Sciences vs. Religion

What you describe, MorpheusSandman, is classical determinism where chance is based on ignorance of the deterministic forces. However, that determinism has been falsified through standard quantum mechanics. It has been replaced by uncertainty, not chance. I know you don't accept that it has been falsified, but I do and I have made my case in other posts.

I look at many worlds the way some might look on those who believe the earth is flat, or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. These theories are interesting because they offer one a challenge to show why these views are wrong clarifying one's understanding of science. Other than that they have no value.

Let me suggest that you try to find a way to maintain an atheistic metaphysics in a consistent histories interpretation. At least then you won't be starting off opposed to modern science which can be used against your overall position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

However, that determinism has been falsified through standard quantum mechanics.

---

And this is a flat-out, false lie; one of the many that you insist on repeating ad nauseam. It's a false lie that no theoretical physicist would ever make, even those that believe in Copenhagen. Go ahead, I dare you to find one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I know you don't accept that it has been falsified, but I do and I have made my case in other posts.

---

You've made it badly, all based on a perpetual, willful misunderstanding of QM and MW that's been pointed out by four different posters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I look at many worlds the way some might look on those who believe the earth is flat...

---

No scientists believe the earth is flat; the majority of theoretical physicists (more probably if you just polled the leading th. phs.) believe in MW. You might try explaining why that is.

The title of this thread is flawed…Sciences vs Religion. It takes two extraneous subjects and attempts to relate them. Through observation and experiment, "Science" studies and defines what's already been created in the physical and natural world. But science hasn't got all the answers as to "why" these things have a certain structure or behave in a certain way. For instance, they know that Quantum Magnetics underlies our universe. But they don't know why particles are charged. They don't know why objects with mass & energy attract each other gravitationally. Religion acknowledges the creator of Quantum Magnetics, and that the creator holds the answers to "Why". Religion is based sometimes on faith and sometimes on the obvious. Science is based on the obvious only, and with many unanswered "whys". Therefore, there's really no battle between science and religion. When Science defines what's been created, religions agree and also give credit to the creator.

Rather than cut and paste here, I'll suggest a visit to a website that may be able to help you out--check out theentrant.tateauthor.com in the "About the Author" section, sub-section, "The 'Science Good, Religion Bad' Misnomer." In essence, your perspective is just as religious and belief-based as any robes and candles cult. For example, your whole story begins with a form of cosmic evolution, akin to Tryon's dogma: "The universe began from a quantum fluctuation of a preexisting vacuum or state of nothingness." Is that science?

…"may be able to help me out"?…my perspective is like "any robes and candles cult"?…my "whole story"?…"akin to Tryon's dogma?" I suggest, if you want to perpetuate good discussion, that you muster up some self-control and refrain from your emotionally charged, condescending stockpile of insults. Whatever else you had to say in your post got lost in the insults. Aretha has a message for you in a word: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

The title of this thread is flawed…Sciences vs Religion. It takes two extraneous subjects and attempts to relate them.

---

Most all religions comment on the natural world, and most all religions comment on it with remarkable ignorance and idiocy, which should be enough for any honest person to doubt the rest of what the religion claims. The Bible even depicts scientific experiments to prove its truthfulness. See here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

But science hasn't got all the answers as to "why" these things have a certain structure or behave in a certain way.

---

Erroneously assumes there IS a "why". Just because we can ask a question doesn't mean the question has an answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

Religion acknowledges the creator of Quantum Magnetics, and that the creator holds the answers to "Why".

---

Religion proposes a creator of QM without a stitch of evidence or valid reason for doing so. Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

"...most all religions comment on it with remarkable ignorance and idiocy…

---

You must be related to Scrat99. Sorry, but I don't discuss anything with those who have a stockpile of condescending insults peppering their post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morpheus Sandman

[melanie] erroneously assumes there IS a "why". Just because we can ask a question doesn't mean the question has an answer.

---

You erroneously assume; not all questions have an answer. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean the question has no answer. God tells us He knows all of the answers to all of our questions and that someday when we are face to face with Him we will also know all the answers..."For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." 1Corinthians 12:13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morpheus Sandman

Religion proposes a creator of QM without a stitch of evidence or valid reason for doing so. Try again.

---

I see you still haven't read Josh McDowell's "Evidence Demands a Verdict". It doesn't matter how often a believer "tries again". If you're spiritually deaf then you won't hear anything. Here's what god says about that: http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topic...itual-Deafness

I see this thread is active again.

Just to summarize my view on the OP, science is at odds with only one "religion" and that would atheism. The other religions have more substance and have better things to do.

This thread had led me onto other topics and so I'm grateful to all those who participated.

I'm currently reading D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley's The Undivided Unviverse which presents Bohm's interpretation of QM. Chapter 13 is a critique of many worlds. I also looked at Michael Redheads' From Physics to Metaphysics which introduced me to the idea of relational ontology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

I don't discuss anything with those who have a stockpile of condescending insults peppering their post.

---

Some insults are true. The people that wrote most holy texts were demonstrably ignorant about how the physical universe functioned, so they made stuff up, and sometimes the stuff they made up was idiotic, like the Biblical cure for leprosy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean the question has no answer.

---

I didn't say the question didn't have an answer, but you asked the question seemingly assuming that it did. I was merely asserting that it may not. What's more, answering "God" doesn't really prevent us from asking how/why God exists (assuming s/he/it does). It's what you call an infinite regress (asking why to the why to the why to the why ad infinitum), and in such situations it seems "God" is nothing but a semantic stop-sign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

I see you still haven't read Josh McDowell's "Evidence Demands a Verdict". It doesn't matter how often a believer "tries again". If you're spiritually deaf then you won't hear anything.

