Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
taniwha

Is God All In The Mind?

2,046 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Leonardo

That's because old paradims die hard. There are some very specific things that materilaism "hinges" on that indeed do not hold after scientific observations. Undeniable things actually.

And what are they?

I see, so if a philisophical position dosnt fit scientific understanding its some how dropped from academia? I don't know what university you went to Leo but one of my first college courses was ethics... A philosophy course, and young earth creationism was indeed part of the study. It came up in other philosophy courses aswell. Materilasm/physicalism has gone both the way of young earth creatiinism and the dinosaur :devil:

Yes, such things are included in comparative studies, but not as - at least, not in reputable institutions - examples of valid, ongoing areas of academic discipline.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf

Atheists announce they have proven scientifically that God is unnecessary, smirk condescendingly, then high five and bro-hug each other.

I have never heard or seen athiests doing that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

And what are they?

Yes, such things are included in comparative studies, but not as - at least, not in reputable institutions - examples of valid, ongoing areas of academic discipline.

Primarily the necessity to be subject to spacetime. Materilaism is an area of on going academic study? I don't think so. Materilism 101 I guess. By the way theology is a major area of academic study.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

So there is no free will?

god-is-an-alien-thumb.jpg

My wife and I interact . That doesn't interfere with the free wlll of either of us. Even when I do what she tells me to do it is from free will You either have a misconception about the nature of free will, or the nature of the connection between man and god.

And of course god is an alien. Did you think it was human?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
of course god is an alien. Did you think it was human?

People sure do love to put a human quality on god. So it stand to reason that either god is something that can not be know, doesn't exist, or is a human creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

I have never heard or seen athiests doing that.

Apparently, there's a lot you've never seen or done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

People sure do love to put a human quality on god. So it stand to reason that either god is something that can not be know, doesn't exist, or is a human creation.

Why do you assume alien beings cannot be known.? ANy alien being with self aware sapience will be very similar in mind to a human. As will he minds of dolphins chimps and artificial intelligences one day.

The mind of god or the cosmic consciousness connects me to god , other minds and to alien minds form around the universe. I am no sure if it is a sort of universal consciousness network , or what. I cant understand alien languages and so I can't understand the workings of their minds which operate using their verbal language, but I can see and experience through their eyes, and my consciousness,. the wonders of the universe And I can extend my own consciousness, via the "consciousness of god" to explore the universe Yes god is alien, but clever, wise, witty, protective and loving to me. It amazes me that he has taken the time and energy to care, but then I do this for others, so I can understand his motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf

Apparently, there's a lot you've never seen or done.

Lame, I made an honest answer to your post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Primarily the necessity to be subject to spacetime. Materilaism is an area of on going academic study? I don't think so. Materilism 101 I guess. By the way theology is a major area of academic study.

So?

It's a fact that Man has written or told stories of gods, deities, supernatural entities and the like. It is natural for such to be studied, but please do not presume to suggest it is the subject of those tales that is being studied, because there is no physical reality of them to study.

Theology is a study of our conscious relationship with the universe, nothing more.

Likewise, the study of valid philosophies such as materialism is the same.

And you still haven't answered the question of what "things" materialism hinges on that have been discredited. "The necessity to be subject to spacetime" is far too unspecific to be informative that you know what you claim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Lame, I made an honest answer to your post.

And I made an honest observation. I've watched more than one celebrity atheist give lectures or in debates and how rude and insulting and derisive and condescending, they are of theists and I stand by my words. Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

So?

It's a fact that Man has written or told stories of gods, deities, supernatural entities and the like. It is natural for such to be studied, but please do not presume to suggest it is the subject of those tales that is being studied, because there is no physical reality of them to study.

Theology is a study of our conscious relationship with the universe, nothing more.

Likewise, the study of valid philosophies such as materialism is the same.

And you still haven't answered the question of what "things" materialism hinges on that have been discredited. "The necessity to be subject to spacetime" is far too unspecific to be informative that you know what you claim.

It was you who said it was not an avenue of academic study not me. I was just pointing out that it was in fact. I don't remeber any classes being offered on materialism in any other way that wasn't held in the same spirit as theology. It's a philosophy. You sounded like one could get a PHD in materilism.

I did to somone else look back and see my comments about tunneling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

So?

