Asked at ZME Science:
This very homogeneous image of the early universe is proof of two things we discussed. First, that the ‘bang’ was not triggered by something, and second, if there is no point of origin for an explosion, there is no center of the universe, no privileged spot.
There is another important characteristic of the universe, it does not indicate any relevant direction. In fancy words, the universe is isotropic in the big picture, meaning it doesn’t have a preferred direction. Roads are not isotropic, you have to be going in a direction, a sink is not isotropic, the water moves to the drain. – Paula Ferreira* (March 8, 2023)
How do we know that the Big Bang was not “triggered by something”? Do we know anything about what went on before that?
*Ferreira is a PhD student in physics.
95 Replies to “Is there a center of the universe?”
The concept of inflation/expansion of the universe as well as Einstein’s general theory of relativity (specifically, spacetime distortion near massive objects) would indicate that ALL points in the universe are indeed the “center” of the universe.
The idea that there was no cause for the universe . . .
(a) breaks causality, without which everything is magical, and
(b) that the universe (which includes space-time, mass-energy, etc.) was caused by space-time inflation is wildly illogical, equivalent to a snake regurgitating itself into existence (eww) as a sort of Ouroboros in reverse.
(c) That the universe popped into being by a probabilistic quantum fluctuation doesn’t make sense since probability doesn’t exist without the passage of time.
From the article,
Funny, a spokesman for Planck from the European Space Agency had a VERY different take on what Planck has revealed,
In fact, these ‘anomalies’ in the CMB have done more than just cause problems for inflation theory, these anomalies have, directly contrary to what Ferreira claimed her article, revealed a “privileged spot” in the universe.
Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMB in an easy to understand manner.
Also of note, the cosmological principle, (which is a main assumption behind the standard model of cosmology), is now being brought into question,
It is important to note that the cosmological principle, (which is a main assumption being challenged by these anomalies), derives from the Copernican Principle. (And the Copernican principle has been one of the main arguments used by atheists to try to argue that earth, and man, are not to be considered ‘privileged’ in this universe)
Here another recent finding which also implies “an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”,,,
And it is the large scale structures of the universe, on top of the CMB anomalies, which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a ‘privileged’ position in the universe.
As the following article explains,
Thus, far from the small temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of random quantum fluctuations, (as they falsely presupposed with their inflation model), the small temperature variations in the CMBR combine with the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ to reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and solar system from the very start of the creation of the universe itself.,,, The earth and solar system, (from what our best science can now tell us), is not just the result of some random quantum fluctuation as atheists had erroneously presupposed with their ad hoc inflation model, (a model which, by the way, was ‘invented’ solely to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the flatness of the universe and the homogeneity of the CMB).
Of supplemental note,
Moreover, it is not just these findings from cosmology that are signaling “an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle”, there are multiple lines of scientific evidence that converge to overturn the Copernican principle.
As much as it may hurt an atheist’s feelings to know this, and as far as our best science can now tell us, we are not merely to be considered “chemical scum” as Stephen Hawking, via the erroneous assumption of the Copernican Principle, tried to imply that we were.
Hopefully atheists will soon get over the ‘sad’ fact that they are not to be considered merely ‘chemical scum’ in short order.
We are left with two choices: the center can be anywhere we wish, even the center of the earth, or the center of the earth. Hmmmmm.
Within the framework of general relativity, it is logically impossible for the “Big Bang” to have “triggered” by anything.
This is because what we call “the Big Bang” is a badly chosen term for a mathematical truth — more precisely, a mathematical truth within the framework of general relativity.
As I understand GR, the universe is a four-dimensional object. As one approaches the “edges” of this object, the value for the curvature of space-time approaches infinity. The so-called “singularity” is the name for the parameter that is asymptotically approached by the value of the curvature of space-time.
Since we can only asymptotically approach the singularity, the question “what caused the Big Bang?” is meaningless — as long as one is working within the basic assumptions of general relativity.
Hence, until such time as general relativity is replaced by a successor theory, the question “what caused the Big Bang?” has no meaningful scientific answer.
If one wishes to insist that it’s a meaningful question, by all means — as long as we’re clear that it is at that point that one has crossed over the border between science and metaphysics.
I take it “triggered” means “caused.” So, this means that it is (somehow) “logically impossible” that our universe has a cause. Does this mean that the existence of our universe is necessarily unrelated to any proposed multiverse? IOW is it “logically impossible” for a proposed multiverse to have any causal relationship with our universe?
Was the original explosion homogeneous?
Somehow I doubt it because what would cause it to become extremely heterogeneous now unless there were small differences present immediately after the initial expansion. These differences may be too small to discern with any measurement of the theoretical beginning.
If it was different at the beginning, why? Were there any teleological objectives in these differences?
Remember, the concept of infinity is an impossibility so everything is taking place within a finite time framework.
This is all way outside my (very small) wheelhouse, so all I can do is respond based on my very limited understanding.
My understanding of the situation is that the answer is “yes”: as long as we are working within the conceptual framework of general relativity, the question “what caused the universe?” has no mathematically meaningful answer, hence nothing that could be confirmed or disconfirmed by any measurement.
There have been some interesting speculations about how to make the question “what caused the universe?” into a scientifically tractable answer, but all of those speculations involve going beyond the limits of general relativity — either by using quantum mechanics, or by using all sorts of advanced mathematics with a tenuous connection to physics.
My main worry about using quantum mechanics to go beyond the limits of general relativity is that we would need a theory that explains how to unify them, and right now we just don’t have any such theory (to the best of my very limited knowledge!). There are some intriguing proposals being floated by physicists, but I’m not sure any of them have convinced the intellectual community that the problem has been solved.
Researchers have just determined that the center of the universe is in the DI parking garage in downtown Seattle…..
How a theory about gravity can show that it is “logically impossible” for the universe to have an external cause, is far beyond my imagination.
Perhaps that’s because general relativity is not just a theory about gravity. It is a theory about the geometry of space-time. That theory can be used to explain gravitational attraction in terms of how mass affects the curvature of space-time.
Since it is a theory about the geometry of space-time, it has logical entailments about what happens as one gets closer to the ‘edges’ of this four-dimensional object. One of those entailments is that the value of the curvature asymptotically approaches infinity.
That is what allows physicists to conjecture that the initial state of the universe was an almost-infinitely small, almost-infinitely dense, and extremely hot region of space-time.
General relativity does not have the conceptual resources to make any claims about what “preceded” this initial state. That’s why it’s not possible, within the framework of general relativity, to say anything at all about what “caused” the universe.
As to establishing “true centrality’ in the universe, and as far as Einstein’s general relativity is concerned, Albert Einstein himself stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
And as Fred Hoyle, who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis, himself stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Shoot even Stephen Hawking himself stated that ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’
In fact, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
In fact, again according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, even individual people are allowed to be considered central in the universe,,,
And to support the claim that even individual people can be considered central in the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, I note that when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
And whereas Einstein, when he first formulated both Special and General Relativity, gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe, In Quantum Mechanics we find that it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe.
As the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’
On top of all that, and completely contrary to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, in quantum mechanics we also find that humans, (via their free will), are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.
As the late Steven Weinberg, who was an atheist himself, stated in the following article, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within.
Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
As recent Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
In fact, Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘freedom of choice loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free, (as common sense dictates), to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Thus regardless of how the late Steven Weinberg, and other atheists, may have preferred the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining ‘freedom of choice’ loophole in quantum mechanics, it is now empirically demonstrated that “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
As well, to state the glaringly obvious, this is yet another VERY powerful line of empirical evidence that directly falsifies the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
Because of such consistent and repeatable experiments like the preceding from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held with the presupposition of ‘contingency’), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
To go a but further, and to further solidify the fact that humans have far more significance in this universe than atheists have falsely presupposed, (with their erroneous presumption of the Copernican principle and/or principle of mediocrity), in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
And while that finding by Dr. Neil Turok is certainly very interesting, that finding is a bit disappointing in that is just gives life in general a ‘middle’ position in the universe, and still does not give humanity in particular, a ‘middle’ position in the universe.
Yet, Dr. William Demski, (and company), in the following graph, have refined that estimate of a ‘geometric mean’ with better data, and have given us a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
And that more precise figure for a ‘geometric mean’ does indeed give humanity in particular a ‘central’ position in the universe.
Specifically, Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding severely challenges, if not directly overturns, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
Not being able to “say anything at all about what ’caused’ the universe”, is a far cry from saying that it is “logically impossible” for the universe to have a cause, wouldn’t you agree?
CD at 8,
No, no. That’s wrong. It’s in a garage owned by two Welfare cheats in New Jersey… 🙂
@BA77 # 11
And here I wasn’t sure if BA had an understanding of how multiple theories can be empirically indistinguishable from another.
