Sciences vs. Religion

[MorpheusSandman]

The many worlds model doesn't add the needed assumption that allows it to generate the Born probabilities. Therefore it cannot construct a wave function. Therefore it is not an interpretation for how electrons behave.

Better to have an interpretation that simply says "there's more we don't know" (MW) than to have an interpretation that says "we know everything, but please ignore all of the absurdities and contradictions and violations of scientific, rational, and logical principles that our assumptions create" (CI).

Considering the absurdity of many worlds and the absurdity of even wanting a strict determinism like it proposes, I think theistic beliefs are more reasonable and more scientific since they fit reality better.

Yes, an invisible superman behind everything we don't understand is "more reasonable" and "fits reality better" than believing that our QM models are real. I would love for you to explain how theism is the least bit "scientific." How is "we don't understand something, so God did it" scientific?

However, science and religion are not at odds

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

...realization that the universe is incredibly young.

14 billions years old is young?

[YesNo]

Better to have an interpretation that simply says "there's more we don't know" (MW) than to have an interpretation that says "we know everything, but please ignore all of the absurdities and contradictions and violations of scientific, rational, and logical principles that our assumptions create" (CI).

Many worlds can't even face the facts that we do know.

Yes, an invisible superman behind everything we don't understand is "more reasonable" and "fits reality better" than believing that our QM models are real. I would love for you to explain how theism is the least bit "scientific." How is "we don't understand something, so God did it" scientific?

It is far more reasonable than gazillions of parallel universes that in the end don't explain anything anyway.

14 billions years old is young?

Considering that the universe was previously viewed as eternal, 13.7 billion years is very young. In particular, it is too young, far too young, for chance to fill in the gaps and explain how we got to where we are today. The only God of the gaps is chance, but with the universe being so young, that God did not have time to do anything. Something else must be at work.

[MorpheusSandman]

Many worlds can't even face the facts that we do know.

This is plain false, but don't let that stop you from saying it over and over and over and over and over and over.

It is far more reasonable than gazillions of parallel universes that in the end don't explain anything anyway.

And, again, you're judging MW based on its complex consequences (the "gazillions of parallel universes") rather than its simple assumptions, the same simple assumptions that are consistent with everything we know about physics and history; and, again, you're ignoring that great complexity arising from simple premises is what we see all throughout nature within our own universe, not simplicity arising from complexity like Copenhagen; and, again, you're ignoring that MW's problem (Born) is much less significant than CI's multiple problems.

In particular, it is too young, far too young, for chance to fill in the gaps and explain how we got to where we are today. The only God of the gaps is chance, but with the universe being so young, that God did not have time to do anything.

This is plain false, but don't let that stop you from saying it over and over and over and over and over and over.

I can't help but notice how you failed to meet this challenge: "I would love for you to explain how theism is the least bit "scientific." How is "we don't understand something, so God did it" scientific?""

You did nothing to explain how theism was "scientific." All you did was pull out a big, honking argument from incredulity fallacy ("I can't imagine how a 14 billion year old universe could've created everything by chance, so God did it.").

[YesNo]

This is plain false, but don't let that stop you from saying it over and over and over and over and over and over.

I don't mind repeating myself. Thanks for giving me the opportunity. I usually try to do it in different ways so I see it from a different angle.

I can't help but notice how you failed to meet this challenge: "I would love for you to explain how theism is the least bit "scientific." How is "we don't understand something, so God did it" scientific?""

You did nothing to explain how theism was "scientific." All you did was pull out a big, honking argument from incredulity fallacy ("I can't imagine how a 14 billion year old universe could've created everything by chance, so God did it.").

I don't know a lot about religion, and I can't speak for any particular theism, but I suspect the theisms that present God using the names of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Rama, Krishna, Saraswati, and the like, are not interested in their Gods being some "God of the gaps" or some "Intelligent Designer" of machines. They think more highly of their Gods than that.