---

I see you haven't read Yudkowsky on understanding just what is evidence The phrase "evidence demands a verdict" is nonsensical when we're talking about reality being the "evidence" itself, because then the question is "evidence for what?" Which is where hypothesis and theory comes in, as well as our means for testing what evidence supports which hypotheses and theories. As for being "spiritually deaf," if that means not assuming there's supernatural agency behind the currently unexplained, then I'm happy to be deaf, since being otherwise would ignore hundreds of years of scientific progress to the contrary (ie, supernatural answers behind natural phenomena turning out to be wrong).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Just to summarize my view on the OP, science is at odds with only one "religion" and that would atheism.

---

Speaking of ignorance and idiocy, here's another steaming pile from our resident savant.

To correct my typo…..Josh McDowell's "Evidence THAT Demands A Verdict" is the correct title.

Historically, a god or gods have always been used as answers when we didn't have the real ones yet, but eventually we have. We know what the sun, stars, moon, lightning, wind, etc. are now. We know how the Earth was created. Not having an answer now doesn't mean there isn't one or that we won't have it eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

To correct my typo…..Josh McDowell's "Evidence THAT Demands A Verdict" is the correct title.

---

You've read the Christian apologist, now read the atheist response: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

Why? I've already got a well-rounded view, know the viewpoints of unbelievers, and don't need to be "enlightened" by an atheist. I've made my educated choice and couldn't be more sure of my decision based on years and years of study.

Sure you have. I'd be willing to be my life savings that you, like all theists I encounter, went into your "study" already knowing the answer and proceeded to be victims of confirmation bias. Even based on a brief reading of your own reference book (McDowell's), it seems to be the exact same thing. Filled to the brim with anything that could possibly support what a believer wants to believe, and giving it utmost credence while ignoring (or glossing over) any and all disconfirming evidence.

Besides, being so sure that nothing could ever change your mind is not the right attitude. You should always allow whatever you currently believe to be open to question, no matter how many years you've spent studying said belief. To say that you are very sure of your belief is one thing, but to say that nothing could convince you that you are wrong is the defense of one who simply wants to believe what they want to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostball

Besides, being so sure that nothing could ever change your mind is not the right attitude.

---

Indeed. To quote Yudkowsky:

Quote:

---

This is why rationalists put such a heavy premium on the paradoxical-seeming claim that a belief is only really worthwhile if you could, in principle, be persuaded to believe otherwise. If your retina ended up in the same state regardless of what light entered it, you would be blind. Some belief systems, in a rather obvious trick to reinforce themselves, say that certain beliefs are only really worthwhile if you believe them unconditionally— no matter what you see, no matter what you think. Your brain is supposed to end up in the same state regardless. Hence the phrase, "blind faith". If what you believe doesn't depend on what you see, you've been blinded as effectively as by poking out your eyeballs.

---

Of course, one of the "tricks" of having your brain end up in the same state of belief is confirmation bias. You go into an issue already "knowing" the answer, so you accept very loosely evidence that supports that answer and ignore or put undue pressure on contradictory evidence.

Just google
youtube Giordano Bruno awesome history
for a real hoot.

How many ever heard of Giordano Bruno before this post?
The Pope doesn't want you to have heard of he, that's why most ain't.

Better yet here's the URL
youtube.com/watch?v=2j2NKHgZrGo

God is like Santa, only some people never came to the awareness that they're both fairytales. Parents and churches told them there was a god. They believe the stories without evidence. They believe them even though human beings are fallible and frequently make mistakes. They believe that a bunch of people living in deserts, without internet, without electricity, without powerful telescopes, without paved roads or floors, with no awareness that the earth was round, with no running water, with no toilets, with poop on their butts, with peyote buttons and shrooms; they believe that these backward, naive, underdeveloped ancient humans somehow communicated with an invisible man in the sky and then wrote his words in a book.

If people living in the middle east tried to do this again today, if they claimed Jesus/Yahweh was speaking to them now, and that he was commanding them to write a new bible, the bible part 2, we would ALL collectively laugh our asses off at such nonsense. The middle east of today may seem uncivilized to some, but the people living there now are lightyears ahead of the old bible-writing shepherds of yore, and we still would not buy tales of religious discovery from them. Modern Christians would think it ridiculous, yet somehow can't make the connection to the ridiculousness of a dark and depressing age supposedly figuring out the meaning of life by magic.

God, Santa or many worlds or Matrix-like universes or block universes of space-time or determinism: There are people who will believe in anything, especially after they think about it for some time, even if they are so-called "scientists".

That doesn't mean they're wrong. The real problem is how to tell if something can be dismissed or not. The fact that the idea occurred thousands of years ago among people who didn't have access to the internet is not real evidence that it is wrong.

Well, large portions of the bible have been proven very wrong. Large portions of it are open to interpretation and manipulation. With that being the case, I might as well not believe a single thing in it. Even if there is still some minute possibility that it is not wrong, it is still infinitely improbable. We have much more evidence that there is no god and that magic never happened here than we have that there is a god. It is equally likely AND unlikely that there are hundreds of gods. So, for the majority of the planet to pick one idea from a time and population with a narrow view, and to say THIS IS IT! THE ONE TRUE GOD! THE REAL ANSWER...it's preposterous. It's egotistical and naive, sadly. It's unfortunate that as a species we're held back from seeking real answers because of this veil of delusion that's binding us all. If there's a god, I want evidence of that. I demand evidence of that. I won't blindly put my faith into a flimsy premise. We've been here for a while. God hasn't shown himself. Until he does, we should be a more open-minded society. Maybe we're missing out by putting all of our eggs into one basket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

It's unfortunate that as a species we're held back from seeking real answers because of this veil of delusion that's binding us all.

---

I agree with your perspective on religion, but I think you're overselling its ability to hold anyone back. I'm guessing you might be from USA, because the rest of the western world is largely irreligious, and even in USA and the fundies trying to teach creationism, it doesn't hold back scientific progress in any way.