Whether BA has just grasped the concept, while collecting these quotes, is unclear, but he is appealing to it in #11. For example…
However, BA seems to have a rather short memory when it suits his purpose.
And this comment is no exception, as he has totally forgotten about it mid-comment! Specifically, he turns around and claims that experiments in quantum mechanics proves that consciousness is prior to physical reality.
But, the appearance of collapse is precisely what we would predict if the many world interpretation of quantum mechanized is true. It too is empirically indistinguishable from the Copenhagen interpretation.
So, where are the quotes that point out how the MWI can explain the same outcomes? There are none. BA just continues to ignore this inconvenient fact going forward. In multiple subsequent comments.
Is his memory really that short?
Or perhaps, not unlike how he thinks reality doesn’t exist if no one is looking at it, he thinks the concept of being empirically indistinguishable doesn’t exist if unless it suits his purpose?
Thank you for yet another very informative post. I especially enjoyed the video:
CR, don’t you think your criticism of my post might carry much more weight with me if you yourself did not cling to MWI? i.e. a worldview where an infinitude of other CR’s are constantly being created every time an electron and/or photon is simply observed? 🙂
Of note: In order to try to avoid the Theistic implications that are inherent in quantum wave collapse, many times atheists will appeal to the ‘Many-Worlds’ interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics.
In the ‘Many-Worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics the reality of the wave function collapse is simply denied as being a real effect.
Yet, directly contrary to what MWI holds, wave function collapse is now experimentally shown to be a real effect.
As the following article states, experiments have now demonstrated “the non-local, (i.e. beyond space and time), collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function”,, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”,, “the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected”,, and “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”,,
So, regardless of how atheistic materialists may feel about not splitting into a infinitude of new copies of themselves every time a particle is simply observed, wave function collapse is now shown to be a real effect and, as such, the MWI is now experimentally shown to a false interpretation of quantum mechanics.
My criticism carries weight because it’s accurate. It’s independent of your belief. What you think is irrelevant, as your comment reflects a flawed understanding of science.
Specially on one hand, you appealed to multiple theories predicting the same empirical outcomes. Yet, on the other hand, you continue to claim that experiments in quantum mechanics prove conciseness is prior to physical reality. But the empirical outcome in the experiment is also what the MWI predicts, given that observers also evolve according to the wave function. It’s simply the results of taking the wave function seriously.
For example, you referenced…
Yet Howard Wiseman, who you just referenced, has help develop the many interacting worlds theory of quantum mechanics. Which, you guessed it, proposes the existence of many worlds in which there is no collapse. Specifically, Wiseman has come up with yet another way to explain Born Rule in quantum mechanics without collapse. Here is a video where Wiseman himself gives a talk about the theory in more detail.
This is in addition to the MWI’s explanation of the Born rule. See this overview, which includes links to entries on how the use of decision theory and the MWI explanation of the “Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser” experiment. So we have at least three theories that are empirically indistinguishable.
IOW, your own reference explicitly acknowledges this false dilemma. It’s just inconvenient for you. So, you’ve just claimed there is proof to the contrary, while ignoring alternatives. At best, this reflects a flawed, arbitrary understanding of science. At worst, it’s a disingenuous presentation of a falsehood.
Again, you continue to pick and choose references, apparently unable to tell when they actually support your position. You didn’t even check to see if Wiseman’s position supposed your own. Apparently, you’re wiling to appeal to Wiseman as a logical, sane physicist that proves consciousness is prior to reality, until such time that you discover he disagrees with you, in which point he will become a crazy person?
So, it seems you have the question backwards. Why should your criticism hold weight?
And, no, BA. The MWI does not propose that atoms are constantly being created. You might want to take the time to actually understand the theory you’re criticizing. After all, I posted the link to a video that points out this is a misconception. Apparently, you haven’t watched it.
Then again, presenting an accurate version of the theory is yet another thing that does not suit your purpose.
CR at 18,
“Then again, presenting an accurate version of the theory is yet another thing that does not suit your purpose.”
‘your purpose’? Can you explain what that is?
CR, MWI apparently does not explain the evidence. Elsewise Wiseman would not have postulated the new “Many-Interacting Worlds” approach.
So I still hold the wave function collapse experiment to be a falsification of the original MWI.
Of note, Dr. Wiseman, with his new model, still holds that he exists in an infinitude of other universes and that his consciousness somehow ‘supervenes’ in each of those universes, (but not all of them at the same time).
This is insane. And I don’t care if a PhD is saying he exists in an infinity of other places. It is simply bark raving mad.
And please note, MWI was postulated first and foremost to avoid God. So apparently it now comes down to choosing between God or insanity, And the atheist has apparently chosen insanity.
Of further note, Since Dr. Wiseman apparently relies on Bohmian Mechanics to try to support his new model, here is a critique of Bohmian Mechanics
Great observations, PyrrhoManiac1.
Exactly. The SOURCE of space-time cannot have involved space or time.
Yes, “Big Bang” was initially a pejorative term. It would be more accurate to call it the stretching out of space-time by an unknown agent, postulated as “dark energy.” But that’s simply a way of giving a name to something about which we’re clueless.
In traditional physics, events can be reversed in time. So one can imagine the Big Bang in reverse as a “big shrink” to a point. At T=0 (or more precisely at Planck time), causality as we know it from a naturalism world view stops at Nothing (haha). There’s no cause to non-existence, so something outside of nature intervened.
Those who don’t believe in God, resort to “the multiverse,” as an alternative. However, there’s still no way to apply any scientific measurements or observations to the multiverse, so it’s really no different than a different version of theism.
Yes, but I’d strongly question whether any scientific theory could be applicable. To have a change in the state of non-existent, one would need a source of time outside nature–a “supernatural” clock.
Nicely stated. And it leaves a massive, unanswered question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It’s provocative, but not subject to any scientific investigation.
CR @18 What would a real fallibilist say about the first few lines of your post?
Allow me to give it a try:
By claiming that your criticism is accurate (not fallible) you go against the laws of fallibilism (which are also fallible, but a metacontext nonetheless). How do you know that your criticism is “accurate”? All knowledge is fallible, therefore all your criticism is fallible.
How can be certain that it is independent of BA’s belief? How do you know what BA’s belief is? Maybe BA is lying to you about his beliefs. You are probably a very gullible person, easy to fool (not sure).
Implicit is the claim to know what is relevant and what is not. No such infallible knowledge exists (not sure). And irrelevant to what? This claim is not clear and again does not make clear that all statements are fallible. Maybe you do not understand fallibilism (not sure).
Here you assume that a perfect understanding of science exists by which you can measure the understanding of science by others. All understanding of science is fallible, therefore, according to fallibilism, only a flawed understanding of science exists (not sure).
Science is credible only about proximate causes that can be studied or repeated in lab. Big Bang and all other “scientific” hypotheses about the origin of the universe are just a secular type of religions that want to compete with theistic religions.
Here are a few more problems with Bohmian mechanics, that Dr. Wiseman did not mention,
A few more insurmountable problems with Bohm’s pilot wave theory are clearly elucidated in the following video:
As to “David Bohm’s postulate of an infinite-speed time-ordered “quantum potential”,
Yet, “These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,”
As to free will,
BA, in your estimation, what is the more insane attempt to avoid God: Paul Davies’s proposition that human beings created the universe backward in time or the MWI?
Well Origenes, besides those two, there are a few more attempts by atheists to avoid God that are also certainly in the running for the most insane postulation from atheists to avoid God.
As Sheldon Glashow remarked to Max Tegmark’s postulation of a mathematical multiverse, (i.e. a “set of all mathematical structures, each of them constituting a universe unto itself”), “there must exist a slightly different mathematical structure, whose equations are emblazoned on another T-shirt, wherein I am Tegmark’s psychiatrist rather that a physicist. I do not believe a word of it. Paraphrasing Danny, I may be a blockhead but I am certainly not a mathematical structure akin to a triangle.”
Their insane behavior indicates they are in some perceived existential struggle with Christianity. Christianity is absolutely unacceptable to them, so gloves are off. What fuels them is the underlying assumption that if atheism fails, Christianity is true.
Well Origenes, although many Darwinian atheists here on UD are certainly overtly hostile towards Christianity in particular, I wouldn’t hold that hostility towards Christianity in particular is driving all these atheists in cosmology who are making these insane postulations. For instance, Lawrence (something from nothing) Krauss hates all religions, not just Christianity.
“So Judaism, Christianity, Islam, all of those are from a scientific perspective, nonsense.”
Likewise, with MWI, I would hold that Everett and Deutsch are just hostile towards God in general and not towards Christianity in particular.
Suppose you are right, why would anyone be hostile (to the point of accepting the most insane proposals) towards God in general?
“Suppose you are right, why would anyone be hostile (to the point of accepting the most insane proposals) towards God in general?”