The God of the gaps has a name. It is called "Chance" and it is the God determinists invoke when they can't explain something. They expect people to accept their God without question, but considering how young the universe is, arguments that this Chance God exists or could have achieved what they claim it did requires a statistical argument that they conveniently refuse to provide.

This is from the link that you cite:

Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so.

That is exactly what those believing in the Chance God need to calculate. Instead of satirizing the "creationists", they need to get off their butts and show that whenever they claim something occurred by chance that there is a statistical likelihood that it could actually occur by chance.

Here's another quote:

Merely because one cannot believe that, for example, homeopathy is no more than a placebo does not magically make such treatment effective.

Homeopathy could well be a placebo effect without there being any "magic" involved. However, if the universe were deterministic and our consciousness made no difference since we are just machines, ideas these self-proclaimed "rationalists" tend to believe in, there should be no placebo effects. None at all. The existence of these effects means that the consciousness of the patient cured the patient, not the drug, because that patient didn't get the drug.

The general belief systems of theists are not in conflict with the data that science provides today. Their Gods are not spaghetti monsters, but they don't have to be in a universe where fields are possible. Their Gods are not deterministic, but they don't have to be because quantum physics has found uncertainty at the core of matter.

Again, I can't speak for specific theisms, but science doesn't stand in the way of these religions.

What I do find amazing is the extent today that atheists have to go to maintain their beloved mechanistic determinism. If there is anything that has been falsified by modern science it is this atheistic metaphysics.

[MorpheusSandman]

I don't mind repeating myself.

Obviously. You don't mind repeating yourself even after you've been factually corrected. It vividly reminds me of Creationists who say "evolution has no idea where life came from so evolution is wrong!," then have it explained to them that evolution only seeks to explain why living things change, not where they come from, yet continue to state "evolution has no idea where life came from so evolution is wrong!" Your "evolution = abiogenisis" fallacy is "Bell disproves Many Worlds," amongst others.

...I suspect the theisms that present God using the names of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Rama, Krishna, Saraswati, and the like, are not interested in their Gods being some "God of the gaps" or some "Intelligent Designer" of machines. They think more highly of their Gods than that.

The God of the gaps has a name. It is called "Chance" and it is the God determinists invoke when they can't explain something.

Firstly, not a single thing in your post addressed my challenge to explain how theism was "scientific;" secondly, remember that "chance/coincidence" is not a "God" or "God of the gaps," IT'S THE DEFAULT POSITION BECAUSE IT'S THE NULL HYPOTHESIS! You yourself brought up the null hypothesis in the Lost & Found thread and was advocating its usage until you learned that the null hypohtesis and chance/coincidence are the same thing. It reminds me of when you were advocating Richard Feynman as an authority until you learned he was a MW advocate.

That is exactly what those believing in the Chance God need to calculate. Instead of satirizing the "creationists", they need to get off their butts and show that whenever they claim something occurred by chance that there is a statistical likelihood that it could actually occur by chance.

This just shows that you know nothing of probabilities, and it's just the classic, teleological, "argument from big numbers" fallacy. If I go out and look up at the sky, the probability that I will see the exact cloud formation I do is incredibly small; If I'm driving home and note the license plate numbers of every car in front of me, the probability that I would've encountered precisely those license plates is incredibly small; if you calculate every outcome of every game in Vegas over the course of a single night, the probability of that outcome is astronomically small. Every single one of these three "incredibly small probability" events have one thing in common: they all happened by CHANCE. Unless you think there is some "grand design" in me seeing the cloud formation, or those license plates, or those Vegas outcomes, then you, also, would agree it was "chance." Remember, chance is the "null hypothesis," it's the claim that "there is no meaning/design/causal connection between these events." In order to argue it ISN'T chance requires more than just the big probabilities against those events happening. Just because we, as humans, find big probabilities against things that are relevant to us makes zero difference in whether there's some meaning, design, or causal connection in what we experience, including life itself.

However, if the universe were deterministic and our consciousness made no difference since we are just machines, ideas these self-proclaimed "rationalists" tend to believe in, there should be no placebo effects. None at all.