It's a fact that Man has written or told stories of gods, deities, supernatural entities and the like. It is natural for such to be studied, but please do not presume to suggest it is the subject of those tales that is being studied, because there is no physical reality of them to study.

Theology is a study of our conscious relationship with the universe, nothing more.

Likewise, the study of valid philosophies such as materialism is the same.

And you still haven't answered the question of what "things" materialism hinges on that have been discredited. "The necessity to be subject to spacetime" is far too unspecific to be informative that you know what you claim.

I don't think you will get many academicians in any field, from medicine ( and especially psychiatric medicine and psychology,) through philosophy, and including theology, to agree entirely with the bolded bit. Even in the hard sciences such questions remain open, as they rightly and logically should.

So many humans recount individual interactions with gods, that this has to be studied. It cannot simply be dismissed as incredible, any more than a sighting of an U.F.O., or stories of alien abduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

It was you who said it was not an avenue of academic study not me. I was just pointing out that it was in fact. I don't remeber any classes being offered on materialism in any other way that wasn't held in the same spirit as theology. It's a philosophy. You sounded like one could get a PHD in materilism.

Where did I make such comments?

I said materialism is part of academic study. I never said theology was not a subject of such study. You have either misunderstood what I said, or you are trying to twist my words to support your unsupportable position.

I did to somone else look back and see my comments about tunneling.

So?

What 'pillar of materialism' does the phenomenon of quantum tunnelling undermine?

If you haven't realised already, WCF, the point of the questions I am asking is to show you have made unsupportable claims of certainty regarding the 'invalidity' of materialism. I know you believe certain things about the nature of 'reality', but belief is not knowledge and is never 'certainty'. It does not make a person an idiot to admit they made a mistake.

MW,

I don't think you will get many academicians in any field, from medicine ( and especially psychiatric medicine and psychology,) through philosophy, and including theology, to agree entirely with the bolded bit. Even in the hard sciences such questions remain open, as they rightly and logically should.

So many humans recount individual interactions with gods, that this has to be studied. It cannot simply be dismissed as incredible, any more than a sighting of an U.F.O., or stories of alien abduction.

Despite your many, and long-standing, claims of having physically met 'god' you have yet to produce any actual evidence that such a meeting took place. Anecdote is not evidence - at least, not physical evidence - and so my comment that "there is no physical reality of them [gods] to study" holds true until such physical evidence can be produced.

And I doubt there are many academians from any field of study who would, or could, argue or disagree with the truth of that.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Where did I make such comments?

I said materialism is part of academic study. I never said theology was not a subject of such study. You have either misunderstood what I said, or you are trying to twist my words to support your unsupportable position.

So?

What 'pillar of materialism' does the phenomenon of quantum tunnelling undermine?

If you haven't realised already, WCF, the point of the questions I am asking is to show you have made unsupportable claims of certainty regarding the 'invalidity' of materialism. I know you believe certain things about the nature of 'reality', but belief is not knowledge and is never 'certainty'. It does not make a person an idiot to admit they made a mistake.

MW,

Despite your many, and long-standing, claims of having physically met 'god' you have yet to produce any actual evidence that such a meeting took place. Anecdote is not evidence - at least, not physical evidence - and so my comment that "there is no physical reality of them [gods] to study" holds true until such physical evidence can be produced.

And I doubt there are many academians from any field of study who would, or could, argue or disagree with the truth of that.

First off I don't "believe" anything. I am restrained to interpretation just like all minds.

Second I have supported it dozens of times. It's getting so redundant it's silly even. So if I do it again just for you Leo, you have to agree to stick with the facts. The only reason Im even interested in continuing is because I respect you. What say you? Shall I write a another mini impromptu essay on my iPhone yet again why materialism is dead? Shall I discuss wave function distribution and how all matter confirms to it even through barriers and emese space far surpassing even what the speed of light could acomomplish in a billion years? Shall I remind you that's it's perfectly possible ( though highly improbable) for me to pop up right next to you the second after you read this sentence?

I'm not talking out of my ass Leo. This is really the way the universe works. If it did not, we would not be haveing this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

WCF

Recently, I tried to engage another poster on this problem, but she withdrew before she answered.