LOL, if you had the simple and pat answer for that question, I reckon you could cure much of ill, not only in science, but in the world. 🙂
But alas, I am not a psychologist.
I guess we will never know. It’s not that they are able to articulate what’s driving them.
I think that’s basically right: choosing to believe in a Creator God or a multiverse would be a “leap of faith” either way. (This is why I like to call the belief in a multiverse “faitheism”.) If one were to limit oneself to what is warranted by science, agnosticism is the only reasonable option.
Agreed. And I suspect that even a change in scientific theory would not really answer the metaphysical question. That is, even if we were to solve the problem of quantum gravity with a theory that replaced both general relativity and quantum mechanics, it is doubtful that such a theory would bring us any closer to a scientifically tractable answer to “why is there something rather than nothing?”
Origenes at 31,
I think the answer should be put in simple words.
“Suppose you are right, why would anyone be hostile (to the point of accepting the most insane proposals) towards God in general?”
The answer is, who do I worship? Myself? Or “great men”?
If someone decides that only I can control myself. That only I get to choose, without outside interference from religion/god, what to do today and the rest of my life, then the answer is obvious. Man worships himself. No, not in a religious sense but certainly in a “I am free from everything, including god” sense.
The critics of ID are more concerned about keeping people ignorant about the fact that they, and all living things, were designed. That means God to many, many people as far as who the Designer is.
I think they fear the pressure to believe, and the behavior of believers. I heard the following: “Don’t shove your religion down my throat!”
“And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”
“Satan, formerly called Lucifer, is the first major character introduced in the poem. He is a tragic figure who famously declares: “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven” (1.263). Following his vain rebellion against God he is cast out from Heaven and condemned to Hell.”
– Paradise Lost by John Milton.
I would say that if one allows oneself to be led by others (great men) then one still bears full responsibility. It is your choice to follow someone else and to give him a position of authority. One remains responsible. If the “authority” errs the follower shares equal responsibility.
My point is, you are free, in control, and responsible. That responsibility cannot be delegated by following others.
I don’t think it makes any sense to say that they are hostile towards God. They are hostile towards organized monotheistic religions.
Origenes at 37,
I saw the following on a sign outside a Christian Church:
“Who or what influences you?”
The following was said by Pope Francis:
“Pope Francis, in his homily at the daily Mass at Casa Santa Marta, reflects on the hypocrisy of the “just,” who treat their Christianity “like a social habit.” They do not bring Jesus into their daily life, and so they cast him from their hearts. When we act like that, the Pope says, “we are Christians, but we are living like pagans!”
“We who are born in a Christian society risk living out our Christianity as “a social habit,” in a purely formal manner, with the “hypocrisy of the just,” who are afraid to allow themselves to love. And when Mass is over, we leave Jesus in the Church; He does come with us when we return home, or in our daily lives. Woe to us! When we do this, we cast Jesus from our hearts: “We are Christians, but we live as pagans.” ‘
So, all of us live in societies that value God and religion less and less. We must choose to live out our beliefs daily, not leave them in Church. Those who reject God and religion are working very hard to remove both from public life and to replace it with perversion. Perversions of the truth. To convince many to keep their religion to themselves and only practice it in their Church building.
The critics of ID fear a religious revival – a turning back to God. If ID is linked to God – well, that’s unthinkable for some.
We are responsible first to God, followed by civil authority. But recently, civil authority has been declared evil. That is not rational. No, I’m not saying that bad things never happened, but cooperation as opposed to conflict, needs to be promoted.
PM1 at 38,
They are hostile toward religions but not God? You make no sense.
Pope Francis, who lectures you on hypocrisy, remained silent when in 2021 the CCP arrested the bishop of Xinxiang along with 10 priests. And when, in 2022, the Cardinal in Hong Kong was arrested by the new head of the country who is a CCP plant, Pope Francis said nothing.
You are responsible for your choice to follow others.
Origenes at 41,
The Pope was “lecturing” ALL Catholics about their attitude toward God, not just me. It is very important to point out that Catholics, in particular, are singled out for criticism, both in the past and today. I also heard the following: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? All you do is listen to the Pope.” So who should I listen to? You? Some total stranger? Who the heck are you? I heard that in the 1960s.
Your criticism of Pope Francis is incorrect and reflects a lack of research on your part.
Why doesn’t this make sense to you? It seems straightforward enough to me: they are hostile towards the institutions, social practices, and social and political functions of organized religions, to the point of thinking that these cause a good deal of harm and that humanity would be better off without them.
That’s perfectly consistent with these people not being hostile towards God, since no one cannot be angry at something that one doesn’t believe exists. An atheist could no get more angry at God than I could get angry at the Loch Ness Monster.
There is, interestingly enough, a phenomenon seen in literature and philosophy called “misotheism“: a misotheist being someone who accepts that God exists, but that He lacks the competence or goodness that merit worship or praise.
Needless to say, the New Atheists like Krauss are not misotheists. They are just old-school unsophisticated evidentialists.
PM1 at 43,
Not hostile towards God? You missed a number of posts by Seversky? I doubt that.
In the atheist world, only politics and power are real. These things are temporary. Eternity is eternal.
How did BA reach the conclusion that the MWI doesn’t explain the evidence? By what Wiseman would postulate. But, according to BA, Wiesman is crazy. Why would he appeal to what a crazy person postulates? Because it suits his purpose.
Specially, BA appealed to someone who he would consider a crazy person without knowing it. He was more than happy to appeal to what Wiesman thought, when he thought it supposed his position. Had I not pointed this out, he could have happily continued to appeal to him.
But it gets better. After I revealed this to him, apparently, this doesn’t matter! He has still decided to appeal to Wiesman!
The question is why?
First, those other universes are implied by simply taking the wave function seriously. It predicts we will only observe one universe. This is why it is empirically indistinguishable from collapse and non-collapse theories, such as the many interacting worlds.
But, BA is perfectly aware of this as he just appealed to empirical indistinguishability in an earlier comment, implying it excluded falsification. So, what gives?
So, again, this does’t follow. It’s a non-sequitur.
IOW, BA keeps selectively appealing to Wiesman, despite calling him crazy. Apparently, Wiesman is sane when he says something BA agrees with, but crazy when he doesn’t? How convenient?
Being transparent, I’d note Wiseman’s quote was referring to is the Born rule.
The Born rule was added as an after thought and I’ve already addressed it in an earlier video / comment. Regardless, I’ve previously referenced a video that criticizes probability in physics as a whole, which is fundamental to the Born rule.
That would do away with the Born rule all together. So, it’s not even clear that the Born rule actually needs to be explained at all.
Furthermore, even if we ignore this, the same sort of criticism could be applied to ID, as there is plenty of evidence that ID does not explain, but Neo-darwnism does. For example, what is the origin of the knowledge in organisms a designer would have put there as a consequence of designing them? Why did a designer design things in the very specific way it did, etc.? At best, the ID proponent can say “that’s just what the designer must have wanted.”
So, does BA consider ID falsified as well? I mean, if we try to take BA’s own criticism seriously, isn’t that it’s true in reality, and that all our observations should conform to it, isn’t that what we should expect? But, of course not. This is simply par for the course. It’s only somehow a falsification when it suits BA’s purpose.
Or they’re not insane and the have adopted explanation that best explain the phenomena in question.
As for Christianity, and theism in general, supposedly God is an inexplicable mind, that exists in an inexplicable realm, which operates using inexplicable means and methods and is driven by inexplicable goals. From the perspective of an explanation, it’s unclear how adding God to the equation improves things.
Theism is a special case of justifcationism. So criticisms of justifcationism are criticisms of theism. This includes the criticism of arbitrarily deciding to end criticism, there, rather than here, etc.
Which is yet another false dilemma. I mean, come on guys. Where do yo get this stuff from?
“How do we know that the Big Bang was not “triggered by something”? Do we know anything about what went on before that?”
According to current theory, there were no “before that” since time didn’t exist before Big Bang. Human mind has harder time to comprehend that there was something “before” time existed.
Obviously no logical.
This is likely true for a lot of atheists.
Gos was not added so this is backward.
God was a conclusion or a given. Tying to explain God led to some of these explanations.
ID just says there was a creator who had a purpose. One of those purposes was life. this creator had immense intelligence and immense power. No one knows how the creation happened. But was in the finite past.
ID was not as formal as now as science has revealed a lot especially in the last 125 years. But the conclusion of a creator was prevalent from the beginning for probably most.
Let’s just simply observe that Critical Rationalist, in desperately clinging to a insane worldview that insists he is endlessly splitting into a veritable infinity of new versions of himself, is not being very ‘critical’ nor is he being very ‘rational’.
Moreover, since all possibilities are realized in MWI, (i.e. some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese), then it necessarily follows that in some universe CR agrees with me and thinks that MWI is insane and that Christian theism is true.