Islam is a different story, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Well, large portions of the bible have been proven very wrong. Large portions of it are open to interpretation and manipulation. With that being the case, I might as well not believe a single thing in it. Even if there is still some minute possibility that it is not wrong, it is still infinitely improbable. We have much more evidence that there is no god and that magic never happened here than we have that there is a god. It is equally likely AND unlikely that there are hundreds of gods. So, for the majority of the planet to pick one idea from a time and population with a narrow view, and to say THIS IS IT! THE ONE TRUE GOD! THE REAL ANSWER...it's preposterous. It's egotistical and naive, sadly. It's unfortunate that as a species we're held back from seeking real answers because of this veil of delusion that's binding us all. If there's a god, I want evidence of that. I demand evidence of that. I won't blindly put my faith into a flimsy premise. We've been here for a while. God hasn't shown himself. Until he does, we should be a more open-minded society. Maybe we're missing out by putting all of our eggs into one basket.

---

One of the big things some religious traditions got right is that the universe had a beginning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_creation), although they did not get the date correct (assuming we have it correct today). Just because they got that right doesn't mean one has to believe everything else presented by each of those religions. They can't all be literally true, but the universe having a beginning presents a challenge to those don't believe in any sort of God to explain why it began at all.

I agree with you that it is inappropriate for one group to try to force their cultural ideas about God(s) on others. That goes as well for cultural ideas that claim there are no Gods. The most tolerant answer is no one knows and each of us are welcome to live our lives as we see fit.

The main evidence for or against gods comes from how we interpret our own experience and the metaphysics we find believable. There is no obvious reason why we are here at all and yet we are. As far as "delusion" and "evidence" goes, I can't think of anything more delusional or supported by no real evidence than some of the pseudo-science that gets promoted today. I'm particularly thinking of things like "many worlds" and "superdeterminism".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

the universe having a beginning presents a challenge to those don't believe in any sort of God to explain why it began at all.

---

No more than it presents a challenge to those who believe in a God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

As far as "delusion" and "evidence" goes, I can't think of anything more delusional or supported by no real evidence than some of the pseudo-science that gets promoted today. I'm particularly thinking of things like "many worlds" and "superdeterminism".

---

And, again, the non-scientist who doesn't even understand the relevant science gets to decide what is pseudo-science rather than actual scientists, and that's not egotistical or naive in the slightest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

No more than it presents a challenge to those who believe in a God.

---

It would depend on what those beliefs are. If the belief system insists on a different time frame, then it has been invalidated. If it emphasizes the key point that the universe had a beginning, then the religious belief system just has to associate the beginning of the universe with its own creation story.

The atheist on the other hand has to come up with a process explaining how this beginning occurred without any choice being made by some superhuman agent (God, demigod, or demon). For the atheist, the universe's beginning has to occur by chance. Not only that, since the current evidence puts a range within a few hundred million years on the age of the universe, change within the universe has to be explained without superhuman agency as well, that is, by chance not choice. The problem for the atheist, given the age of the universe, is to show that 13.7 billion years is enough time for chance to do its magic.

The scientific evidence for the big bang is just one of the discoveries that changed the relationship between science and religion. They are not in such opposition as the title of the thread assumes. Or to put this another way, we are no longer in the first half of the 19th century when that opposition was being promoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

And, again, the non-scientist who doesn't even understand the relevant science gets to decide what is pseudo-science rather than actual scientists, and that's not egotistical or naive in the slightest.

---

We all get to make up our own minds on what is pseudo-science and what is real science as well as who are the pseudo-scientists and who are the real scientists. This also illustrates that the tension is not between science and religion, but between science and pseudo-science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

If it emphasizes the key point that the universe had a beginning, then the religious belief system just has to associate the beginning of the universe with its own creation story.

---

This is irrelevant to my point. The "First Cause" problem is synonymous with the problem of infinite regress, which simply means someone can always ask "how/why" to whatever cause is found or even proposed. God doesn't get around this. For most it's nothing more than a semantic stop-sign, a way of halting the questioning process; but for a thinking person there's nothing to prevent us from asking why God can exist without having been created (or with no beginning) but universes can't. The only thing that a believer has accomplished by saying "God!" is to back the question up another step, regardless of whether it's even the correct answer or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The atheist on the other hand has to come up with a process explaining how this beginning occurred without any choice being made by some superhuman agent (God, demigod, or demon).

---

No, they don't. The only thing an atheist has to do is note that there's not a stitch of evidence for any supernatural hypothesis, and certainly not enough to believe in one. They don't actually have to propose an alternate origin to the universe; they can be completely agnostic on the issue. You never seem to understand that atheism only entails the disbelief in God, nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

For the atheist, the universe's beginning has to occur by chance.

---

Wrong again. An atheist can believe in a deterministic process that we don't understand that creates universes in a way we don't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Not only that, since the current evidence puts a range within a few hundred million years on the age of the universe, change within the universe has to be explained without superhuman agency as well, that is, by chance not choice. The problem for the atheist, given the age of the universe, is to show that 13.7 billion years is enough time for chance to do its magic.

---

I have no idea what you're saying with your first sentence. The response to your second sentence is given above (though it find it odd to think that a 13.7 billion year old universe somehow argues for a supernatural creator, assuming life and us were its ultimate purpose: why in the cosmos would they need 14 billions years?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

We all get to make up our own minds on what is pseudo-science and what is real science

---

No we don't, and how asinine of you to say so. What is and isn't science/pseudo-science is not subjective, no more than what is/isn't a mammal is subjective. These are clearly defined terms, and either a subject fits within one category or the other, there are no grey areas. They certainly are not terms that a non-scientist who has repeatedly demonstrated their gross ignorance of a subject gets to use because one subjects accommodates their beliefs and another doesn't.