How is quantum mechanics incompatible with materialism? Could you define "materialism," as you have been using the term, and give an example of a quantum mechnaical observation that countradicts the definition?

The other poster seemed especially taken with the "dealyed choice quantum eraser" experiment (searchable), but when asked to define materialism amd point to one thing about DCQE that contradicted the definition, she declined. Perhaps you will step up, and of course, you can have your own choice of phenomenon or experiment. One contradiction suffices, but one specific contradiction would be much more interesting than sweeping general pronouncements.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I certainly don't think quantum mechanics or any of modern physics is incompatible with materialism, nor do I think very many scientists think so. It may wreck havoc with determinism (or at least require a lot of explaining by the determinist) but it is possible in my mind for a materialist world to be utterly random, partly random, or completely determined. Two different things.

The problem materialism has nowadays is what is "material." Use to be we had "matter" (from which the doctrine's name is derived), but now we have only "energy" and it is kinda harder to pin down as entirely "physical," but that comes out of relativity, not quantum mechanics.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

First off I don't "believe" anything. I am restrained to interpretation just like all minds.

Second I have supported it dozens of times. It's getting so redundant it's silly even. So if I do it again just for you Leo, you have to agree to stick with the facts. The only reason Im even interested in continuing is because I respect you. What say you? Shall I write a another mini impromptu essay on my iPhone yet again why materialism is dead? Shall I discuss wave function distribution and how all matter confirms to it even through barriers and emese space far surpassing even what the speed of light could acomomplish in a billion years? Shall I remind you that's it's perfectly possible ( though highly improbable) for me to pop up right next to you the second after you read this sentence?

I'm not talking out of my ass Leo. This is really the way the universe works. If it did not, we would not be haveing this discussion.

Materialism as a philosophy only states that the universe is fundamentally a material reality. It does not state explicitly what that material has to be. Everything we know from physics - classical as well as quantum - provides us a description of the 'material' of the universe.

Materialism does not hinge on the 'classical universe' being true and the 'quantum universe' being false - because both are true. The two areas of exploration of the physics of our universe simply use different tools which provide different descriptions of the same 'things', albeit there might be a difference in scale.

There is nothing in quantum physics that is contradictory to, or in conflict with, the materialist philosophy.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

WCF

Recently, I tried to engage another poster on this problem, but she withdrew before she answered.

How is quantum mechanics incompatible with materialism? Could you define "materialism," as you have been using the term, and give an example of a quantum mechnaical observation that countradicts the definition?

The other poster seemed especially taken with the "dealyed choice quantum eraser" experiment (searchable), but when asked to define materialism amd point to one thing about DCQE that contradicted the definition, she declined. Perhaps you will step up, and of course, you can have your own choice of phenomenon or experiment. One contradiction suffices, but one specific contradiction would be much more interesting than sweeping general pronouncements.

Materialism holds that the the universe is fundamentally material in nature. Materialism has given way to physicalism to include things like dark matter and gravity. The delayed choice experiment is only part of the picture. It's a long held philosophy. Indeed the scientific method itself is founded on the idea that all things are physical hence the word "physics" which really is the base science of all sciences. Let me be as straight forward as possible so as not to be acused of makeing generalizations.

1) the delayed choice quantum eraser. This experiment was devised to specifically take out the influence of a detector on a photon by positioning the detection process further out in both space and time than its entangled twin. To everyone's surprise the behaviour of the entangled twin "knows" ahead of time weather or not it's twin will be measured in the future. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT SPIN INFORMATION. The actual behaviour of the photon ( weather it behaves like a wave or a particle) is affected from something that will happen in the future. That thing in the future, a measurement, can be a choice, but it's not really about that. Experiments can be run to eliminate humans aswell becuse computers can use randomness to decide or not decide to peak at the late photon ( there is some interesting arguments about this though about the ultimate observer but that's beyond the scope of this discussion). So you see it dosnt have to be about humans, but it is about weather or not something can or cannot be known. If the knowledge of position of the late photon is known, the early photon will be behaving as if it were being measured ( a particle) long before its twin even can even go through the Measurement. There is no physical connection here. Theoretically and scientists will agree that this effect can stretch across the galaxy if you could build a contraption big enough. If you measure a photon that has ben bent around a galaxy. Prior to your measurement that photon did not take a definite path around the Galaxy. It was in superposition. Detailed experimentation has shown us that suoerposition isn't just a nifty mathematical description, it's an actual state. That photon never went around either side of the Galaxy prior to your measurment. Only upon your measurment did the realty of which way information collapse. Either side of that Galaxy is about 100,000 light years away from each other and can be billions of light years away. This means your measurment affected the which way path of that very photon billions of years ago before even dinosaurs existed. You also affected it's behaviour. If some how your photon had been entangled with another and the twin was put through a double slit even before it got to that Galaxy, your measurment would force that twin to behave like a particle billions of years ago. if you didn't that twin would be behaving like a wave.

