make any claims to universal explanation. Carroll's distinction of "effective field theory" is rhetorically elegant but it exposes his flank. He sacrifices claims to universal explanation and as a result his claims of exclusivity are undone by his own words. Great quote, thanks. When I first started posting here, I felt VERY alone in my understanding of these ideas. As a community we are "getting better" Yes Heisenberg was one of the pioneers in seeing things this same way as do the Neopragmatists, Phenomenologists, post modernists, existentialists, ordinary language philosophers, and the list goes on and on. To understand these principles, finally makes belief in the existence of God "rational", since He has been a part of human experience from the beginning And imo, the LDS view of an exalted human God, who is immanent, and knows humanity because he is one of us, but at the same time infinitely above us, is unsurpassed as an explanation for WHY there is anything rather than nothing and how we are even now co-creators of the universe as we know it, with Him. Humanism becomes theology, along with all intellectual pursuits which seek to explain the universe and multiverses from the viewpoints of their own understanding. We are literally creating all things through the Word (John 1) with Him. And here is where that comes from https://fs.blog/reality-is-shaped-by-the-words-we-use/ Edited December 7, 2021 by mfbukowski
Analytics Posted December 7, 2021 Author Posted December 7, 2021 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I've addressed what you've posted about them. A lot. Superficial responses aren't the same thing as dealing with the underlying content. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Easily. You've done it a lot, as I have noted in my previous posts. (Example: Your use of "proved" seems deeply problematic.) I used to word "proved" in a colloquial way to describe the confidence that Carroll expresses in these ideas. But if you find it problematic, I retract it. Fine. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: See also these further remarks by . . . Sean Carroll: Hmm. All sorts of qualifying language in there. He is merely explaining precisely what he means by these carefully chosen words. He says, "I’m not claiming that we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (p. 155). 7 hours ago, smac97 said: These are also Carroll's words: "I could be wrong." "Humans are fallible and prone to being wrong." Carroll is, at times, more circumspect than you are. It's funny that you think I have more confidence in Carroll's position than he does. I don't. All I've attempted to do is accurately transmit his point to somebody who seems to be more interested in criticizing me than in understanding his position. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: And these: "Hilariously premature." That seems to fit your characterization/caricature of Carroll's claims. Given that you haven't read his book, how would you know? What I find so hilarious about this is that I know these chapters of this book about as well as you know the Book of Mormon, and I'm debating what he's saying with somebody who hasn't read the book once. Yet you really think you know enough about physics and Carroll's views to tell me I'm misrepresenting his point. In context, that quote says: "[my claim that the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known] 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 hilarious 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 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: Everything we know says that quantum field theory is the correct framework for describing the physics underlying everyday life. The rules of quantum field theory imply there can't be any new particles, forces, or interactions that could be relevant to our everyday lives. We've found them all." (pp. 179) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: And here: Huh. "There's no separate realm of spirits ... There's just the physical natural world." That seems susceptible to jibing with D&C 131:7: "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." Did Joseph Smith reject the same dichotomy that Carroll does (spirit v. matter)? We report, you decide! I can see how somebody who hasn't actually read Big Picture or otherwise attempted to understand Carroll's actual point would think this. But so I can understand your position, are you 1- claiming that spirit matter is made up of the fermions and bosons that make up ordinary matter? Or 2- are you claiming that "fine and pure" spirit matter is made up of a different class of matter other than what's in the standard model? If your position is #1, then we should easily be able to detect spirits with scientific instruments. If your position is #2, then the only way for the normal matter of the human brain to detect the instructions and/or spiritual perceptions that the non-fermion-non-boson spirit matter sends it is by radically overhauling quantum field theory. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I think I previously pointed to this critique: What Stands behind the Adjective Poetic That You May Not Want to See An excerpt: Still not seeing the bridge. Sigh. I provided the above critique back in March. I felt that was a pretty good starting point, but my recollection was that you gave it no never mind. The critique's "Poetic Problem" seems pretty apt: Given that you haven't read Carroll's book and don't understand his point, how do you know whether or not these critiques you are mining for are pretty apt or not? 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Your surmise seems to be a sampling error. You think that it is within the capacity of science to empirically test and disprove the existence of "spirits" and "revelation," concepts you have elsewhere admitted are not even coherently defined in any meaningful scientific sense. To declare that we have disproven the existence that hasn't even been defined seems, as Carroll put it, "hilariously premature." If you would have actually read Carroll's arguments, you'd know that after saying other claims of having perfect knowledge were "hilariously premature," he says about his own claims, "The situation now really is different from the way it has ever been at previous moments in the history of science." 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Malarky. To say that the existence of X is not empirically testable is nowhere near a admission that X does not exist. If you are trying to get me to take you seriously, stuff like this will not get you there. My goal isn't to get you to take me seriously. My goal is to state the truth. If you'd like to understand my point, please read God - the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger, David Smalley, et al. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Not sure what you mean by "hidden." The Higgs boson existed prior to 2012, right? Was it "hidden?" Did it not exist because it had not yet been confirmed as "interact{ing} with observable reality"? It's ironic that you cite this as an example. About 60 years ago, the physics of quantum field theory implied there must be a Higgs Boson, and its discovery vindicated that model. According to Carroll, "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." 7 hours ago, smac97 said: "In principle" being a huge qualifier. One that nearly swallows the rule. Does this mean I said something that isn't an overstatement? I hope I get a gold star. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm reminded of this article in Scientific American I came across in March when we last had this discussion: Some excerpts: Does anyone still believe that science can explain, well, everything? Strawman alert. How many freaking times have I quoted the following passage? I'm not claiming we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I'm claiming we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (pp155) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: The idea that the existence of everything in the universe - including the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. - "can be scientifically observed, measured, and described" seems, well, pretty nutty. Who said everything in the universe can be scientifically observed, measured, and described?" Certainly not me. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Hmm. I'm not claiming we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I'm claiming we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (pp155) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Golly! Anything else out there that has been theorized but which "can be neither experimentally confirmed nor falsified?" That are "untestable?" I'm not claiming we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I'm claiming we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (pp155) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: We can't even fully grasp how our brains work, but we can confidently declare the non-existence of "spirits," "revelation," and so on? I'm not claiming we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I'm claiming we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (pp155) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Humility is markedly absent in your declarations about what "science" is capable of proving or disproving. Humility is markedly absent in your declarations about some scientific arguments you haven't taken the time to try to understand. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I just don't think you grasp how fully in the thrall you are of scientism and positivism. Trying to understand the arguments by a top-tier physicist, tentatively believing what he says, and trying to relay those arguments here doesn't mean I'm in the thrall of the crime of scientism and positivism. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Consider these words from that bastion of Christian fundamentalism, UC-Berkeley: See also: Science and religion: Reconcilable differences An excerpt: See also here: Five Things Science Can't Explain: It's ironic that you are throwing these strawmen in my face in a thread about Steve Pinker's book Rationality: What It Is, Why it Seems Scarce, Why it Matters. My world view is crubmling! 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Whether the Tower of Babel story is rooted in "historical truth" is something you appear to reject. Because "science," or something. Your efforts to understand my point are remarkable. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: See also here: 10 Questions That Science Can't Answer Yet I'm not claiming we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I'm claiming we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (pp155) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: In 2021, "the existence of real things that interact with observable reality can be scientifically observed, measured, and described." Everything, it seems. No caveats. No limitations. The upright bipedal hominids who live on this Big Blue Marbel and consider themselves acolytes of Sean Carroll have definitively answered all the Big Questions. I'm not claiming we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I'm claiming we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (pp155) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Sure seems like we ought to be able to define [God] before claiming that "science" has disproven it. EXACTLY!!! I am so freaking glad you finally understood something I said!!!! Science hasn't disproven God because God isn't well-defined. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Sure it has. No it hasn't. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: And then confidently declared that "science" has disproved the existence of spirits, revelation, and so on. After reading the book I tentatively updated by credence based upon the strength of the evidence it provided, and then relayed those arguments here. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Yes, so you've been saying. Quantum field theory can disprove the existence of spirits, revelation, God, etc.? I just find that implausible. And Carroll seems to be hedging his bets all over the place. CFR that anybody said quantum field theory can disprove the existence of God. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: The "because we would have detected them in existing experiments" seems to be where he goes off the rails. Is this because you don't understand how quantum field theory entails crossing symmetry, or because you think crossing symmetry is false? His arguments on this points are subtle, and its clear you don't understand them. Just because you find quantum field theory unintuitive doesn't mean it isn't a reliable model of reality. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: No, I'm wrong. He never defines or quantifies "spirit particles" or "spirit forces," does he? How do you disprove the existence of something that you haven't defined? Technically, he doesn't disprove the existence of undefined "spirit particles" or "spirit forces." Rather, he establishes the boundaries of what properties these unknown particles can and can't have. He says, "Consider a new particle X that you might suspect leads to subtle but important physical effects in the everyday world, whether it's the ability to bend spoons with your mind or consciousness itself. That means that the X particle must interact with ordinary particles like quarks and electrons, either directly or indirectly. If it didn't, there would be no way for it to have any effect on the world we directly see." (pp. 181) It turns out that quantum field theory says a lot about the boundaries of such interactions. By understanding those boundaries and the experimental evidence, we can know what properties "X" can have and cannot have. It's an elegant argument. I highly recommend you read the book. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I think you've gone way past that. I'm sure you do. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Questions about "an immaterial soul?" Has he even defined that? He defines a category of hypothetical things much broader than "an immaterial soul" that encompasses "an immaterial soul". He then shows that nothing of that broad category could exist. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: And how do you square that presupposition with D&C 131:7? It turns out the view of spirits as defined in D&C 131:7 is in the exact center of his cross-hairs. It's true that if spirits were some things that we couldn't see, period, then D&C 131:7 would dodge his critique. The problem is there are more to "spirits" than things that can't be seen. The problem is when you say there is a spirit in us, that your spirit is thinking, choosing, feeling, and somehow interfacing with your brain. "Whether you are a physicalist who believes 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, or has to change." (pp. 215) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Seems like Carroll is speaking in generalities. I don't "believe in an immaterial soul." So where does that take us? Nope. He is saying that an "immaterial soul" that has the property of interacting with the particles of our bodies contradicts the Core Theory. And he explains why in detail. If you'd like to learn about it, you can read his book. If you'd rather dismiss his arguments without understanding them, I'll just chuckle to myself that you are the one who holds D&C 131:6 as scripture. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I agree that his posed questions sound "silly," because they are based on scientifically undefined concepts. Right. You've already established that you don't understand his arguments. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: And then there's the whole sampling issue. I just don't believe "science" has the capacity to detect and measure and quantify everything. I'm not claiming we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I'm claiming we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (pp155) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: "In principle, the existence of real things that interact with observable reality can be scientifically observed, measured, and described." "In principle" being distinguishable from "in reality..." I love a good false dilemma fallacy. Right. The third option is to ignore the conflict and look for salvation in ignorance. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't understand. Who are you quoting here? Referring to the idea that there is a "spirit" with the property of somehow being able to interact with the human body, Carroll said, "So any respectable scientist who took this idea seriously would be asking -- what form does that interaction take? Is it local in spacetime? Does the soul respect gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance? Does the soul have a Hamiltonian? Do the interactions preserve unitarity and conservation of information? Nobody ever asks these questions out loud, possibly because of how silly they sound." 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't know what other scientists think of Carroll. According to the above link, about half of them have some religious affiliation. There are plenty of scientists who reject your either/or dichotomy. There is a difference between having faith in a religion and being able to speculate in a serious way how it is plausible. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Right. And our capacity to "observe" is pretty limited, as is our ability to fully grasp what it is we are observing. I'm not claiming we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I'm claiming we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (pp155) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm saying that the existence of God is not empirically testable. It's easier to say that then to respond to the arguments in the book God - the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I think that "science" can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. I know. And Sean Carroll said science can't even disprove that the moon is made out of green cheese. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Right. And there are whole swaths of it that we do not understand. I'm not claiming we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I'm claiming we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (pp155) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Whom are you quoting here? Are you just making this stuff up? Have you been reading the quotes from Dr. Carroll that I've provided? In terms of the serious questions you have to ask to take the existence of souls that interface with the human brain, he said, "Nobody ever asks these questions out loud, possibly because of how silly they sound. Once you start asking them, the choice you are faced with becomes clear: either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death. It's not a difficult decision, as scientific theory-choice goes." 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Well, since you are fabricating an either/or dichotomy, and since I think you are vastly overstating and mischaracterizing what "science" can and cannot prove, and since you are declaring - in Fauci-like terms - that you are interested in "truth" and the rest of us are not, I do indeed feel that I should rebut such absurdities. Actually, all I did was quote Dr. Carroll. I'm sure you are quite interested in the "truth." And I'm sure you will never read his book and seriously try to understand his arguments. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Again with the misrepresentations. Do disagree with you is not not "care about science." I never said otherwise. I was just laying out the possibilities. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Not sure what this means. "Compartmentalizing your thinking" is what, in all likelihood, believing LDS physicists do most of the time. One compartment of their brain is in the physics lab where they deal with physics. Another compartment of their brain is where they think about religion. They are two different compartments of their thinking process, and they don't try to reconcile the two. If they did try to reconcile the two they'd have to ask some really hard, specific questions about how physics could be modified to accommodate the supernatural elements of their faith. In the words of Dr. Carroll, their choice would then be to "either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death. It's not a difficult decision, as scientific theory-choice goes." 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Thanks, -Smac You're welcome, -Analytics 1