To point out the obvious, that is NOT a ‘rational’ position for a person to hold. So again, CR is simply not being very ‘critical’ nor is he being very ‘rational’ in his clinging to MWI.
Yet, CR insists that he is not being crazy but that “those other universes are implied by simply taking the wave function seriously”. ,,, So CR readily believes he exists in a veritable infinity of other places simply because some mathematical equation written on a piece of paper can be contrived as implying he exists in a veritable infinity of other places? 🙂 Gullibility thy name is CR!
While MWI may indeed take the wave function ‘seriously’, to rehash, MWI denies the reality of wave function collapse,
And while Wiseman may indeed deny the reality of wave function collapse in his new many ‘interacting’ worlds model,
I note that Wiseman himself, and via empirical evidence, directly contradicts himself and states, “the non-local, (i.e. beyond space and time), collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function”,, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”,, “the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected”,, and “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”,,
To point out the obvious, Wiseman. and MWI adherents in general, can’t have it both ways. Either “there’s no wave function collapse” or else, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”.
Moreover, I point out that it is the evidence itself that is forcing Wiseman to say “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect” and that it his theory which is forcing him to say “there’s no wave function collapse”.
How does Wiseman reconcile the direct conflict between empirical evidence and his theory? I have no idea. And frankly, after watching his conclusions, I find Wiseman to be all over the map with his new theory. There are several questions I would like to ask him about many of the presuppositions of his theory that he simply accepts as given.
But anyways, as I pointed out previously, since Wiseman’s new theory is reliant on Bohmian mechanics, then his new theory can now be considered experimentally falsified,
And in empirical science, evidence falsifies theory all the time.
And also to remind, here are a few more ‘small’ problems with Bohmian mechanics
To call Bohemian mechanics ‘contrived’ is an understatement. Moreover, it is contradicted by mathematical and empirical evidence.
But anyways, putting Wiseman’s direct contradiction in claims to the side, (and putting the falsification of Wiseman’s new theory by empirical and mathematical evidence to the side), the insanity of MWI, (to repeat), was postulated, first and foremost, as a way for atheists to avoid God.
Specifically, “(Everett) was repulsed by the fact that the human mind seemed to be given a special role—a conclusion that Everett thought smacked of the supernatural.”
The late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, put to irresolvable dilemma for Darwinian atheists like this, ““,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,”
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, (and like Everett), rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
As Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
Moreover, Anton Zeilinger and company have now, as of 2018, pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining ‘freedom of choice’ loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are (indeed) brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself admitted, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held with the presupposition of ‘contingency’), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Of supplemental note, a major part of the reason that atheists were driven to postulate the insanity of MWI in order to avoid God is that, prior to collapse, the wave function is mathematically defined as being in an ‘infinite dimensional’ state which takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
As is fairly obvious, the ‘infinite dimensional’ Hilbert space corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omnipresence. And the infinite information required to describe the ‘infinite dimensional’ wave function prior to collapse to its finite particle state corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omniscience.
Of supplemental note, It is also very interesting to note that the collapse of the wave function, (which, I remind, has now been experimentally shown to be a real effect), fits very well into Aristotle and Aquinas’s ancient ‘first mover’ argument for the existence of God, i.e. (reduction of potency to act).
Frankly, I consider it nothing less than astonishing that Aristotle and Aquinas would deduce the basics of quantum wave collapse millennia before it would be confirmed by modern science.
So thus in conclusion, the insanity of MWI was desperately postulated by atheists, first and foremost, to avoid God. Yet the insanity of MWI is contradicted by mathematical and experimental evidence. Moreover, the experimental demonstration that wave function collapse is a ‘real effect’ confirms Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science, (namely contingency), and also confirms the ancient unmoved mover, and/or first mover, of Aristotle and Aquinas.
Not a bad track record for Christians and for Theists in general! Not a bad track record at all!
First, note that BA hasn’t, even remotely acknowledged or addressed the issue of selectively appealing to people he deems crazy, to prove and disprove things. Nor has he addressed the issue of arbitrarily appealing to empirically indistinguishable experimental results.
Does he just think we’re not paying attention?
Second, BA wrote:
But this is where the above comes into play. Experimentally, the wave function not collapsing is empirically identical to it collapsing. Observers would have the same experience. This is exactly what BA previously appealed to as a means to avoid falsification. Observers would have the same experience regardless of where the center of the universe is.
From an earlier comment….
If this isn’t an appeal to empirically indistinguishable results, then what is it?
It seem that BA has inadvertently conceded the very criticisms I’ve made of his own position on the MWI, has teeth. He just didn’t realize it would also bite his own claim that MWI supposedly has been falsified by the results of those experiments.
But it’s not. that’s the point. BA has somehow picked up the mistaken idea that ether Einstein was right or the MWI is false. This is, well, a false dilemma.
Yes, apparently, BA has no idea. But, thankfully, we’re not dependent on whether BA can reconcile the results of those experiments and theories. Phew!
From this article on the The Notorious Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser…
Of course, I’ve alluded to this at length, repeatedly. And I’ve posted a reference to it in this thread. But this is inconvenient for BA, so he has either chosen to remain ignorant of it, disingenuously choose to exclude it, or some combination of the above. Perhaps he thinks if he doesn’t observe it by reading it, it doesn’t exist?
Again, this doesn’t follow. It’s a non-sequitur. If Wiseman’s theory is falsified, then why not some other theory of the center of the world because it too is empirically indistinguishable from some other center of the world. Again, this is a flawed conception of science. What gives?
Apparently, not unlike suggesting physical reality doesn’t exists unless someone is looking at it, BA thinks being empirically indistinguishable “does not exist” unless it suites his purpose.
Again, for full transparency, this blog entry expands on the problem of deriving the Born rule, and gives multiple solutions, including one from Deutsch and the author of the post.
Of note: probably was originally introduced to refer to games of chance in 1565 by Gerolamo Cardano. From there it started to find its way into physics. But Deutsch argues probability can be expunged from physics and science in general because it doesn’t actually speak about the actual physical world. Rather it just speaks of probable physical worlds, etc. See the talk Physics Without Probability
As such, if probability can be removed from physics then probability, in the form of the Born rule, would be a non-issue.
CR: “Experimentally, the wave function not collapsing is empirically identical to it collapsing.”
In what world? Oh yeah, you have the insanity of an infinity of worlds to choose from. 🙂
What George Ellis’s comment has to do with Wiseman directly contradicting himself I have no idea, but alas, being rational is apparently not a high priority in CR’s MWI. (which pretty much goes without saying) 🙂
What Sean Carroll’s article on quantum eraser has to do with Wiseman directly contracting himself, I again have no idea either. But alas, in the fevered imagination of zillions of parallel CR’s, I guess, logically speaking, anything is allowed as long as God is avoided.
CR rambles on incoherently about other issues, Born’s rule, etc.., that also have nothing to do with Wiseman directly contradicting himself.
In short, CR, much like his belief that he exists in an infinity of parallel universe, has nothing but incoherence rambling to try to address my main points at 48-50.
In short, I’ll gladly stand behind my posts at 48-50, and see no need to modify or edit anything that I have written from CR’s incoherent ‘rebuttal’, (if his response can even be called a proper ‘rebuttal’ of my claims).
How seriously do you take the many-worlds interpretation (MWI)? Do you think that it is likely that you exist in an infinite number of parallel universes? Or does the idea strike you as counterintuitive?
It’s empirically identical because that what the theory predicts. If observers evolve according to the wave function, which is what Schrodinger’s theory implies, when we take it seriously, then observers also split and end up in one of the possible outcome branches. This would give the appearance of collapse from each branching observer.
But, again, this is outlined in the blog entry I just referenced. Apparently, BA cannot be bothered to read it. I guess I need to do his job for him?
In response to this, the best we can get from BA is ad-hominems. The claim of being “crazy” is extremely vague criticism, as it could be applied to virtually anything. That would be like me saying BA is crazy for thinking physical reality doesn’t exist when he’s not looking at it.
Suggesting something being unintuitive is not the same as crazy. After all, the idea of physical realty not existing unless someone is looking at is itself, unintuitive. You don’t see me calling BA crazy.
This is in contrast to the criticism that collapse based theories are a convoluted elaboration of the MWI. They would requite adding something to the theory, such as an “observer function” that explains what observers do other than evolve according to the wave function. The theory puts the Born rule in at the outset! See above.
As for Wiseman’s contraction, apparently, BA didn’t actually read the paper, which was focused on loopholes in Einstein’s views on quantum mechanics, the EPR experiment, etc.. Specially Einstein thought quantum mechanics was incomplete, which would exclude spooky action at a distance-like phenomena. This is explicitly addressed by the summary of the paper.