Hold on..... Don't respond yet I'm not done.. I have to go to church with my wife I'll reply to myself to finish latter .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

WCF

Just a partial response, which may help when you get back from church Is our definition to be:

materialism, is a shorthand or token for the phrase "materialism or physicalism," which is an ontological posiiton which holds that the universe is fundamentally material in nature, where material is taken to include dark matter, and (as is usual with ontologies) relationships among material things, like gravity, are also part of the onotology.

And what is "fundamentally" again? Is that like "exclusively" (in which case why not say that?) or are you thinking about things like deism (the supernatural exists, and may have once fiddled with the universe, but does no longer... in which case, you would have to say what you mean).

As for the interrupted story, I notice that it is already rather lengthy. Did I miss it, or are we still getting to the part where matter does not behave as the experimenters have observed a piece of matter behaving without non-material intervention?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

WCF

Just a partial response, which may help when you get back from church Is our definition to be:

materialism, is a shorthand or token for the phrase "materialism or physicalism," which is an ontological posiiton which holds that the universe is fundamentally material in nature, where material is taken to include dark matter, and (as is usual with ontologies) relationships among material things, like gravity, are also part of the onotology.

And what is "fundamentally" again?

If I could interject here, eb, I would propose that 'fundamentally' in this instance refers to the assumption that all phenomenon in the universe, including those considered 'non-material' such as consciousness, forces, etc, have as their cause the interaction (or relationship, as you put it) between material 'things'.

Thus, the basis for everything in the universe is 'material', without implying the universe is exclusively 'material'.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Materialism holds that the the universe is fundamentally material in nature. Materialism has given way to physicalism to include things like dark matter and gravity. The delayed choice experiment is only part of the picture. It's a long held philosophy. Indeed the scientific method itself is founded on the idea that all things are physical hence the word "physics" which really is the base science of all sciences. Let me be as straight forward as possible so as not to be acused of makeing generalizations.

1) the delayed choice quantum eraser. This experiment was devised to specifically take out the influence of a detector on a photon by positioning the detection process further out in both space and time than its entangled twin. To everyone's surprise the behaviour of the entangled twin "knows" ahead of time weather or not it's twin will be measured in the future. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT SPIN INFORMATION. The actual behaviour of the photon ( weather it behaves like a wave or a particle) is affected from something that will happen in the future. That thing in the future, a measurement, can be a choice, but it's not really about that. Experiments can be run to eliminate humans aswell becuse computers can use randomness to decide or not decide to peak at the late photon ( there is some interesting arguments about this though about the ultimate observer but that's beyond the scope of this discussion). So you see it dosnt have to be about humans, but it is about weather or not something can or cannot be known. If the knowledge of position of the late photon is known, the early photon will be behaving as if it were being measured ( a particle) long before its twin even can even go through the Measurement. There is no physical connection here. Theoretically and scientists will agree that this effect can stretch across the galaxy if you could build a contraption big enough. If you measure a photon that has ben bent around a galaxy. Prior to your measurement that photon did not take a definite path around the Galaxy. It was in superposition. Detailed experimentation has shown us that suoerposition isn't just a nifty mathematical description, it's an actual state. That photon never went around either side of the Galaxy prior to your measurment. Only upon your measurment did the realty of which way information collapse. Either side of that Galaxy is about 100,000 light years away from each other and can be billions of light years away. This means your measurment affected the which way path of that very photon billions of years ago before even dinosaurs existed. You also affected it's behaviour. If some how your photon had been entangled with another and the twin was put through a double slit even before it got to that Galaxy, your measurment would force that twin to behave like a particle billions of years ago. if you didn't that twin would be behaving like a wave.