webbles Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 2 hours ago, Analytics said: This is where effective field theory comes into play. Carroll says: "But how do we know, even if we can’t directly see new particles or fields, that they can’t exert some subtle but important influence on the particles that we do see? The answer can be traced to another feature of quantum fields: an idea called effective field theory. In quantum field theory, the modifier “effective” doesn’t mean something like “does a good job fitting the data.” Rather, an effective theory is an emergent approximation to a deeper theory. A kind of approximation that is specific, reliable, and well controlled—all due to the power of quantum field theory. Given some physical system, there are some things you care about, and some you don’t. An effective theory is one that models only those features of the system that you care about. The features you don’t care about are too small to be noticed, or moving back and forth in ways that everything just averages out. An effective theory describes the macroscopic features that emerge out of a more comprehensive microscopic description."(pp. 186-187). Yes, I read and linked one of his papers that talked about this. This new force ("Light of Christ") is noticeable to some people. So it should not be ignored by the "effective field". 2 hours ago, Analytics said: Perhaps. But the question is how do these "unknown particles in a living brain" interface with known particles? "Whether you are a physicalist who believes 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, or has to change." (pp. 215) Carroll's point isn't about the unknown properties of unknown forces and unknown particles. His point is about the properties of electrons, protons, etc. These "unknown particles" that I'm talking are composed of the same "fundamental particles" that protons, neutrons, etc are composed of. So they would interact with the universe in the same way those do. In fact, we are currently discovering new particles that are based on these "fundamental particles". 1
webbles Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 2 hours ago, Analytics said: Smac97 quoted Carroll explaining what he meant by this. Carroll isn't claiming that we know everything. He's merely claiming that we have an effective theory of the physics underlying everyday life. "I’m not claiming that we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind." (p. 155). I meant to comment on this in my previous post but forgot. I understood what Carroll was saying. He was talking about knowing all the forces/particles/stuff that affect our day-to-day lives. And yes, I believe that we can rule out the ability to bend spoons with the power of our mind (unless one of his loopholes is true and then all bets are off). I'm saying that that statement is not true. He likes to reference the "Core Theory" as if it explains everything in our energy level and sizes. But it actually doesn't. It is a quantum equation that should work at our energy level and sizes, but we actually don't know how quantum mechanics translate into classical mechanics. https://quantummoxie.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/why-sean-carroll-is-wrong/ talks about this: Quote So let’s review what we know, without question. 1. We know the classical physics (and the “classical” part is crucial here) that describes how things like doors open and close, buildings stand up, and so on. On an everyday level, this involves Newtonian mechanics. Thus we know how macroscopic objects work at non-relativistic energies and speeds to great precision. 2. We know the classical physics of electromagnetism and we know that it helps govern how macroscopic objects interact (when you press on a door it is really electromagnetic repulsion between molecules that mediates the interaction between your hand and the door). 3. We know the classical physics of macroscopic objects at relativistic energies to a great precision. 4. We know the quantum physics that tells us how molecules are held together, i.e. we know chemistry. 5. We know the quantum physics that tells us about the sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms (and thus molecules) that constitute these things, i.e. we know QED and QCD. What don’t we know? Well, for starters, we do not know where the quantum world ends and the classical world begins. In other words, we’re not 100% certain how Numbers 4 and 5 above connect to Numbers 1, 2, and 3. For example, Sean’s equation seems to imply that spacetime and gravity, at least as it regards everyday objects, is entirely explained by the two terms Sean has identified in that equation. But Sean’s equation is fundamentally quantum in nature. How can one include a gravitational term in a fundamentally quantum equation and claim it explains all of the physics underlying everyday life when we as yet have no well-developed theory of quantum gravity? Do we know for certain that the gravitational interactions that affect everyday life can be traced to that one term? 1
MiserereNobis Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 (edited) When I say "darkness", I mean a privation of knowing, just as whatever you do not know or have forgotten is dark to you, because you do not see it with your spiritual eyes. For this reason, that which is between you and your God is termed, not a cloud of the air, but a cloud of unknowing. He [God] can certainly be loved, but not thought. He can be taken and held by love but not by thought. -- “The Cloud of Unknowing” (late 14th century Catholic work on mysticism) I remained, lost in oblivion; My face I reclined on the Beloved. All ceased and I abandoned myself, Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies. -- St. John of the Cross (mystical doctor of the Church), “Dark Night of the Soul” The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away. We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains. -- Li Bai (Chinese poet from the 8th century) Edited December 7, 2021 by MiserereNobis 2
Recommended Posts