Firstly, the universe being deterministic has nothing to do with whether or not our "consciousness" makes a difference. If you program an AI, the programming itself is what defines the AI! Defines what it thinks, says, and does. Our consciousness, if it is a real, physical thing as rationalists believe, would, itself, define what we think, say, and do. Just because we're deterministic would not change in the slightest how important our consciousness is to us. Secondly, I have no idea how/why you're making the connection between "the ideas rationalists believe in" and "there shouldn't be a placebo effect." As a rationalist myself, I believe that the human mind, consciousness, is a very real thing and what it thinks has a profound effect on how it feels and what it does. Just as thoughts can convince a person that they're sick, and, because thoughts are real things, can even MAKE them sick; thoughts can also convince a person that they'll get better if they take something and, because thoughts are real things, can actually GET better.

The general belief systems of theists are not in conflict with the data that science provides today.

What "general belief systems?" It seems unfair to define "general belief system" as "anything in religion not in conflict with science." Meanwhile, Christian beliefs that see The Bible as the inerrant Word of God would believe that the blood of birds and incantations cure leprosy. What has happened in the wake of modern science (not to mention modern morality) is that people progressively shear away from their "general belief systems" those parts of their holy texts that are in direct conflict with science and modern morality; or, if they're like many fundamentalists in the US, they deny modern science, like evolution, in favor of believing the Genesis version of creation. One doesn't have to look hard to find religious beliefs that are, indeed, in direct conflict with science. What's more, the process that generates such beliefs are in direct conflict with the scientific method. There are no religious beliefs that have been reached because of the scientific method, unless you believe The Bible, which, conveniently, is no longer susceptible to the same modern method.

What I do find amazing is the extent today that atheists have to go to maintain their beloved mechanistic determinism. If there is anything that has been falsified by modern science it is this atheistic metaphysics.

Speaking of something you've said repeatedly despite having been corrected...

Atheistic metaphysics have NOTHING TO DO WITH DETERMINISM. In fact, with the lone exception of a disbelief in gods, an atheistic metaphysics ENTAILS NOTHING ELSE. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who believe in Copenhagen or another indeterministic interp. of QM. If science came together tomorrow and definitively determined that the world was indeterministic IT WOULD NOT CHANGE MY ATHEISTIC BELIEFS ONE IOTA. I don't know ANY atheist whose atheism is bound up in their belief in determinism.

There's also some wonderful irony to the above. Back when Newton first came along with his deterministic physics, most religious institutions and believers thought that this determinism was evidence FOR God's grand ordering of the cosmos. Likewise, when quantum physics seemed to show that things were indeterministic at the quantum level, many theists saw this as a challenge to this supposed Godly order, as they could see no reason why God would "play dice" in Einstein's phrasing. Really, I find it funny that you are SO SURE that indeterminism is evidence for theism while determinism is evidence for atheism. Personally, I see both as being COMPLETELY NEUTRAL on the atheism VS theism front.

Typically, though, you've convinced yourself that I believe in determinism because determinism is absolutely crucial to my metaphysical beliefs. This is just you projecting how YOUR mind works onto me. YOU have metaphysical beliefs and refuse to accept anything that goes against them. YOU put inordinate amount of evidential pressure on something like MW while completely ignoring all of the problems in indeterministic QM. I, on the other hand, am happy to accept anything, be it determinism, indeterminism, theism, etc. as long as the winds of evidence are blowing in that direction. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be a rationalist. You, as a non-rationalist, believe that everyone thinks like you, that they have the same biases that are making them believe these things you don't believe. If you genuinely, honestly, appraised the evidence you'd understand why I believe what I do. You may still disagree with me, but you wouldn't be cooking up this cockamamie notions that I'm so desperate to maintain my atheistic metaphysics that I'm deluding myself into believing in determinism. I know why you believe what you do; you WANT to believe in indeterminism because you WANT to believe that human consciousness isn't a deterministic machine because THAT would make you feel insignificant. YOU are a classic victim of wishful thinking. I don't see how there can be any progress in our conversations until you get over this bias/fallacy.