Again, Einstein’s gedankenexperiment experiment, which is the target of this paper, is about hidden variables that would retain a classical characterization to reality. On the other hand, the many worlds interpretation isn’t local in a classical sense, yet presents an alternative means of restoring locality.
But don’t take my world for it. Here are several excerpts from this paper co-authored by, you guessed it, Wiseman, which indicates he is quite familiar with multiple conceptions of locality, and that one of them is not applicable to, you guessed it, the many worlds interpretation.
Here, the paper co-authored by Wiseman explicitly discusses the various conceptions of locality, how the many worlds interpolation presents a realists approach to quantum mechanics, which is distinct from the realism suggested by Einstein.
As such, it’s unclear how Wiseman contradicts himself as BA claimed. IOW, again, BA’s objection assumes the false dilemma that, if Einstein was wrong, then the MWI is false. But this doesn’t follow.
BA has made that painfully clear. I don’t have much to add.
Fortunately, we’re not limited to what BA can comprehend, what work he’s willing to do to improve his comprehension, etc. If it merely sounds like something supports BA’s position, he’ll quote it without actually understanding it, look for clarifying references, etc.
My supposed “incoherent rambling” isn’t even remotely controversial. Someone with a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, who actually bothered to do more than search for what appear to be confirming quotes, would make the distinction between the various kinds of locality, the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, which experimental results would conflict with them, etc.
Apparently, this continues to go over BA’s head and he is bound and determined to keep it that way. Which is why he sees no need to edit or modify anything.
Again, BA understands the concept of being empirically indistinguishable, as he appealed to it earlier in this thread regarding multiple centers of the universe resulting in the same empirical experiences for an observer. He still hasn’t explained why that was, other than an appeal to empirical indistinguishability.
Given that The MWI is also empirically indistinguishable, surely BA thinks the MWI cannot be proved by observations. After all, this is precisely the criticism I’ve presented in regards to BA’s claim that the MWI has been falsified by, you guessed it, observations. Right?
Of course, not. It doesn’t suit his purpose.
IOW, BA continues to declare that the MWI has been falsified for reasons that don’t actually hold up under scrutiny.
Critical Rationalist, is talking nonsense again. As referenced, MWI denies the reality of wave-function collapse. Yet, the empirical evidence itself says that wave function collapse is a real effect. As far as empirical science is concerned, MWI is falsified. Appealing to an infinity of branching universes does not negate the fact that wave function collapse is now shown to be a real effect in this universe.
Moreover, I referenced papers that further falsified Wheeler’s new model via the falsification of Bohmian mechanics, but CR ignored them and rambled on about locality. But alas, I also provided a link to a paper that falsified non-local hidden variables. Thus falsifying that angle of non-local hidden variables as well.
All to no avail. CR and his zillions of compatriots in parallel universes could apparently care less about actual empirical science and he is apparently more than willing to believe any insanity, even believing in a zillion parallel CRs, just so long as he can avoid believing in God.
CR then has the audacity to claim that his basic understanding of quantum mechanics is much better than mine. But alas, I think CR is confusing his atheistically driven gullibility to believe in a zillion parallel CRs with a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. I disagree with his belief that his atheistic gullibility equals a basic understanding of quantum mechanics.! 🙂 In fact, I hold that his atheism is the primary thing that hampering him, big time, in ever achieving a proper, and basic, understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
Note how BA hasn’t actually addressed any of my follow ups
Which references? Which evidence? What form of locality? As they say, the devil is in the details and this clam falls apart under scrutiny. BA hasn’t even acknowledged there are different forms of locality in various interpretations of quantum mechanics, which would be falsified by different empirical evidence.
Note that BA hasn’t explained how Bohmian mechanics is actually related to the many worlds interpretation. Apparently, he’s read some passage or popular science article and reached this conclusion by some yet to be explained means. For example, from this paper on Wiseman’s many interacting worlds.
So, Wiseman is quite aware of the nuances present in formalisms of each interpretation of quantum mechanics. Later, Wiseman even explains how his many interacting worlds is different from, you guessed it, Bohmian quantum mechanics!
Did BA actually bother to read the paper before making his claim? Apparently not.
IOW, Wiseman’s many interacting worlds can be inspired by aspects of Bohemian mechanics, without actually being dependent on bohemian mechanics. After all, it’s also inspired by the MWI, despite the wave function playing a different role. Specifically it comes after, instead of being fundamental in the many interacting worlds interpretation, but still has multiple universes. The formalism is different.
Furthermore, making a distinction regarding locality isn’t rambling. it’s crucial to understanding how to interpret the results of the experiments BA has referenced.
And I’m the one who doesn’t care about evidence and science? What gives?
This is rather odd, given that I’ve addressed the specifics about the evidence. If I didn’t care about, the evidence, then I’d just start calling BA crazy for believing physical reality doesn’t exist when he’s not looking at it, then call it a day, instead of posting references to papers, etc.
Again, this is a false dilemma. God couldn’t have decided to create the multiverse? How does BA know the mind of an infinite being? Why should God conform to what BA does or does not think is crazy?
Then why does BA keep claiming experiments falsify the many worlds interpolation? Surely, if he had a better understanding, he’s be able to pick references to papers that actually align with his position. There is no substance, just more ad-hominems.
Then, by all means, BA should enlighten us. I mean, we have yet to hear why I only think the MWI isn’t falsified based on my follow ups, but it actually is. Where am I mistaken?
Surely, If BA is correct, he should be able to reference some deeper understanding of quantum mechanics he can appeal to and elaborate on to clear things up. Right?
For example, how did I pick the wrong form of locality for the evidence he’s referring to? But, before BA could even start, he’d have to concede there actually are different conceptions of locality, depending on which theory of quantum mechanics is in question, which would implicitly concede that his claim reflects a false dilemma.
So, no, I won’t be holding my breath. But, by all means. Feel free to show me I’m wrong.
CR is now resorting to flat out lying to defend the insanity of his belief that he exists in zillions of parallel universes.
One of CRs zillions of compatriots claims “Note that BA hasn’t explained how Bohmian mechanics is actually related to the many worlds interpretation.”
For crying out loud, I quoted Wiseman himself as to how Bohmian mechanics is related to his theory.
Will one of the zillions of CRs apologize to me for lying? I have scant hope that there is enough integrity in any of the zillions of parallel CRs to do so.
CR goes on to falsely claim “IOW, Wiseman’s many interacting worlds can be inspired by aspects of Bohemian mechanics, without actually being dependent on bohemian mechanics.”
Yet, to repeat Wiseman, “the only thing which we’re doing is adding some quantum force which is exactly the force from Bohm’s quantum potential, but we’re imagining that that quantum force is determined by some sort of local averaging of the density of worlds uh in in the region for the where that particular world is”
So Wiseman theory, directly contrary to what CR is trying to claim, actually is dependent on Bohmian mechanics. Specifically, it is reliant on “the force from Bohm’s quantum potential”. It is just that Wiseman IMAGINES that the force is determined by “some sort of local averaging of the density of worlds”
Wiseman’s words, not mine, Wiseman IMAGINES,, “SOME SORT” of local averaging of the density of worlds” that will get him “the force from Bohm’s quantum potential”.
Thus, since Wiseman’s theory is dependent on Bohm’s quantum potential, then the empirical falsification of Bohm’s quantum potential that I listed still applies to Wiseman’s new theory.
CR further claims, “making a distinction regarding locality isn’t rambling.”
Yet, seeing that I referenced a paper in which ALL hidden variable theories are falsified, then it is certainly superfluous, and further demonstrates that CR, (whichever of the zillions of parallel CR I am talking to right now), does not know what he is talking about.
Then when it was pointed our that MWI was invented, first and foremost, to avoid God, CR claims that “God couldn’t have decided to create the multiverse? How does BA know the mind of an infinite being? Why should God conform to what BA does or does not think is crazy?”
So CR’s imagines his god to be some kind of cosmic trickster that creates zillions of parallel CRs every-time a photon is simply observed? No wonder CR does not believe in God. He imagines god to be a capricious, even a malevolent, cosmic trickster
But alas, the Judeo-Christian God that lay behind the origin of modern science itself is certainly no cosmic trickster, nor is He capricious and malevolent, as CR falsely imagines his god to be. But is instead trustworthy and rational. Indeed, that trustworthiness and rationality of the living Christian God is a huge reason why modern science was born in the Judeo-Christian culture of medieval Christian Europe, and in no other culture
CR then finishes with this false claim “he’d have to concede there actually are different conceptions of locality,”
Since I did reference a paper that falsified all hidden variable theories, I will simply let CRs lie hang there for all to see.
Since CR did not touch upon Zeilinger’s closing of the ‘freedom of choice loophole’ which I listed at post 49, and yet the Theistic implications of free will was one of the primary motivations for the atheist Hugh Everett to formulate MWI, i.e. “(Everett) was repulsed by the fact that the human mind seemed to be given a special role—a conclusion that Everett thought smacked of the supernatural.”