Our current universe is 13.7 billion years old according to extrapolation of observations of galactic red shifts, and other such indirect time/distance methods. According to General Relativity theory, time began with the Big Bang, *but* General Relativity is only a theory, and we know it breaks down at Quantum dimensions, i.e., it isn't a theory of the very early moments of the universe, and we haven't any observations going back that far, so we know *nothing* about these first moments, we don't know if there was something before these moments, what happened in these moments, or anything else about them.

Exactly, mal4mac (though I'd be cautious with the "it's only a theory" talk, since "scientific theories" mean a "rigorously tested hypothesis that has withstood every attempt at falsification," not in the same way that, say, conspiracy "theories" are "only theories"). Most scientists are quick to point out that we know the universe had a beginning to its expansion, but that everything "before" that is speculation based on other things we know. EG, quantum field theory can explain how we COULD get a universe from mere quantum fluctuations, but not, necessarily, that we did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

This is irrelevant to my point. The "First Cause" problem is synonymous with the problem of infinite regress, which simply means someone can always ask "how/why" to whatever cause is found or even proposed. God doesn't get around this. For most it's nothing more than a semantic stop-sign, a way of halting the questioning process; but for a thinking person there's nothing to prevent us from asking why God can exist without having been created (or with no beginning) but universes can't. The only thing that a believer has accomplished by saying "God!" is to back the question up another step, regardless of whether it's even the correct answer or not.

---

It is not so much a first cause as whether some form of consciousness made a choice out of which our universe arose. That consciousness could be eternal.

By the way, the many worlds approach is also a way to halt the questioning process, but having the "correct answer" is what is important. We are betting our lives on the answer we each choose to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

No, they don't. The only thing an atheist has to do is note that there's not a stitch of evidence for any supernatural hypothesis, and certainly not enough to believe in one. They don't actually have to propose an alternate origin to the universe; they can be completely agnostic on the issue. You never seem to understand that atheism only entails the disbelief in God, nothing more.

---

Our existence is the evidence. If atheistic metaphysics were correct, we would not be here at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Wrong again. An atheist can believe in a deterministic process that we don't understand that creates universes in a way we don't understand.

---

I agree that the atheist needs either (1) chance or (2) an unknown deterministic process. Since that deterministic process is unknown, I restrict the options to chance. Since the universe has been in existence for less than 14 billion years, I eliminate chance as well. There is not enough time.

An atheist cannot have some agent making a choice, which is the only remaining alternative, since the atheist doesn't believe in the existence of such agents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I have no idea what you're saying with your first sentence. The response to your second sentence is given above (though it find it odd to think that a 13.7 billion year old universe somehow argues for a supernatural creator, assuming life and us were its ultimate purpose: why in the cosmos would they need 14 billions years?)

---

I don't know why the cosmos needs 14 billion years for consciousness to reach the state we are in now. What seems reasonable is that it would take an eternity if it were up to chance. And even then it wouldn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

No we don't, and how asinine of you to say so. What is and isn't science/pseudo-science is not subjective, no more than what is/isn't a mammal is subjective. These are clearly defined terms, and either a subject fits within one category or the other, there are no grey areas. They certainly are not terms that a non-scientist who has repeatedly demonstrated their gross ignorance of a subject gets to use because one subjects accommodates their beliefs and another doesn't.

---

I think it might be useful to view pseudo-science in terms of social psychology, specifically cognitive dissonance. Scientific evidence shows that the universe has only a short existence. Scientific evidence shows there is uncertainty at the quantum level. Both of these discoveries fit better into a religious context than they do into an atheistic context. Because of the need to resolve cognitive dissonance atheistic metaphysics gets transformed into pseudo-scientific speculations such as many worlds and superdeterminism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

It is not so much a first cause as whether some form of consciousness made a choice out of which our universe arose. That consciousness could be eternal.

---

I'm not sure why you think a consciousness "making a choice" out of which the universe arose is NOT a question of the First Cause. Anyway, you'd have to demonstrate how a consciousness could be eternal or exist outside the bounds of spacetime, especially when we only know of/experience consciousness via spacetime and our material brains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

By the way, the many worlds approach is also a way to halt the questioning process,

---

It doesn't halt anything. MW proponents would still be "questioning" a model for early cosmology, quantum gravity, and the origin of the Born probabilities. All QM interpretations lead to more questions; MW just leads to fewer that seem more solvable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Our existence is the evidence. If atheistic metaphysics were correct, we would not be here at all.

---

Our existence isn't evidence for squat except that we exist. It's as much evidence for God as fire is evidence for phlogiston. And feel free to prove that atheistic metaphysics renders our existence impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Since the universe has been in existence for less than 14 billion years, I eliminate chance as well. There is not enough time.

---

What makes you say there's not enough time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

An atheist cannot have some agent making a choice, which is the only remaining alternative, since the atheist doesn't believe in the existence of such agents.

---

An atheist could be agnostic on the issue of possible agents outside our universe that aren't, in themselves, supernatural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I think it might be useful to view pseudo-science in terms of social psychology, specifically cognitive dissonance. Scientific evidence shows that the universe has only a short existence. Scientific evidence shows there is uncertainty at the quantum level. Both of these discoveries fit better into a religious context than they do into an atheistic context. Because of the need to resolve cognitive dissonance atheistic metaphysics gets transformed into pseudo-scientific speculations such as many worlds and superdeterminism.

---

This is you being your typical non-sequitor self. It has nothing to do with what I said. Many Worlds is not pseudo-science. It's not even science; it's an interpretation of science. Scientists don't call it a theory or a hypothesis, they call it what it is, an interpretation. Like all interpretations, it fits the existing evidence. Like all interpretations, it creates other questions/problems that need to be addressed by science. The point, though, is that it creates FEWER problems than other interps., it is compatible with what else we know, and obeys Occam's Razor and other mathematical models for how we should treat competing interpretations that fit the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I'm not sure why you think a consciousness "making a choice" out of which the universe arose is NOT a question of the First Cause. Anyway, you'd have to demonstrate how a consciousness could be eternal or exist outside the bounds of spacetime, especially when we only know of/experience consciousness via spacetime and our material brains.