[YesNo]

You don't mind repeating yourself even after you've been factually corrected.

What facts?

In order to argue it ISN'T chance requires more than just the big probabilities against those events happening.

Instead of "chance" one should simply say one doesn't know.

As a rationalist myself, I believe that the human mind, consciousness, is a very real thing and what it thinks has a profound effect on how it feels and what it does. Just as thoughts can convince a person that they're sick, and, because thoughts are real things, can even MAKE them sick; thoughts can also convince a person that they'll get better if they take something and, because thoughts are real things, can actually GET better.

I see that we agree on something.

What "general belief systems?" It seems unfair to define "general belief system" as "anything in religion not in conflict with science."

I don't see science standing in the way of these religious beliefs. It does stand in the way of determinism.

One doesn't have to look hard to find religious beliefs that are, indeed, in direct conflict with science. What's more, the process that generates such beliefs are in direct conflict with the scientific method. There are no religious beliefs that have been reached because of the scientific method, unless you believe The Bible, which, conveniently, is no longer susceptible to the same modern method.

The determinism of many worlds is in direct conflict with modern science, specifically, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. If it is OK for many worlds to be in conflict with science, it should be OK for these religious groups to differ as well.

If science came together tomorrow and definitively determined that the world was indeterministic IT WOULD NOT CHANGE MY ATHEISTIC BELIEFS ONE IOTA. I don't know ANY atheist whose atheism is bound up in their belief in determinism.

Atheism seems bound up with determinism, however, I agree that not all atheists are determinists. A mechanistic view of the universe seems to require determinism.

Typically, though, you've convinced yourself that I believe in determinism because determinism is absolutely crucial to my metaphysical beliefs. This is just you projecting how YOUR mind works onto me. YOU have metaphysical beliefs and refuse to accept anything that goes against them. YOU put inordinate amount of evidential pressure on something like MW while completely ignoring all of the problems in indeterministic QM. I, on the other hand, am happy to accept anything, be it determinism, indeterminism, theism, etc. as long as the winds of evidence are blowing in that direction. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be a rationalist.

Well, the scientific evidence is in favor of indeterminism. Why don't you accept it?

you WANT to believe in indeterminism because you WANT to believe that human consciousness isn't a deterministic machine because THAT would make you feel insignificant.

It is not that complicated. My own experience tells me that I do make choices, no matter how restricted these may be. So, if I believed in determinism, I would have to deny the evidence of my experiences without any good scientific reason to do so.

[MorpheusSandman]

What facts?

That Bell does nothing to disprove MW. If you don't know why then you either haven't been reading what myself and others have said, you don't understand what MW is, what Bell is, or you don't understand what you've been reading. Take your pick; but it is a factually factual fact that Bell does nothing to disprove MW.

Instead of "chance" one should simply say one doesn't know.

The question isn't about absolute knowledge but about the most reasonable initial assumption. Chance/Coincidence is the null hypothesis, it's the most reasonable initial assumption. We should assume that something is chance until we have data that suggests otherwise.

I don't see science standing in the way of these religious beliefs.

WHAT religious beliefs? You keep lumping all religious beliefs under one label and acting as if they're all the same. Any time a religious belief has something to say about external reality, I very much think science is "standing in its way" to the extent that no religious beliefs hold up to rigorous, scientific testing.

The determinism of many worlds is in direct conflict with modern science, specifically, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.

This is one of those factually incorrect things you like to repeat ad nauseam. Many Worlds explains the Uncertainty Principle, it is not in conflict with it.

Atheism seems bound up with determinism

Why does it seem this way? Have you taken a poll of atheists to see how many are determinists VS indeterminists?

Well, the scientific evidence is in favor of indeterminism. Why don't you accept it?

Because it's not. The scientific evidence is in favor of determinism appearing indeterministic because of us being part of the systems we're observing and our perspectives being limited because of it.

It is not that complicated. My own experience tells me that I do make choices, no matter how restricted these may be.