,, since CR neglected to touch upon free will and quantum mechanics, I will go further into how consciousness and quantum mechanics are tightly correlated.
First a little background.
In 1922 there was a heated debate between Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson, (who was a prominent philosopher), over what the proper definition of time should be.
Einstein bluntly stated, to an audience of prominent philosophers that he was invited to speak to, that, “The time of the philosophers did not exist”. And in fact, that disagreement with those philosophers, and with Henri Bergson in particular, over what the proper definition of time should actually be was one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity:
Henri Bergson, as the preceding article pointed out, championed the primacy of ‘lived time’ over and above Einstein’s ‘spacetime’, Which is to say that Bergson championed ‘subjective experience’ over and above ‘objective reality’ in providing the proper definition of time. As the preceding article stated, the subjective experience of “duration”, was “a major part of his (Bergson’s) thesis on time”.
In support of Bergson’s main thesis, and as Dr. Egnor, (a brain surgeon), has pointed out, “Duration, and/or “persistence of self identity”, is one of the main defining attributes of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
Likewise, J. Warner Wallace also lists “Persistent self-identity through time”, i.e. ‘duration’, as a property of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
In more clearly defining what Henri Bergson actually meant by ‘duration’, and/or “persistence of self identity through time”, it is important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious ‘outside of time’ perspective as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we very much seem to be standing on a ‘tiny’ island of ‘now’ as the river of time continually flows past us.
In the following video, Dr. Suarez states that the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’ (experiencing now), we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a “Person” who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”
In further defining the immaterial mind’s attribute of ‘the experience of the now’, in the following article Stanley Jaki states that “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”
Several years after Einstein’s heated exchange with Bergson, which resulted in Einstein failing to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity, Einstein had another encounter with another prominent philosopher,, Rudolf Carnap.
In particular, and around 1935, (and on a train no less), Einstein was specifically asked by Rudolf Carnap, “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
According to Stanely Jaki, Einstein’s answer to Carnap was ‘categorical’, he said: “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
Einstein’s ‘categorical. denial that ‘the experience of the now’ can be a part of physical measurement was a very interesting claim for Einstein to make since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics.
For instance, the following delayed choice experiment, (that was done with atoms instead of photons) demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion “that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics even goes one step further and show us, via “quantum entanglement in time”, that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.” and, “Quantum correlations come first, space-time later.”
And in regards to quantum entanglement in time, Professor Elise Crullis draws out the implications and provocatively states that “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”
Moroever, as if that was not provocative enough, with “quantum contextuality”, (which is integral for quantum computing), we find that “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”
And as the newly minted, (Oct. 2022), Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
In fact, at his Nobel lecture Zeilinger stated, “When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,
Thus from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggett’s inequality, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality, not to mention the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum information theory), Einstein’s belief that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified.
In fact, I hold that it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way; “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”
Thus in conclusion, besides free will, via Zeilinger’s closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole, being shown to be integral to quantum mechanics, the ‘experience of the now’ is also now shown, via multiple lines of evidence, to also be integral to quantum mechanics. i.e. fundamental aspects of the immaterial mind are shown to be extremely tightly correlated with the actions we are seeing in our quantum experiments.
Personally, as a Christian, I consider the fairly direct Theistic implications of all these experiments to be VERY good news. Whereas, on the other hand, I have no idea how the zillions of parallel CRs may react to having their nihilistic atheism pretty much completely destroyed by these lines of evidence from quantum mechanics. My gut feeling is that anyone who is willing to believe in the insanity of a zillion parallel versions of himself just so in order to avoid God will not have a very pleasant reaction to this evidence. 🙂
Note that, as I predicted, BA still hasn’t addressed this. Nor do I expect him to for the above reason.
Again, see the quote from Wiseman on the various characterizations of Bell’s locality…
IOW, Wiseman’s theory is both non-local, despite having hidden variables. They’re just not the kind of hidden variables implied that Einstein was referring to in regards to excluding quantum phenomena, EPR, etc.
However, BA keeps referring to evidence targeting EPR / hidden variables that would make QM local, then claiming they falsify the many worlds interpretation, etc. This just doesn’t add up.
For example, BA wrote…
But, he hasn’t. To do this, BA would need to explain how the MIW theory being inspired by some aspect of Bohmian mechanics actually results in the theory having exposure to the same criticism he referenced. Specifically, he has yet to explain how the mere reference of the value of Bohm’s quantum force from Bohmian mechanics / pilot wave theory is problematic in MIW.
In fact, it’s it seems that Bohm’s quantum force is actually used as a way to test MIW.
This is why Wiseman’s interpretation isn’t, well, Bohmian mechanics! If it was just Bohmian mechanics, it’s unclear why Wiseman would need to develop another theory.
Also, note that BA ignored when I quoted Wiseman where he “[Takes] the crucial step of replacing the Bohmian force (6), which acts on each world-particle xn(t) via (5), by the approximation rN (xn(t); Xt)” in an earlier comment.
So again, to summarize, the elephant in the room is BA equivocating on locality, in regards to falsification.
But If he’s not equivocating, then he should explain how I’ve got the wrong kind of locality in regards to the many worlds interpretation, Wiseman’s many interacting worlds, etc., which has exposure to the evidence he keeps referring to.
Again, I won’t be holding by breath for reasons I’ve already outlined.
CR: I’m quite happy to let my posts stand as stated. All hidden variable theories, including Wiseman’s current one, are shown to be false. I could care less how many gears and knobs he attaches to his current theory to try and make it a little less insane than MWI is.
As to: “I won’t be holding my breath for reasons I’ve already outlined.”
But alas, in one of the veritable infinity of parallel universe, with zillions upon zillions of parallel CR’s, there is a CR who happens to be holding his breath. Moreover, there is a CR who happens to be holding his breath while he is riding on a pink unicorn. 🙂
Baffling that there is someone who actually believes this MWI madness and dares to call himself a “critical rationalist.”
First, some kind of dualism could be true, despite God not existing. It’s unclear why he thinks these things are joined at the hip. Regardless, BA’s claim that “MWI was invented, first and foremost, to avoid God” appears to be a false dilemma that is pulled out of thin air.
It’s unclear why God, being infinite, couldn’t have some good reason why he created the multiverse that we mere mortals cannot understand. After all, theists make this kind of appeal all the time, when it suits their purpose. If God created the biosphere, where is he now? Why didn’t he leave a signature in the designs of organisms? Why didn’t he explicitly reference other conscious beings, like Shakespeare did in his works? Why did he create organisms in a way that is radically incompatible with Neo-darwinism? Why didn’t the knowledge he supposedly put in living things also contain explanatory knowledge, which only people can create? Should I go on? Of course, the answer to this is that God could have but he must have had some good reason we cannot comprehend.
It’s funny how God conveniently becomes comprehensible that theists can rule out
Second, apparently BA didn’t get the right emphasis, which is “Why should God conform to what BA does or does not think is crazy?” Apparently, BA thinks reality not existing unless someone is looking at it isn’t crazy. But, fortunately, we’re not limited to BA’s conclusions on unintuitive phenomena.
Third, the MWI is the most direct interoperation of QM. Everything evolves according to the wave function. The observer splits, along with everything else and has the same experience as if the wave function collapsed.
This goes back to empirical indistinguishability, which BA appealed to earlier in this thread. You can propose different centers of the universe, and those theories predict the same empirical observations. From the perspective of the observer, their experience will be same, despite the fact that each of those theories suggest the underlying, unseen realities that explain them are materially different.
After all, astronomy isn’t the science of what astronomers will experience. It’s about what the universe is really like, out there, in reality. It wasn’t that long ago that astronomers experienced stars as tiny white lights in the sky, not the massive “spheres of incandescent gas, millions of kilometres in diameter and light years away” that are necessary consequences of out theories of optics, physics, geometry, etc.
This is why BA’s view of science is flawed.
“Instrumentalism, even aside from the philosophical enormity of reducing science to a collection of statements about human experiences, does not make sense in its own terms. For there is no such thing as a purely predictive, explanationless theory. One cannot make even the simplest prediction without invoking quite a sophisticated explanatory framework.”
You can’t even look at anything directly in front of you without implicitly invoking theories about optics, physics, electrochemical reactions, etc. This is because, it turned out our senses, which were supposed to be the infallible source of knowledge we could always turn to, of last resort, to not lead us into error, are actually based on highly complex, systems that reflect long chains of hard to vary explanatory theories.
So much for Empiricism.
And how did BA reach this conclusion? Surely, it was due to that evidence he was referring to, he can show how I was using the wrong concept of locality, etc? Right?
IOW, it’s false because BA think it’s insane. Not because of empirical evidence from some experiment, like he claimed. Go figure.