Hold on..... Don't respond yet I'm not done.. I have to go to church with my wife I'll reply to myself to finish latter .

Right. I'm back. I'm not in disagreement with any definitions here. Except the part about non material intervention. I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.

2) tunneling. Detailed experimentation has shown us that Quantum Tunneling exists and proves to us that the uncertainty principal is not just about not haveing enough information or somehow physically affecting something when it's measured. All particles indeed all matter exist in a 3 dimensional bell curve of potential of position. It's most likely where it is supposed to be classically, but it's only a probability. There is a real and calculatable chance that you may walk right through a wall and appear on the other side of you walk towards it. It's actually graded problem in one of Machio Kaku's physics courses. Fortunately you would have to live longer than the heat death of the universe to see it happen, but time is irrelevant it's real. The reliability of tunneling is so consistent we can build devices that use it. It's known now why it gets hot enough inside of stars to maintain fusion. This is because there is enough energy and activity from outside the core of a star that tunnels to the core to add the extra kick it needs to create self sustaining fusion reactions. Now we have can derive with precision just how big and energetic something needs to be to kick start the birth of a star. All based on tunneling.

Here is the smoking gun. Objects that undergo tunneling do not actually "tunnel" through anything. More experiments have been performed to show this aswell. When an electron tunnels through a barrier it never actaully goes through the barrier. The wave function is but a probability field, it's not a thing, and the electron or you tunneling through a wall simply manifest along the field. The spacetime in between is simply bypassed. You see the rule and principal is more fundamental than the thing it governs. It dosnt care about the speed of light which shows us that spacetime becomes irellevant nor does it care about whats in its way. Non of the matters becuse the rule is more fundamental. I don't care what someon calls it or the fact that one cannot imagine how something that is not a thing exists. It's quit obvious that matter/particles are secondary phenominon. Which brings me to virtual particles.

3) VP. More of the same here only now we get to see how matter is probably actually created. Again we owe it to the uncertainty principal. Virtual pairs emerge then destroy each other in every possible space constantly. These pairs are still subject to the uncertainty principal.... Everything is. Occasionally the particles tunnel away from each other leaving on area slightly positive and another area slightly negative. That positive partcle is now free to interact because it's no longer virtual. I'd be willing to bet Gravity is the influence of the negative energy, but that's a different subject. It's soecujated that the Big Bang was a rare mass tunneling event, but even a steady state we have our probable mechanism for the creation of matter via a rule of the universe. in the face of all this I'm not sure how can anyone claim that matter or material is the most fundamental. It's not. I'll use the term mathamactics for ease but that's not really acurate either. There is a more fundamental reality that governs the material universe. The universe is not a network of cogs stuck together. It's far far more complicated than that.

Now I know the argument that all this is simply describing the behaviour of matter therefore it's still about matter. But it's a rather silly. That's like describing the swing and trying to make the swing responsible for its own swinging. The truth is that there is something pushing the swing that cannot be considered the swing itself. Likewise, there is a more fundamental reality governing the creation and behaviour of matter. Material is not the end of the road it's a secondary phenominon apart of a greater reality therefore materilism is dead. As a philosophy it has failed because science has shown us otherwise.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

WCF

I'm not in disagreement with any definitions here.

OK, so please clarify what your term "fundamentally" means. See my reamrks and Leonardo's on some of the possibilities, but what is needed is what it means to you.

Except the part about non material intervention. I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.

That wasn't part of the definition. I was asking you whether I had missed something, the contradiction of materialism, and I mentioned something (non-material intervention) that seemed to me to be likely to contradict the definition-in-progress. Unless something is non-material then materialism would seem to be true under the definition-in-progress, and if something does operate on or through matter and isn't part of the materialist ontology, then "intervention" seems to me as good a word as any for its (as yet unspecified) effects.

Now I know the argument that all this is simply describing the behaviour of matter therefore it's still about matter.