And your own experience tells you the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. How many times does science have to show that our experiences are limited because of our perspective? If the world was deterministic, you would only know if your brain was infinite in its ability to computer those processes, but it's not. Do you know that our brains make choices before we're even aware of it? http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind...ore-you-decide

The "good evidence" to deny your experience are the QM formulas themselves (Shrodinger and Heisenberg). Take them as real, as all mathematical models of all natural phenomena has been throughout history, and don't unnecessarily add anything to them, as per Occam's Razor, and you get the determinism of MW. You actually have to unnecessarily add something to them, like a collapse, or unreasonably assume they're "non-real" in order to get indeterminism; and your "reward" for unnecessarily assuming they're non-real and unnecessarily adding a collapse are all of these seemingly irresolvable paradoxes like the non-locality of Bell (ironically, Bell's non-locality is SUPPOSED to be a challenge for CI, NOT for MW!), or the inexplicable mechanism behind the indeterminate collapse itself.

In your desperate attempt to maintain indeterminism, which you feel is necessary for free-will/consciousness, you hand-wave all of the problems and paradoxes that the one-world interps. of QM create, the same problems that physicists have been baffled by for almost a century. Instead, you could just obey Occam's razor, assume the reality of the wavefunction, and you end up with an interp. that is compatible with everything else we know about physics. No irresolvable paradoxes and mysteries. Of course, you don't WANT to do that because you WANT to believe in indeterminism.

[YesNo]

That Bell does nothing to disprove MW. If you don't know why then you either haven't been reading what myself and others have said, you don't understand what MW is, what Bell is, or you don't understand what you've been reading. Take your pick; but it is a factually factual fact that Bell does nothing to disprove MW.

What you are presenting are dogmas that you believe in. There is nothing factual about them.

The experiments that show correspondences between entangled particles separated and then measured show, to my satisfaction, that MW cannot realign the assumed split of these worlds in a way that would guarantee this correspondence can be preserved. That is enough to falsify the claim the MW is any more "local" than any other interpretation.

Now, you need to show how that correspondence can be maintained.

The question isn't about absolute knowledge but about the most reasonable initial assumption. Chance/Coincidence is the null hypothesis, it's the most reasonable initial assumption. We should assume that something is chance until we have data that suggests otherwise.

It is best to say that one does not know. There is no reasonable initial assumption. One doesn't actually know that chance was involved.

However, if one wants to claim some event occurred by chance, then one can test that. Just compute the probability that such an event occurred by chance. If the probability is too small, then one would have to reject that chance was the cause. When one rejects chance, all one knows is that something else was involved. We may not be able to find out what it was.

WHAT religious beliefs? You keep lumping all religious beliefs under one label and acting as if they're all the same. Any time a religious belief has something to say about external reality, I very much think science is "standing in its way" to the extent that no religious beliefs hold up to rigorous, scientific testing.

From my perspective, the differences are minor. Essentially religions guide a born again, kundalini or enlightenment experience using their various traditions, faiths and scriptures.

This is one of those factually incorrect things you like to repeat ad nauseam. Many Worlds explains the Uncertainty Principle, it is not in conflict with it.

It does not. Science is not in conflict with religion but with pseudo-science such as many worlds that calls metaphysical dogmas "facts" and speculations "science".

And your own experience tells you the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. How many times does science have to show that our experiences are limited because of our perspective? If the world was deterministic, you would only know if your brain was infinite in its ability to computer those processes, but it's not. Do you know that our brains make choices before we're even aware of it? http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind...ore-you-decide

I'm aware of what is presented in that link. I looks to me that it shows that our consciousness is larger than our immediate awareness. It might even be useful as evidence that our consciousness is not generated by our brains.

To pursue this further, what or who prompted the brain to decide to do something? Why do we still call it our decision?

The "good evidence" to deny your experience are the QM formulas themselves (Shrodinger and Heisenberg). Take them as real, as all mathematical models of all natural phenomena has been throughout history, and don't unnecessarily add anything to them, as per Occam's Razor, and you get the determinism of MW.