Why didn’t he just come out and say that in the first place?
CR:,,, “despite God not existing.”,,,
Confidently claims the man who, apparently without any hesitation, imagines himself to be a veritable god who exists in an infinitude of parallel universes. 🙂
CR, not to spoil the delusions of grandeur that zillions of parallel CRs must possess for you, but you do realize that the arguments against God’s existence are paper thin, and even self-refuting, do you not?
Whereas, on the other hand, the arguments for God’s existence are extremely deep, multifaceted, and even compelling.
Feb. 2023 – Moreover, I hold that if we take the artificial blinders off of science, specifically take the artificially imposed blinder of ‘methodological naturalism’ off of science, and let the scientific evidence speak for itself, then the scientific evidence itself is also very good at pointing us to Theism, even to Christianity, not to atheistic naturalism, as the true explanation for reality.
For a fallibilist, a “metatheory” is close to beyond criticism. So, here is Deutsch, a guy who is more than willing to doubt that cogito ergo sum is true, proclaiming that MWI is a “metatheory.” Talking about selective hyper skeptics ….
Of related note, through the last decade or so, I have really appreciated Dr. Egnor explaining some of the more ancient arguments for God’s existence,
First, just a reminder: the many worlds interpretation doesn’t have any hidden variables, including the kind in the MIW / Pilot wave theory or the kind that Einstein proposed. But, again, details like this are irrelevant to BA. It’s just crazy.
Second, in regards to the appeal to “good reasons we cannot comprehend” I’d also point out that, on one hand, God supposedly heals patents of cancer and other diseases, etc., but he won’t heal amputees.
After all, if we take the claims of creationists seriously, God supposedly created human beings. So, restoring limbs would be child’s play. (Even less than child’s play, as God is supposedly infinite, exists outside of time, knows everything that could possibly be known, etc. Saying God wouldn’t even “break a sweat” wouldn’t even come close.) But, even then, God wouldn’t need to perform some great miracle time after time. After all, we know regrowing limbs wouldn’t violate the laws of physics because some species of salamanders do it So, God could just make a few changes in the human genome to give us the ability to regrow limbs as well. Or better yet, he could just reveal that knowledge to us, along with the knowledge of how to make those changes in human beings. Right? I mean, assuming we do not destroy ourselves first, it’s something we can figure out eventually, like how to cure cancer. So why heal cancer patients, but not amputees?
If you doubt this, we can again take creationism seriously. If it’s true that God created the biosphere, then God also intentionally created that species of salamanders with the necessary genes (but not other species of salamanders?). So, he must already possess the knowledge of exactly which genes are necessary, to result in just the right proteins that will result in just the right features to regrown limbs. And he must already possess the knowledge of how to bring about those changes in living things. Otherwise, how did that knowledge end up in salamanders, giving them that ability, in the first place? Of course, this also means the opposite is true. When God created human beings, he intentionally omitted that knowledge. .
Now, let’s let that sink in for a few moments, shall we? When we do this, creationists are left with an implicit theory that we’re supposed to accept.
Specifically, I’m supposed to believe is that God intentionally gave some species of salamanders (but not others?) the ability to regrow their limbs, despite the fact that salamanders cannot conceive of disability. They don’t feel awkward, left out, frustrated, incapacitated, depressed, inadequate and even suicidal. All of those reflect concepts that only people (which includes human beings) can experience. Salamanders cannot experience them. Yet, God decided not to give those genes to human beings, who can and do experience them.
So, if we take creationism seriously, God could have given those genes to human beings. Which is something he supposedly already knows how, has already done and could do without performing miracle after miracle (which is supposedly something God does when he heals cancer and other diseases.) So why didn’t he?
The best the theist can do is, God must have some good reason we cannot comprehend.
Of course, should someone apply this to God and the MWI, theists like BA apparently somehow knows God couldn’t possibly have some good reason to create the multiverse that we cannot comprehend. Rather, they’re crazy.
Doesn’t this strike you as being, well, a bit arbitrary and even hypocritical?
Of course, this is a figure of speech. My point was, it could be that God does not exist, yet dualism could be true. I don’t have to actually believe God doesn’t exist to take that theory seriously for the purpose of criticism. But if BA didn’t already knew that, then why did he quote mine me? What gives?
Apparently, dualism is just flat out crazy talk, if God doesn’t exist, but it’s peachy keen if he does?
Perhaps a better question is, what doesn’t BA think is crazy if God doesn’t exist, and why?
Oh my gosh. One of the zillions of parallel CRs tries his hand at theology, (supposedly to disprove God and prove that he exists in a zillion parallel universes), and it ain’t pretty, i.e. “on one hand, God supposedly heals patents of cancer and other diseases, etc., but he won’t heal amputees.”
You would think that one of the zillions of parallel CRs would have known something simple like that. Oh well.
CR. one last word, I’ll gladly let my posts speak for themselves. I feel I have more than made the case for Theism. This is my last post to you on the subject. Far be it from me to try to be reasonable with someone who really does believe he is existing is a zillion different universes simultaneously.
Yes, exactly! According to the current consensus among astrophysicists and cosmologists, space and time (space-time) BEGAN 13.8 billion years ago. As far as science is concerned, space-time simply popped into existence from nothing (non-existence).
And all these magical parallel universes, multiverses, and multiple universes are conjured as “explanations” without the slightest concern that conjuring entire universes is probably the most egregious violation of Occam’s Razor or the parsimony principle imaginable to science!
This is apparently not a problem at all for a lot of die-hard atheists.
Would you say that MWI is deterministic in the sense that things in each Universe are (super)deterministic? IOW if MWI is true, each universe is fully determined.
Yes. They do speak for themselves. BA cannot even keep the many worlds interpretation straight between subsequent paragraphs in the same comment! If BA doesn’t actually care about accurately presenting the details, then it’s unclear how the actually cares about the details in his rejection of it.
Second, we still haven’t heard BA explain how I’m using the wrong kind of locality in regards to the evidence he is referring to.
So, apparently he is walking way from his claim that evidence has falsified the MWI.
After all the MWI is a competing interpretation of quantum mechanics, not a theory that competes with quantum mechanics itself, which is what Einstein was trying to develop for in regards to his hidden variables approach. Loopholes for some competing theory is what has been closed by the evidences BA is referring to, not the MWI.
IOW, if the experiments that BA is referring to really had falsified the MWI, then it would have falsified quantum mechanics as a whole. Yet, I’m guessing this isn’t what BA believes. Why not? It doesn’t suit his purpose. Will he stop making this claim?
Want some online references?
Wallace, D. (2003). Everett and Structure. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34(1), 87-105.
This paper provides an overview of the MWI and its implications for understanding the structure of quantum mechanics, including entanglement and EPR-type experiments.
Tegmark, M. (1997). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words? Fortschritte der Physik, 46(6-8), 855-862.
This paper discusses the MWI in the context of various interpretations of quantum mechanics and presents an argument for why the MWI is a viable interpretation that is consistent with experimental results, including those from EPR tests.
Vaidman, L. (2014). Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition).
Although not a paper, this encyclopedia entry provides an extensive overview of the MWI and its implications, including a discussion of entanglement and non-locality. It also addresses how the MWI is consistent with the results of EPR experiments.
Deutsch, D. (1997). The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications. Penguin Books.
While not strictly an academic paper, this online chapter from Deutsch’s book provides an accessible introduction to the MWI and its compatibility with experimental results in quantum mechanics, including EPR tests.
As for God healing amputees, why is this supposedly such a rare occurrence? After all God supposedly heals cancer patients at a significantly greater rate. So, why doesn’t God heal amputees as often as, say, cancer patients or other diseases? Also, wouldn’t regrowing limbs be at the top of the list to report? It seems that there would be a greater correlation between limb regrowth and reports than, say, curing cancer, etc.
Furthermore, neither of those references includes specifics from my comments such as as….
– God doesn’t need to perform miracles on a case by case basis.
– Regrowing limbs doesn’t violate the laws of psychics. We grow limbs in the womb and some species of salamanders can regrown them when lost
– God could simply give us the knowledge to achieve this.
– If we take creationists seriously, God supposedly already gave salamanders the ability to regrow limbs
– Salamanders cannot conceive of having a disability. We can.
IOW, my criticism was BA’s arbitrary appeal to “God could have some good reason to do x, which we cannot comprehend.”
We could just as well appeal to that in regards to God creating the multiverse. It’s unclear how BA knows that God has some good reason to give salamanders the ability to regrow limbs, but couldn’t have some good reason to create the multiverse. What gives?
Of course, I don’t want to put words into his mouth. Does BA not think God must have had some good reason to give salamanders the ability to regrow limbs, but not human beings?
I think it’s our current, best interpretation of quantum mechanics. For example…..