---

The reason I am not interested in a first cause is because the universe is not eternal and I am not promoting any particular theology. All I am interested in is the existence of a choice that was responsible for the initial expansion of our particular universe. Once I have that choice, I can assume there was a consciousness underlying it. That consciousness would be outside our universe. Since there may be many universes, this does not have to be a first cause nor be associated with any specific deity.

I think our particular forms of awareness are generated by the brain, but I don't see why our consciousness as a whole is. Nor do I think our consciousness is specific to each of us. My reason for thinking that is because of the existence of psychic phenomena. These should not exist at all, that is, we should not hear any reports of them, if consciousness were totally generated and hence individuated by each of our brains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

It doesn't halt anything. MW proponents would still be "questioning" a model for early cosmology, quantum gravity, and the origin of the Born probabilities. All QM interpretations lead to more questions; MW just leads to fewer that seem more solvable.

---

I view many worlds as a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance associated with the discovery of uncertainty at the quantum level. That discovery means that the project of materialistic reductionism failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Our existence isn't evidence for squat except that we exist. It's as much evidence for God as fire is evidence for phlogiston. And feel free to prove that atheistic metaphysics renders our existence impossible.

---

If I am right about atheistic metaphysics, that it cannot rely on choices, then there is no way for us to get here at all. Our existence, or the existence of anything for that matter, invalidates it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

What makes you say there's not enough time?

---

I haven't calculated the likelihood that by chance alone the universe could have gone counter to entropy and created more complexity rather than the expected less. I'll leave it up to you to provide the calculations that it is possible. What we know about the age of the earth and the universe is that this had to occur within a finite amount of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

An atheist could be agnostic on the issue of possible agents outside our universe that aren't, in themselves, supernatural.

---

I don't know what "supernatural" means. From my perspective everything is natural. If something exists or happens, that's the way it is and we have to face the evidence and not try to cover it up because it doesn't fit our metaphysics.

The way I see it, if there are agents outside our universe, friendly or not, who make choices, then atheism is false. Atheism is not agnosticism.

Some atheists (Sam Harris, for example) even claim that we aren't agents, that our ability to make a choice is an illusion. My view of the matter is that the belief in determinism is itself an illusion generated by a need to resolve cognitive dissonance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

This is you being your typical non-sequitor self. It has nothing to do with what I said. Many Worlds is not pseudo-science. It's not even science; it's an interpretation of science. Scientists don't call it a theory or a hypothesis, they call it what it is, an interpretation. Like all interpretations, it fits the existing evidence. Like all interpretations, it creates other questions/problems that need to be addressed by science. The point, though, is that it creates FEWER problems than other interps., it is compatible with what else we know, and obeys Occam's Razor and other mathematical models for how we should treat competing interpretations that fit the evidence.

---

I don't think many worlds is an interpretation of anything, but it might be an example of cognitive dissonance. Rather than accepting the evidence from quantum physics, many worlds tries to rework that evidence to generate results that are more in line with its preferred metaphysics. That is how they try to resolve the dissonance.

You might want to consider chapter 13 of Bohm and Hiley's "The Undivided Universe". They present a detailed critique of many worlds. David Bohm had his own interpretation of quantum mechanics and, whether one accepts it or not, his take on other interpretations needs to be considered.

One of the conclusions is the following:

In view of all these unresolved problems we have been led to ask why the many worlds interpretation seems to be so attractive to some physicists.

I think the reason why can be obtained from social psychology which Bohm and Hiley weren't considering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The reason I am not interested in a first cause is because the universe is not eternal and I am not promoting any particular theology.

---

The first cause deals with, quite simply, the cause behind our universe's existence; whether that's God, quantum fluctuations, or your "conscious choice" by some unspecified consciousness is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I think our particular forms of awareness are generated by the brain, but I don't see why our consciousness as a whole is.

---

Consciousness has always been equated with awareness; I have no idea how/why you're separating "forms of awareness" from "consciousness as a whole."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

My reason for thinking that is because of the existence of psychic phenomena. These should not exist at all, that is, we should not hear any reports of them, if consciousness were totally generated and hence individuated by each of our brains.

---

WHAT psychic phenomena?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I view many worlds as a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance associated with the discovery of uncertainty at the quantum level.

---

I know you do, but like with most everything when it comes to MW you're wrong. You missed the point again, however. You said MW halts the questioning process. This is demonstrably wrong. No MW proponent has halted anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

If I am right about atheistic metaphysics, that it cannot rely on choices, then there is no way for us to get here at all. Our existence, or the existence of anything for that matter, invalidates it.

---

I'm simply not following your train of reasoning here: WHAT atheist metaphysics? What about it not relying on choices? What about choices being needed for us to get here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I haven't calculated the likelihood that by chance alone the universe could have gone counter to entropy and created more complexity rather than the expected less.

---

Oh, I see, you're another one that has a complete misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. 2L says that entropy happens in a closed system over time. The universe as a whole is a closed system. However, there are systems within systems, and even if the TOTAL entropy of the system increases, this does not mean that a particular system within the system cannot generate more complexity. What is needed is, primarily, a perpetual energy source; we have one, it's called the sun.

I don't know how you think it's even possible for someone to calculate the probabilities that it's possible after it's already happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

if there are agents outside our universe, friendly or not, who make choices, then atheism is false. Atheism is not agnosticism.