Once many worlds removes the assumption that allows the Born probabilities to be computed, and supposedly gains some bogus Occam's Razor advantage, it loses touch with reality and scientific evidence. When it claims it is saying something significant about quantum physics, it becomes pseudo-science. Many worlds cannot generate a single wave function let alone make anything "real".

You actually have to unnecessarily add something to them, like a collapse, or unreasonably assume they're "non-real" in order to get indeterminism; and your "reward" for unnecessarily assuming they're non-real and unnecessarily adding a collapse are all of these seemingly irresolvable paradoxes like the non-locality of Bell (ironically, Bell's non-locality is SUPPOSED to be a challenge for CI, NOT for MW!), or the inexplicable mechanism behind the indeterminate collapse itself.

The issues with wave function collapse have been addressed by consistent histories. There is no need for many worlds anymore.

In your desperate attempt to maintain indeterminism, which you feel is necessary for free-will/consciousness, you hand-wave all of the problems and paradoxes that the one-world interps. of QM create, the same problems that physicists have been baffled by for almost a century. Instead, you could just obey Occam's razor, assume the reality of the wavefunction, and you end up with an interp. that is compatible with everything else we know about physics. No irresolvable paradoxes and mysteries. Of course, you don't WANT to do that because you WANT to believe in indeterminism.

Why do you want determinism so badly?

[MorpheusSandman]

What you are presenting are dogmas that you believe in. There is nothing factual about them.

This is not dogma. This is a fact that any theoretical physicist would confirm. I repeat, it is a factually factual fact that Bell does nothing to disprove MW. If you don't know why then you either haven't been reading what myself and others have said, you don't understand what MW is, what Bell is, or you don't understand what you've been reading. It's your insistence on repeating crap like this that makes me feel you're being intentionally dishonest or a troll.

It is best to say that one does not know. There is no reasonable initial assumption.

Pure BS. You yourself were promoting the null hypothesis and now you're backing away from it. The road you're going down would mean we could never assume chance for anything, like the order the leaves fell of a tree. There must be some grand purpose behind it. What nonsense.

However, if one wants to claim some event occurred by chance, then one can test that. Just compute the probability that such an event occurred by chance. If the probability is too small, then one would have to reject that chance was the cause. When one rejects chance, all one knows is that something else was involved. We may not be able to find out what it was.

This is not how one tests chance and again shows you know nothing of science or probabilities. I already explained this earlier, which is proof positive you don't read or understand what anyone writes. To copy/paste what I wrote just a few posts ago:

If I go out and look up at the sky, the probability that I will see the exact cloud formation I do is incredibly small; If I'm driving home and note the license plate numbers of every car in front of me, the probability that I would've encountered precisely those license plates is incredibly small; if you noted every outcome of every game in Vegas over the course of a single night, the probability of that outcome is astronomically small. Every single one of these three "incredibly small probability" events have one thing in common: they all happened by CHANCE... In order to argue it ISN'T chance requires more than just the big probabilities against those events happening.

From my perspective, the differences are minor. Essentially religions guide a born again, kundalini or enlightenment experience using their various traditions, faiths and scriptures.

THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE TRADITIONS, FAITHS, AND SCRIPTURES BEING COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE! You said, and I quote, "I think theistic beliefs are more reasonable and more scientific (than MW) since they fit reality better," yet you haven't done a single, solitary thing to show how ANY religious beliefs are the LEAST bit scientific.

It does not. Science is not in conflict with religion but with pseudo-science such as many worlds that calls metaphysical dogmas "facts" and speculations "science".

It does so. Many Worlds doesn't call anything a "fact" because it's a F'ING INTERPRETATION! It "interprets" the wavefunction as real and it "interprets" things like the Shrodinger equation and Uncertainty Principle as being a complete-in-themselves description of reality. Those are its "interpretations." You will not find a single MW advocate claiming any of its claims as factual. I dare you to.

I looks to me that it shows that our consciousness is larger than our immediate awareness.

Consciousness IS awareness!

To pursue this further, what or who prompted the brain to decide to do something?