So, I’ve tentatively adopted it, like everything else. This means taking it seriously, including necessary consequences of the theory itself. But, I don’t think that knowledge is justified, true belief. Which seems to be the context in which you asked your question. So, we seem to be comparing oranges and apples.
For example, I don’t think science proves things are true. It just proves things are false. And, even then tentatively. Even then, before a new theory replaces another, it must not only explain everything the current theory does, just as well, but also explain why we thought the theory was true in the first place.
A concrete example of this is the OPERA experiment, in which observations suggested that neutrinos traveled faster than light. However, this didn’t result in falsifying Einstein’s speed limit in a vacuum. Why? Because that observation didn’t automatically result in a replacement theory, which explained everything else, just as well, but also explained why neutrinos traveled faster than light in the OPERA experiment, but not all other experiments.
No. That’s a misconception of the theory. Each version of me would be, well, separate at the level of the multiverse. There are other “universes” where other versions of you asked the same question and other versions of me are responding in the same way. But there are other differences in which they diverge.
However, one key point is that use of the term “universe” is that it’s a convenience for us. It’s a helpful way of understanding the multiverse, which is more fundamental. To quote Sean Carroll…
Why should something be rejected for currently seeming counterintuitive? Or, to flip the question on its head, why should reality, nature, or even God, hinge on what we find intuitive? It seems to me that you’re including some implicit assumption about knowledge to reach that conclusion.
For example, I’m guessing you believe in the Trinity. If so, do really find that intuitive?
If MWI is true, is each universe fully determined? IOW do we find ourselves in a fully determined universe?
The MWI is the end of science . . . anything and everything with a non-zero probability can be explained by the MWI. It’s functionally equivalent of God to atheists.
I’m not sure if that is the right question in regards to free will, which I’m assuming you’re alluding to. Specifically, In the MWI, the multiverse is more fundamental than each universe that emerges from it.
For the sake of argument, let’s pick some convenient initial conditions to assume the multiverse is uniform., such as the Big Bang. At which point, the multiverse would start to branch and the first distinct “universes” would emerge. Those branches would branch. And those branches would branch, etc. From that distant past, all the way to the present moment, no resulting branch would have diverged in a way that violated the laws of physics.
So, how could any choices we would have made have an influence on the resulting branching that occurred since then? IOW, I’d suggest the question is: do our choices make a difference in the multiverse, which then impacts which universes emerge as branches?
Imagine If anything like what we call life had not appeared? Everything that could happen, within the limits of the laws of physics, would happen. A splits into A and B, which then split into A, B, C, and D, and so on, a forever-branching tree with no differentiation whatever.
However, let’s add a living thing into the multiverse. If life is knowledge, in that knowledge is information that plays a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium, then the resulting tree of branches will no longer be distributed in the same way. From the perspective of what causes a branch, a plant effectively makes choices. Plants are not people, so those variations are random, to any particular problem to solve, but they still reflect the growth of knowledge. Variation reflects conjecture and natural selection reflects criticism. So, there will be more “universes” with plants that have survived, than would have been otherwise.
The same can be said with people, who also create knowledge via conjecture and criticism. Those choices are more likely the kind you appear to be alluding to. For example, if someone contemplates jumping off a cliff, there will be universes where they actual do jump. But there will be more resulting universes in which they chose not to jump, than would be expected otherwise. Rather, they are different in other ways.
So, it’s by looking beyond just a single branch that we would see how our choices affect the multiverse, despite the MWI being deterministic. The multiverse makes the crucial difference, in that good choices can have a key impact. This simply isn’t possible in a classical world, or even other interpretations of quantum mechanics.
This is in contrast to suggesting someone’s choice is undermined. If that refers to some kind of random collapse, this just means someone’s choice is random. IOW, if choice really is based on randomness, based on QM or something else, it’s unclear how our choice wouldn’t actually be an illusion. It would just be, well, unpredictable.
Given that anything that would falsify the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics would also falsify the MWI, is the Copenhagen interpretation the end of science as well?
I’d note BA still yet to explain how I’m referring to the wrong kind of locality in regards to the evidence he is claiming refutes the MWI. What gives? If he is more knowledgable, then he should have no problem doing so. But if he did, he would need to concede that there are different kinds of locality, even proposed by Bell himself, which I’ve elaborated on at length. And that would be highly problematic for his claim, as it’s based on a false dilemma.
However, despite this, it will just be a matter of time before BA make the same claim regarding this evidence, as if this thread had never happened. Details are only relevant when they suit BA’s purpose.
There is an obvious logical flaw here.
Making this logical mistake disqualifies the individual from any common sense discussion. He posts a logical non-sequitur.
My question was not: “what is more fundamental the multiverse or each universe that emerges from it?”
Forget about the multiverse nonsense for a moment. Let me try it one more time: If MWI is true, do we find ourselves in a fully determined universe?
If the MWI is true, then all of that “multiverse nonsense” is true. That’s a necessary consequence of the interpretation. The multiverse is the most fundamental part, not universes, which emerge from it.
“Universes” are convenient ways for human beings to think about specific aspects of the multiverse. So, there is no singular, most fundamental “The Universe” as implied in your question.
The many worlds theory is completely deterministic theory of quantum mechanics. But that doesn’t add to anything to what I’ve already said.
Perhaps you mean, would the particular universe we happen to inhabit appear deterministic to us? But, again, I’d suggest evaluating that on a universe basic would be unnecessarlly narrow. Adding randomness of some kind to our universe, quantum or otherwise, doesn’t help as our choices would be, well, random.
What I mean is, if MWI is true, would the particular universe we happen to inhabit, considered on its own, be deterministic?
Would the obvious logical flaw of not actually indicating what the logical flaw in in question, disqualify an individual from any common sense discussion.
Given that the MWI is an interception of quantum mechanics, not a competing theory, perhaps you could explicitly indicates exactly what logical flaw you’re referring to?
First, this seems to be a concession that God could be used to explain anything and everything. So, God is indeed a bad explanation?
Second, it’s not clear what you mean by “anything and everything with a non-zero probability.” For example, unlike the Copenhagen interpretation, probability is not the way to think about outcomes in many worlds interpretation, because there is no collapse. So, this reflects a kind of category category error. Furthermore, from some existing branch in the tree, the multiverse could only branch in ways that does not violate the laws of physics.
This is significantly more limiting than explaining “anything and everything with a non-zero probability.” Specifically, it prohibits branches evolving in ways that leap to some point in the tree only possible several steps down the branching path, etc. How does this reflect “anything and everything with a non-zero probability”?
IOW, it’s unclear how the many worlds interpretation could anymore reflect “the end of science” than the Copenhagen interpretation. But, by all means, feel free to elaborate on this further.
As soon as you stop considering the multiverse, you stop considering the MWI. Which is what you seem to be asking.
However, as I’ve indicated, all branches evolve according to the same laws of physics. For example, an electron will never convert into a proton, as it would violate conservation of mass, the conservation of charge, etc. That will never happen in the MWI.
But, in a more fundamental sense, the laws of physics includes quantum mechanics. So the entire multiverse evolves according to the wave function, which is deterministic. That’s what it means to say the MWI is just taking the wave function seriously. You’d have to add something to the wave function to explain why observers can cause collapse, how they can stand outside it to observe it, etc.
To flip the question on its head, why don’t observers evolve according to the wave function?
As I said in @81,
There’s a branch for every interaction, every probability, and nothing that happens isn’t absolutely deterministic in its own branch.
Essentially an infinite number of complete universes appear every microsecond. Let me assure you that this is the most egregious violation of the parsimony principle imaginable! How could you possibly falsify it?
Except, that’s not what the MWI suggests.
I’d point you to a video that clears this up, but a link has already been posted, already. Multiple times. In this very thread.
For example, see #18. What gives?
Again. It’s unclear how this reflects the end of science.
Apparently, because that’s the way you prefer it, and you’re bound and determined to remain ignorant of it?
Critical Rationalist @92,
Yes, it does:
No, it doesn’t. From your own reference…
So, universes do not get created. They already exist. They become differentiated when a branching occurs. And they appear from our perspective when we branch as well.
You might want to actually read the articles you reference, as this one doesn’t say what you think it says.
Critical Rationalist @94,
Nice try, but no cigar. You forgot to mention that Philip Ball acknowledges that Hugh Everett, who proposed the MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics did indeed propose the branching off of the many worlds and that he himself considers the MWI incoherent.
For all possible worlds to exist before any one of them is instantiated seems like a complete cop-out into pure fantasy, populated by Greek gods, Disney characters, and anything/everything else one can dream up. As Philip Ball put it,
Apparently, you didn’t read the rest of Philip Ball’s article that pointed out the problems with MWI, including “splitting” (as also mentioned by Max Tegmark). Philip Ball asks:
So, are you suggesting that Philip Ball didn’t read his own article? Why don’t you read the whole thing?