---

These agents need not be gods, though; at least, they need not be anything like the gods we've imagined. Atheism could still be correct in rejecting the man-made gods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I don't think many worlds is an interpretation of anything

---

You're wrong. I don't know how else to say it. MW doesn't rework anything. It interprets the QM models that exist. It takes Schrodinger as real as takes Heisenberg as expressing our subjective uncertainty due, in fact, to the entropy inherent in QM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

You might want to consider chapter 13 of Bohm and Hiley's "The Undivided Universe".... One of the conclusions is the following:

In view of all these unresolved problems we have been led to ask why the many worlds interpretation seems to be so attractive to some physicists.

---

So what unresolved problems did they mention? The only one I know about is the Born Probabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

You're wrong. I don't know how else to say it. MW doesn't rework anything. It interprets the QM models that exist. It takes Schrodinger as real as takes Heisenberg as expressing our subjective uncertainty due, in fact, to the entropy inherent in QM.

---

How about "I cannot agree. IMHO, you are wrong."

The greatest statement on this kind of discussion was made by Charles Schultz through Snoopy. Snoopy is writing theological book and titles it "Has It Ever Occurred to You That You Could Be Wrong?"

You see when people ask for others to quit being close minded and consider something from another point of view, what they really mean is "Change over to what I believe."

There is a balance between science and religion in that both attempt to answer sometimes impossible questions.

Science want nothing that cannot be proven, even if that requires speculation, use of possible scenarios, and a lot of unsure statements such as "This MAY HAVE been the earliest ancestor of homo sapiens." They call it "Educated Guess" or drawing inference from known fact to postulate a theory, and a theory is just that, a theory.

Religion takes it for granted that God exists. From there comes everything, creation, evolution, space, the universe, man and beast. An all powerful God can do anything. I paraphrase here which I hope doesn't offend but Muslims have a saying I love: "As for Allah it is enough for Him to say "Be" and it is." Religion has an explanation for everything: God did it all.

The balance is that we who believe in God cannot prove to people who will not listen. that God even exists.
You who put your faith in science postulate things that no believer in God will ever accept.

Yet consider: Science has proof that the animals today evolved from animals long gone. I accept that. It doesn't mean I don't think God created everything. But he placed them here on earth and they continually evolved to survive an ever-changing environment. That is evolution from the original creation. It doesn't invalidate science at all.

Fossil remains show us that there were human-like creatures that evolved into homo sapiens. Consider: The Bible says "God created man from the dust." It never says what he looked like at the time.

Well, I'm not here to preach, so I will close.

God bless one and all

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

How about "I cannot agree. IMHO, you are wrong.

---

Because him being wrong isn't my opinion, it's a fact. Saying "Many Worlds isn't an interpretation of science" is as much opinion as saying "the Earth is flat." I don't care if you phrase it "I think the Earth is flat." The Earth is not flat; Many Worlds is not not an interpretation of QM. YesNo has had no less than 4 different posters across multiple threads tell him he doesn't know what the bleep he's talking about, yet he persists in repeating the same falsities ad nauseam, even after they've been pointed out to him. He also has this remarkable ability of completely avoiding the points being made by other posters. Half of his responses are non-sequitors. He's every bit as bad as YECs arguing against evolution; just maybe slightly less abrasive.

Look, I know good and well the difference between opinion and fact. Me saying "Many Worlds is most likely true given the current state of evidence" is an opinion based on what I know of the matter; YesNo's "Many Worlds isn't an interpretation of QM" is a flat-out falsity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

The balance is that we who believe in God cannot prove to people who will not listen. that God even exists.

---

The problem is not that non-believers will not listen, the problem is that believers have a very tenuous grasp on what they think of as "proof" or even "evidence." Generally, the kinds of things believers accept as proof of God are things they wouldn't accept if a believer in a different God claimed as evidence as well. What's more, it tends to be the kind of evidence that is easily classified under various logical fallacies. It's also the kind of evidence that, when science DOES apply its rigors to it, falls apart completely, such as the major studies on intercessory prayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

You who put your faith in science postulate things that no believer in God will ever accept.

---

I put my faith in science for the same reason I put my faith in the sun rising tomorrow; because it's proven reliable and consistent over time. Every time religion has had "God did it" as a cause behind natural phenomena, science came along and explained what REALLY did it. Science is batting 1000 right now; the supernatural is batting 0. You mention you accept evolution, yet The Bible says nothing about evolution. It says man was created fully formed from dust, not that we evolved from hominids going all the way back to single-celled organisms. What's more, if you believe that, you'd equally have to believe that God allowed his creation to wallow in mostly abject suffering for millions of years before he even chose to reveal himself or "inspire" man to invent things like modern medicine.

We know so much and yet so little.

Anyone claiming their way is the only way, or the best way, is the first person you need to be very wary of. Philosophers and scientists have been coming up with "theories" and debunking each others "theories" since the beginning of philosophical discussion. Many atheists, and many scientists are atheists(philosophers as well), say that religion is a joke. I find it a joke that neither of these two disciplines can provide a concrete, factual answer as to how we got here. Big Bang. You cannot create matter from nothing. Well, like uh, ya....grumble grumble, still better than that God idea. IS it? Let's use Occam's Razor. It seems reasonable to me that when you have to justify the creation of the universe, the earth, man, animals, everything, that God created it is the simplest explanation. Now I'm not saying I believe this, but science and philosophy is a never-ending rabbit hole of theories and conjecture. The ENTIRE foundation of philosophy and science rests upon first principles, axioms, whatever you want to call them, and yet they cannot explain this. In this sense philosophy and science are founded on their faith in the truth of first principles in which they cannot prove. Yet atheists and scientists recoil at the word faith which is EXACTLY what belief in first principles is. If you believe in science then you believe in first principles. If you believe in first principles then you believe in things which cannot be proven. You can try to escape the word all you want, but in the end its the same thing as believing in a God that created all and is all. Faith. Scientists have "faith" in the scientific method. Observation and experimentation. They also love to infer a great many things that they cannot prove. Trilobite evolution is a fun one.