Oh, I don't know, how about those deterministic particles the brain is made up of?

Once many worlds removes the assumption that allows the Born probabilities to be computed, and supposedly gains some bogus Occam's Razor advantage, it loses touch with reality and scientific evidence.

It's actually Copenhagen that, once it adds the assumption that allows the Born probabilities to be computed, loses touch with reality and scientific evidence. You seem to keep forgetting the little problem CI has of being completely and inexplicably irreconcilable with everything else we know about physics. MW is compatible with those things, so MW is completely "in touch" with reality and the scientific evidence; CI is not.

The issues with wave function collapse have been addressed by consistent histories.

Which still has the problem of erroneously assuming the wave equations are inexplicably unreal. Explain to me how we can have models of unreal things. Once you figure out how to do that, I may take CH seriously.

Why do you want determinism so badly?

I don't. To repeat what I said earlier:

You've convinced yourself that I believe in determinism because determinism is absolutely crucial to my metaphysical beliefs. This is just you projecting how YOUR mind works onto me. YOU have metaphysical beliefs and refuse to accept anything that goes against them. YOU put inordinate amount of evidential pressure on something like MW while completely ignoring all of the problems in indeterministic QM. I, on the other hand, am happy to accept anything, be it determinism, indeterminism, theism, etc. as long as the winds of evidence are blowing in that direction. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be a rationalist.

I'll repeat further: I DON'T GIVE A FLYING RAT'S *** FLIP TAIL DONKEY HONK ABOUT DETERMINISM. If the collective sciences came together tomorrow and said to me "the universe is indeterministic! We've established this fact beyond doubt!" I'd give a shrug and a nod and say "OK." and would believe the universe was indeterministic and go about my daily life. The universe being (in)deterministic MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, NADA, ZERO, ZILCH, SQUATOLA TO ME! I merely BELIEVE it's deterministic because MW is the best current interpretation of QM we have for the millions of reasons I've given. If a better, indeterministic interpretation comes along, I will believe it. Again, it's YOU who have this desperate need to believe in indeterminism, so you've done everything in your power to discredit MW and ignore all the problems with all of the indeterministic interps. of QM. You are one the most obvious victims of Confirmation bias I've ever seen.

[YesNo]

THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE TRADITIONS, FAITHS, AND SCRIPTURES BEING COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE! You said, and I quote, "I think theistic beliefs are more reasonable and more scientific (than MW) since they fit reality better," yet you haven't done a single, solitary thing to show how ANY religious beliefs are the LEAST bit scientific.

The religious experiences that these traditions are concerned with can be viewed as non-deterministic resonances, or dances, between people and some divine reality. Since we know their experiences are real, the only question is whether that divine partner is real.

If science had validated mechanistic determinism, one might be able to claim that those believers were dancing by themselves with only an imaginary partner. However, that is not what happened. What happened was mechanistic determinism was falsified. That leaves open the question whether this divine partner is real or not.

Given the existence of these experiences and the falsification of mechanistic determinism, I find these theistic beliefs more reasonable and a better fit to reality than any atheistic objections to them. This voids any imaginary conflict between science and religion that atheists like to promote.

[MorpheusSandman]

What happened was mechanistic determinism was falsified.

Blatantly false.

Given the existence of these experiences and the falsification of mechanistic determinism, I find these theistic beliefs more reasonable and a better fit to reality than any atheistic objections to them.

Even ignoring the blatant falsity that determinism was falsified, whether you find theistic beliefs to be "reasonable" STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BEING THE LEAST BIT SCIENTIFIC! Do you know what the scientific method is? Please explain to me how ANY religious belief is compatible with that method.

What's more, chance, coincidence, the "null hypothesis," does not depend upon determinism to exist (indeed, why would things NOT seem more random and meaningless in an indeterministic universe?); so explain to me how, even in an indeterministic universe, "Goddit" "fits reality better" and "is more reasonable" than chance? And you can't use the "argument from big probabilities" as I've already explained twice.