How is a factual observation an argument? All you've done in most of this post and in most of your last one is to describe some of how matter behaves. What I asked for was:

1. A definition of materialism (which we are working on, thank you), and

2. A single observation that contradicts that definition of materialism.

It will not do to complain that (of course) one will always observe matter behaving the way matter behaves and only that way. If so, then that means that materialism cannot be refuted by observing how matter behaves. So, quantum mechanics, a particular kind of observing how matter behaves, cannot refute materialism, contrary to your (and that other poster's) claims. That's a pretty important fact, IMO, not "silly" at all.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

WCF

OK, so please clarify what your term "fundamentally" means. See my reamrks and Leonardo's on some of the possibilities, but what is needed is what it means to you.

That wasn't part of the definition. I was asking you whether I had missed something, the contradiction of materialism, and I mentioned something (non-material intervention) that seemed to me to be likely to contradict the definition-in-progress. Unless something is non-material then materialism would seem to be true under the definition-in-progress, and if something does operate on or through matter and isn't part of the materialist ontology, then "intervention" seems to me as good a word as any for its (as yet unspecified) effects.

How is a factual observation an argument? All you've done in most of this post and in most of your last one is to describe some of how matter behaves. What I asked for was:

1. A definition of materialism (which we are working on, thank you), and

2. A single observation that contradicts that definition of materialism.

It will not do to complain that (of course) one will always observe matter behaving the way matter behaves and only that way. If so, then that means that materialism cannot be refuted by observing how matter behaves. So, quantum mechanics, a particular kind of observing how matter behaves, cannot refute materialism, contrary to your (and that other poster's) claims. That's a pretty important fact, IMO, not "silly" at all.

"fundamentally". "Fundamental" .........well in this context I would expect it would mean the very base of what this universe eminates from. Matter/energy and the particles described under the standard model are quite clearly secondary Phenomenon. Otherwise how could any scientist claim the universe came from nothing..... Nothing actually being a quantum vacuum of course.

Claiming that materilaism is a valid because we used matter to discover more fundamental properties of the universe is not a logical argument. It's begging the question. Remember that materilism is claiming material is the most fundamental. It clearly isn't, but to go on and assume this then say-- look we were trying to define the properties of material when we made those discoveries so materilism must be true--- is a grievous logical error.

2. Quantum tunneling, -----> star formation, heavy elements, josephsons junction etc etc etc.

Virtual particles ------> casimere effect

Big Bang----> arguably a result of both of the above

GRAVITY-----> it may turn out the gravity is a QM effect. Some indications of ripples in the COBR caused by early gravitational waves may be some recent observations.

Tons of observations. If there was not overwhelming evidence we wouldn't be haveing the conversation. Matter is not fundamental. I don't know what to call what is as not being what I am makes it difficult to label but for now it's described as mathmatics. Math has the capabilities to outline things that exist but cannot be in our immediate awareness. Things like black holes, potential other dimensions, certain particles that were hidden to us, and of course what fundamental reality eminates from.... It's not matter. Matter is a result not a progenitor. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I think you are confusing conjectures with fact.

No I am not, that was your protest, "how did the Universe come about", due to several viable models, that cannot be answered correctly, so the questions is let open with several options until one of them can be firmed up. Expecting firm answers where none be is the way religion answers questions - God did it! Science admits it does not have all the answers - yet - and religion plays on that lag to create doubt. Rather childish I feel.

I laid out some of my criticism above. My point of contention being Krauss's definition of a quantum vacuum as 'nothingness' without giving a satisfying answer as to why he thinks it should be so. Let alone, why should there be quantum laws if there is 'nothing'?

Have you read his book? I got myself a copy for Christmas, slowly creeping through it as time permits. It basically says:

  • The basic stuff of the universe, as we now understand it, consists of matter and energy, space and time, governed by laws of nature.
  • Particles of matter correspond to certain configurations of quantum fields. There is a configuration that corresponds to no particles (the "vacuum"). A state with no particles can evolve into a state with particles. Thus, matter can appear from no-matter.
  • The universe as a whole may have zero net energy.
  • There are theories that suggest that that space and time themselves are not fundamental, but emerge from a state without space and time.
  • The laws of nature may be stochastic and random, in which case there may be no ultimate laws of nature.
  • Since we can imagine the universe coming from a state with no matter, no particles, no space, no time and no laws, something can come from nothing.