At this juncture in my life I am skeptical of both camps. What I am willing to commit to, is the belief that it is the pinnacle of ignorance and vanity for anyone to think they have the answer, that they have the brain power and capacity in their feeble mind to truly understand the scope, the grandeur of design of this universe, or universes. I'm willing to say that better minds have tried and none have been up to the task so far.

I'm all for science. I like this computer. I like my car. I like all the things science has made possible, and I am very excited to see what scientists can come up with over the rest of my life. Space fascinates me. The idea of alien contact blows my mind. Quantum computers, etc. Yet, who knows? Nobody knows for sure. Maybe God knows. Maybe gods know? Who knows? I know one thing though, you don't. You, as in every other human being on this planet. Maybe I'm wrong thinking that. Like I said, you have to be wary of anyone claiming they have the answer to anything so complex as the meaning of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vota

I find it a joke that neither of these two disciplines can provide a concrete, factual answer as to how we got here. Big Bang. You cannot create matter from nothing.

---

Science knows both how we got here as a species, how the universe got to where it is from the big bang, and how a universe can come to be from quantum fields (see Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing"). What has religion given us? A myth about man being formed from dirt and woman from a rib?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vota

Let's use Occam's Razor. It seems reasonable to me that when you have to justify the creation of the universe, the earth, man, animals, everything, that God created it is the simplest explanation.

---

No. It may SEEM like God is a simple explanation, but that's because linguistic simplicity covers up ontological complexity. See this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/

What we see in nature is complexity coming from simplicity; whether it's in the form of evolution creating the diversity it did, stars/planets creating galaxies, or particles becoming atoms becoming molecules. So, given this "simplicity to complexity" paradigm, the notion that a complex being outside spacetime (how does consciousness function outside of space and time, btw?) created something also complex like the universe is a direct violation of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor would favor a theory such as the universe coming into being out of a quantum field fluctuation, which we know can happen, given the qualities quantum fields possess. What's more, we also know quantum fields exist, and that they are incredibly simple in and of themselves. So, if we're talking Occam's Razor, quantum fields slit God's throat with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vota

science and philosophy is a never-ending rabbit hole of theories and conjecture.

---

The difference is that science progresses in measurable ways, while philosophy (and religion) arguably don't progress at all. In fact, the only way philosophy progresses is when it incorporates the advances of modern science. There is no "rabbit hole" of science. It answers certain questions definitively and then moves on to the next one. We have a complete model of how most all objects move/behave via Einstein, and a complete model of how incredibly small objects move/behave via Schrodinger. Are there lingering mysteries? Yes, but the lingering mysteries are things that philosophers and religions didn't even know existed until science answered the questions that philosophers and theologians spent centuries pondering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vota

Yet atheists and scientists recoil at the word faith which is EXACTLY what belief in first principles is. If you believe in science then you believe in first principles. If you believe in first principles then you believe in things which cannot be proven.

---

The problem is that you can't lump every kind of "faith" under one category and try to equalize it. Me having "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow is not the same as me having "faith" a fairy is going to land on my nose within the next 10 seconds. One is based an absolute consistency of sense experience, the other is not. Similar, when you say "faith in science," it's having faith in something that's proven time and again its value in answering basic questions about how reality functions in provable ways.

Are there are always unprovable first principles? Yes, but even some of these are more sensible than others. Me believing that rockets have been to the moon because I've seen them take off, land, seen pictures taken from space, seen astronauts talk about what it's like, etc. is all predicated on me trusting my senses; but that's really what all "first principles" come back to. On some level, we trust what we sense, and, further, we trust that our senses interact in particular ways with reality that by asking certain questions we can answer them by seeing how our senses change. EG, to believe "light interacts with my shoelaces and enters my eye and tells me "my shoelaces are untied,"" we can take away any of these elements--light, eyes, tied laces--and see how our senses change. With no light and no eyes we see nothing, with tied shoelaces we see tied, rather than untied, shoelaces. This changing perception by changing various elements about ourselves/reality are the kind of "first principles" we put "faith" in, and it's very different than the kind of "faith" religious believers have. Religious believers are usually very good about doing their darndest to make their "faith" unfalsifiable, which is the exact opposite of science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vota

What I am willing to commit to, is the belief that it is the pinnacle of ignorance and vanity for anyone to think they have the answer, that they have the brain power and capacity in their feeble mind to truly understand the scope, the grandeur of design of this universe, or universes. I'm willing to say that better minds have tried and none have been up to the task so far.

---

I think the pinnacle of ignorance is for someone to say we understand EVERYTHING, yet, no scientist or atheist I know of says this. Rather, it's usually the theists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, God is behind it all. Great minds have certainly "tried," but each generation of great minds build off those of the past and make distinct progress. The problem is that a great many (most?) are unaware of that progress. Just like you saying that you can't create matter from nothing. Well, yes you can, in a way. Quantum fields, which have no matter, merely potential energy, can, indeed, create matter, gravity, time, and space. Does this change what you think about needing God to create a universe? Probably not, if you have the mind most believers possess. Most believers, when such scientific revelations happen, will merely say "but you don't know where the quantum fields came from! Ha! God must've created that!" so it becomes the classic "God of the gaps" game.

You seem pretty convinced that you have the answers.

I don't have a better reply, than more power to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

So, if we're talking Occam's Razor, quantum fields slit God's throat with it.

---

This gave me chills. Spectacular wordplay.