[YesNo]

Even ignoring the blatant falsity that determinism was falsified, whether you find theistic beliefs to be "reasonable" STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BEING THE LEAST BIT SCIENTIFIC! Do you know what the scientific method is? Please explain to me how ANY religious belief is compatible with that method.

What I can say is many worlds is not scientific. I don't even think it is rational.

The view of reality that religious people provide, based on the religious experiences that people actually have, makes more sense given the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, the current knowledge that the universe had a beginning and the existence of reality in the form of fields.

What's more, chance, coincidence, the "null hypothesis," does not depend upon determinism to exist (indeed, why would things NOT seem more random and meaningless in an indeterministic universe?); so explain to me how, even in an indeterministic universe, "Goddit" "fits reality better" and "is more reasonable" than chance? And you can't use the "argument from big probabilities" as I've already explained twice.

I look at "chance" and "determinism" as paired metaphors. They depend on a mechanistic view of reality in which consciousness and choice are ignored. I don't think either one is more than an approximation to anything real.

[MorpheusSandman]

What I can say is many worlds is not scientific. I don't even think it is rational.

Let's see:

Actual scientists say: Many Worlds is scientific
Actual rationalists say: Many Worlds is rational

YesNo says: Many Worlds isn't scientific, but religion is
YesNo says: Many Worlds isn't rational, but Deepak Chopra is

Hmmmm, I wonder whom we should believe here?

The view of reality that religious people provide, based on the religious experiences that people actually have, makes more sense given the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, the current knowledge that the universe had a beginning and the existence of reality in the form of fields.

Again, this does not demonstrate how religion is the least bit scientific as you claimed it was. By this rationale, the flying spaghetti monster is also scientific. You have in no way connected The Uncertainty Principle to being evidence for God.

I look at "chance" and "determinism" as paired metaphors. They depend on a mechanistic view of reality...

How in the hell does "chance" depend upon a "mechanistic reality?"

Plus, let me get this straight; you think there's no such thing as chance, correct? So everything from the way a leaf falls, to specific cloud formations, to the roll of a die, to the fact that I farted at the same time my team scored... none of those things happen by chance? There's some deep meaning and connection behind them all?

[YesNo]

Plus, let me get this straight; you think there's no such thing as chance, correct? So everything from the way a leaf falls, to specific cloud formations, to the roll of a die, to the fact that I farted at the same time my team scored... none of those things happen by chance? There's some deep meaning and connection behind them all?

If you believe in determinism, how does chance fit in that at all?

[MorpheusSandman]

If you believe in determinism, how does chance fit in that at all?

First, let me define what I mean by chance.

By chance, I mean an event that, even if it is deterministic in an objective manner, we experience it probabilistically or indeterministically because of our limited experience (as in MW) or limited knowledge (what card in poker will come next) or limited ability to calculate (the coin flip) the deterministic forces. In MW the universal wavefunction may be objectively deterministic but it is subjectively indetermistic; "chance" is, essentially, not knowing whether "you" will see the cat alive or dead, since you can never see it both alive AND dead. In poker, even though the next card is decided after the shuffle, we can not KNOW what that card is; so "chance" arises from our ignorance. For a coin flip, even if we say that there are deterministic physical forces (General Relativity) controlling what side it lands on, we can not calculate them all in order to predict what side it lands on; so "chance" arises from our inability to calculate the deterministic forces.

What's more, in each of these cases (MW, coin flip, next poker card), there is nothing besides those deterministic, non-anthropomorphic, non-agent, non-intentional, forces "controlling" what happens. So by "chance" I also mean a lack of connection between the event and some other "cause" (be that cause supernautral or otherwise). In order for someone to establish a cause BESIDES chance requires the scientific method of removing variables and testing to see if there are connections between events and proposed causes. You can't just experience the event, and then say "God" (or whatever) after the event occurs, because that's when you end up with fake causality and crap theories like phlogiston. God is basically phlogiston; it's something people evoke after the event has happened, but never use to make advanced predictions. That Phlogiston article precisely articulates what's wrong with the "God" hypothesis in all cases.