This quote from the whyevolutionisstrue blog (an Atheist-oriented blog mind you) kind of resume my thoughts about it pretty well:

''Further, Krauss defines “nothing” as a “quantum vacuum,” without giving us reasons why that would obviously have been the initial default state of the universe. Is that a sensible definition of “nothing”? If not, whence the quantum vacuum? And so on to more turtles. . .''

Source: https://whyevolution...ausss-new-book/

I have no idea what you are talking about, Krauss does not define nothing as "nothing" he specifically sates that empty space is not "nothing" I have heard him say these very words. "Nothing" is defined as the absence of particulate matter. It does not, however, rule out the existence of quantum fields.

Ah, and the fact that there is no proof for his theory, so I don't feel the need to subscribe to it, as well as his personal worlview deprived of meaning, which does not make a lot of sens to me.

Working the Universe backwards seems to come to that conclusion. We are all happy now we had a big bang, not so much the case 20 years ago was it. That;s the rub, religion has hit the wall, it cannot escape science any longer, so we have this situation where religion is saying "Hey science, we give up, but we can see you are right and this is going to get out, so can we remain friends, you do not not really know where Quantum Mechanics actually comes from, so can we ascribe that Job to God and both be happy"?

But, no thanks, science observed quantum mechanics, and it will not remain a mystery forever, and there is no need for a stopgap with God in the interim.

Are you aware of the Wheeler–DeWitt equation? LINK It's only a matter of time before someone gets there.

I do not know. Do you?

Exactly the point, why should anyone? Something's are indeed yet to be further investigated, but we do have a direction to travel in. It's not the blind leading the blind, which religion is. I do not believe for one second that Genesis is mans interpretation of quantum mechanical fields that are God. Hindsight apologetics are pushing a square peg into a round hole.

Blind watchmaker anyone?

No, he just shows how deeply flawed his theory is according to his understanding of quantum mechanics. No one can claim to know. The question of origin isn't one that will be given a definitive answer tomorrow morning, if ever.

It sounds by his definition of "nothing" that he is criticising Krauss from a layman angle. Absolutely stupid to suggest Plato might even have an inkling of the "nothing" Kruass is describing. These criticisms are a dime a dozen as after you showed me that, I had a quick look. Everyone wants a piece of a prize fighter I suppose. Krauss does not claim to know, he points out that this is what the evidence is suggesting. Honestly, if I saw David Albert on the street, I would ask him to his face what he was smoking when he wrote that, but lets face it, it is hardly any wonder at all why Krauss is in his crosshairs is it? David Albert is the Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy, and that branch of endless pondering too is under attack as science can answer the questions philosophy ponders. Also, due to David Albert's bad manners, and the fact he is a very sore loser in debate, his colleagues ousted him, and actually disinvited him to the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate. Her ranted and carried on, but in the end, it is obvious that the scientific community can see through his tantrums, and do not find his input valuable. Neither do I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

David Z. Albert

192x162xdavid-albert_192.jpg.pagespeed.ic.9D6PqSb19k.jpg

Physicist, Philosopher

David Albert is the Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University and a physicist who explores quantum mechanics. He is world renowned for his insights into philosophical questions about the nature of time, space, and other problems of modern physics. He is author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience and Time and Chance, with After Physics to release this fall. Albert holds a PhD in theoretical physics from Rockefeller and has held professorships at Columbia University, Tel Aviv University, and the University of South Carolina. He also been a visiting professor at Harvard University and Princeton University.

In March 2012, Albert published an extremely negative review of Lawrence Krauss book A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing in the New York Times book review. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and popular science writer, claimed that his book counters religion and philosophy, and the book was cited by Richard Dawkins as comparable to Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” on the grounds that it upends the “last trump card of the theologian.” In his review, Albert lamented the way in which books like Krauss' forward critiques of religion that are "pale, small, silly, nerdy”, and expresses how "the whole business of approaching the struggle with religion as if it were a card game, or a horse race, or some kind of battle of wits, just feels all wrong."Disagreeing with the central thesis of the book Albert wrote:

The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields... they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

Krauss responded in an interview published in The Atlantic calling Albert “moronic” and dismissing the philosophy of science as worthless. In March 2013, The New York Times reported Albert, who had previously been invited to speak at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural

History, was later disinvited. Albert claimed "It sparked a suspicion that Krauss must have demanded that I not be invited. But of course I’ve got no proof."

Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.