People who believe in Science have to accept many things they have never confirmed for themselves as fact because someone with a lot of degrees at the end of his or her name said so. Have you ever seen what they refer to as "The God Particle?" The scientists aren't even sure they have but believe it. If science always is to be trusted remember "Piltdown Man?" That a dinosaur skeleton in the Smithsonian went over ninety years with the wrong legs? That they cannot cure the common cold? That they now have decided that Pluto isn't a planet after all? You have to accept what you cannot confirm for your self and sometimes what cannot be reproduced because it was discovered by accident and they haven't found where the deviation is that allowed their discovery in the first place. I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm saying some things science teaches must be accepted without proof positive. Sometimes they keep at it and right the errors, sometimes the error is just accepted until some person most of the scientists think is a screwball manages to catch the error.

Religion is hard to deal with because there is no proof. I'm a minister, and I say that right up front. I cannot prove God exists or heaven (or hell) is real.

Science is something that has a mass effect on us all. The laws of nature apply to everyone. The discoveries of today will affect the world for years to come.

Religion is personal. I can preach to a crowd of 250 people but unless they experience something that convinces them personally of a need for God in their life, nothing I say or do will make a difference. So I preach for the ones who have had that experience. In the average 250 people in a congregation two thirds are just there to say they attend church. So I preach for the one third. I am concerned about even a single person.

Science writes you off it you don't agree as ignorant, foolish, etc. Not all of us. I know the failures of Religion, the many arguments over whose God is God, etc. But like I said, it's personal. Thomas Jefferson said, "“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Likewise it does me no injury if the people who put their faith in science abound. It doesn't change my beliefs or make me a fool.

God Bless

Pen

It was late last night where I live, so I did not feel the inclination to field a systematic response to your post against mine Morpheus, but having some free time today I decided I would.

1. "Science knows both how we got here as a species". The Theory of Evolution is still a theory. There are no cat-dog hybrids. There is a great deal of variation within species, but each species is still recognizable what it is, and not something new. Evolution seems to have a really hard time dealing with this. Also, when you go back to Trilobites, people ASSUME that they evolved from arthropods, and yet considering the hard shell, complex eye structure of the trilobite, we should have some sort of evidence of an arthropod/trilobite mix. As far as I know we do not. I am only just delving into this so if you have a Definite proof that there is I would encourage it.

2. "What we see in nature is complexity coming from simplicity". Do we? The Trilobite is a very complex animal with no "Direct precursor" that can be adequately proven.

3. "how does consciousness function outside of space and time, btw?" I wouldn't know and with my feeble understanding of this universe and it's overriding laws I am willing to admit my ignorance and would not claim to have an answer to this, but neither does any scientist.

4. "quantum field fluctuation, which we know can happen, given the qualities quantum fields possess"-QFT, emphasis on the T, Quantum Field "T"heory. Also there are many criticisms such as the problem of quantum gravity, why the constants of cosmology have the values they have. One must also consider that QFT omits gravity, which is a GIGANTIC gaping hole in the theory. General Relativity and Quantum Theory don't sync up nicely which leads to string theory and other theories. So what you have is an unproven theory that people are trying to shore up with other theories. This is not convincing and certainly not simple.

5. "science progresses in measurable ways, while philosophy (and religion) arguably don't progress at all"-keep in mind that science and philosophy were indistinguishable in the beginning. Science would not exist without philosophy. Science is awesome, no denying that, but science still cannot answer the most fundamental questions. Why are we here? There are no definite answers, no observable proof based on the scientific method. There's distance and time, and theories, but that's what they are, theories. What is consciousness? What is moral? Science is amazing, but it isn't the end all be all and does not disprove of the existence of God or gods nor answer the fundamental questions. You can say what you want, but all you will produce are theories, many with gaping holes in them.

6. "We have a complete model of how most all objects move/behave via Einstein"-The Theory of General Relativity is still a theory. If it wasn't it would have been renamed The Fact of General Relativity. Also, why the probs with QFT?

7. "One is based an absolute consistency of sense experience"-our senses are horribly inconsistent. What we see, or think we see can be terribly inaccurate. What we hear, taste, touch, feel are all subjective. Science by it's very method is subjective relying on observation and experiment, which means that it fundamentally has the weakness of sense bias and inconsistency. Science has proven how woefully inadequate are senses are in knowing the truth, and what's ironic is that science is limited by the very limitations we all inherently possess. It was created by people with woefully inadequate access to the truth of what things really are. This gets really complex.

8. "I think the pinnacle of ignorance is for someone to say we understand EVERYTHING, yet, no scientist or atheist I know of says this." No, they only imply by saying there is no God which is the same as stating that you "know" God does not exist. Atheists by this very declaration imply that they have access to 100% empirical proof of the nature and origin of the universe which would disprove the existence of a creator, which they do not. Having this sort of proof is the only acceptable answer to the question of "Does God exist", and presently no such factual data, evidence, or theory exists. How can one make such a claim without proof? It comes down to "beliefs" that are based on science. Science doesn't have ALL the answers and many would say it still can't answer the most important questions.

9. "Rather, it's usually the theists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, God is behind it all."-I could flip this, "Rather, it's usually the scientists and atheists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO NOT know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, theories are behind it all".

10. "Just like you saying that you can't create matter from nothing. Well, yes you can, in a way. Quantum fields, which have no matter, merely potential energy, can, indeed, create matter, gravity, time, and space."=I already mentioned the various issues with basing anything off QFT. Until the issues are resolved you cannot claim this. Also, QFT has a gigantic problem with vacuum values.

11. "Does this change what you think about needing God to create a universe? Probably not, if you have the mind most believers possess. Most believers, when such scientific revelations happen, will merely say "but you don't know where the quantum fields came from! Ha! God must've created that!" so it becomes the classic "God of the gaps" game."

You insult people that believe as having someone how a weaker or incorrect mind or belief system. There are many scientists, doctors, and even philosophers that believe in some sort of higher power. It's just as feasible that God created everything, as it is feasible that one in countless theories might be the correct explanation "of it all".

I would add that I consider myself an agnostic because I am not convinced by either side. Both sides have their positive, strong points, but neither side can claim they are necessarily right or that the other is wrong.