Sabine Hossenfelder argues that the multiverse is “no better than God”

_{News
August 1, 2021

Intelligent Design, Multiverse, theism

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Multiverse
theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s not just theists who have problems with the multiverse. Sabine Hossenfelder explains her reservations.
The Big Conversation is a video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
Luke Barnes, “The Multiverse is no better than God” at The Big Conversation (July 31, 2021)

Here’s the full version, with over 2700 comments:

Many physicists have pointed out the extraordinary ‘fine tuning’ of the physical laws of the universe that have allowed life to develop within the cosmos.
Luke Barnes believes it gives evidence for a designer behind the cosmos, whereas Sabine Hossenfelder disagrees, questioning whether we can even speak of ‘fine tuning’ as a phenomenon.
Luke Barnes, “The fine tuning of the Universe: Was the cosmos made for us?” at The Big Conversation (July 31, 2021)

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Is math real? Hossenfelder: The physicists who believe in this argue that unobservable universes are real because they are in their math. But just because you have math for something doesn’t mean it’s real. You can just assume it’s real, but this is unnecessary to describe what we observe and therefore unscientific.

Comments

For example, we notice that the sun appeas to move in a regular pattern through the sky.
Are we taking about the external material world? The only thing Murray has said that makes sense is that we have minds that process the information from the external world. No one since the hunter gathers has thought any different. Amazing insight!!! For that we get 20,000+ comments on the obvious. All nonsense. Now astral travel. That’s really different. Aside: I don’t believe Murray believes any of what he says. No one could be that dumb. Look for another motive.jerry_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

WJM
Because you don’t feel things “in your fingers.” If I chop your hand off, take it with me into the other room, and throw it into the fire, are you going to feel it burn? No.
Right, because those are no longer alive as "my fingers". They're dead body parts. Once you cut them off from my soul, they are no longer alive and thus cannot feel. When they are alive, and filled with life from my soul - then I feel with my fingers, not my mind. And my fingers feel the table, not thoughts of the table. So, mental monism is falsified in that. The table is required and then the sensation in my fingers which does not require mind takes in information - my mind processes it later.
as my If I shut off your mind, what do you think you’re going to experience while your mind is shut off?
How does one "shut off the mind"? You mean, if I am dead? I can recognize things by my soul when I am dead. But I do not require my mind to sense things. I can look at clouds mindlessly. Where does science define what the mind is? What measurements does science give us on how far the mind extends? I haven't seen the science on that because the mind is an immaterial entity. So the claim that "everything is mind" is speculative and can be denied, as I have done. I do not believe the mind is everything. For me, the mind is a part of the soul. The soul has powers that are greater than the mind. God can communicate directly with the soul - and the soul can transcend what the mind can do. No science can help with this. Science cannot tell us the difference between mind and soul - nor can it tell us how consciousness functions, what components it has or its extent. Science cannot measure immaterial entities.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

SA, Do you know that there are, very conservatively, hundreds of thousands of people who use various forms of MRT theories, and methods described by those theories, to actively "create" reality in their lives, and who testify in various venues about their successes? There are hundreds of books and websites describing these methods and techniques. There are classes you can take both in physical locations and online. I've personally encountered hundreds of people who have similar experiences as I have had my whole life. It's astounding how many people have had these kinds of experiences that they normally just don't talk about because it makes them sound crazy, or like they're just making stuff up. These people include scientists, research scientists, teachers, psychologists, medical doctors, and a former materialist/professional skeptic ("fact checker") who, prior to having their own experiences, considered all of this a bunch of delusional or deceptive nonsense. KF and your "common sense" extrapolation of "common experience" accounts for these experiences by, one way or another, brushing them aside and taking them out of consideration. These people literally live in fear of being vilified, ridiculed, losing their jobs and being ostracized by their own family and friends if they talk openly about their ongoing experiences. This perspective is not uncommon and it is growing, as science progresses and more and more people find private or anonymous venues where they can share their experiences and thoughts.William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

AD asks:
Whose path is true, and whose isn’t? Both? Neither?
That depends on what you mean by "true." Do you mean which path ultimately leads us to experience what our path predicts, I guess we'll find out. If you mean, which theory better explains the totality of the evidence to date, I'm confident MRT/IRT is the better theory. ERT cannot explain a substantial amount of evidence already in hand, and IRT can. SA said:
They don’t make sense to anyone else. It’s like Alice and Wonderland or Dorothy on the yellow brick road. Once you go into the Looking Glass or the World of Oz – then things make sense. Outside, it’s nonsense.
The problem is that quantum physics research is dragging us through that looking glass, or down that rabbit hole, whether like it or not, whether we deny it or not, whether people are generally aware of or understand that evidence or not. This is why physicists are moving into MRT and information theories about the nature of reality; it is the basis of the research being currently conducted by the quantum gravity group I've linked to several times. "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." - Werner Heisenberg, German theoretical physicist and one of the key pioneers of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics. "Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it." - Pascual Jordan, German theoretical and mathematical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat, French theoretical physicist and philosopher of science. "In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it." - Martin Rees, British cosmologist and astrophysicist "A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. "Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual." RC Henry, a professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University,William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

In all monist ideas, there is no room for what is subjective. It is all fact, fact, fact. And the IRT is no different. It is all heresy, in denial of God the holy spirit, and denial of the human spirit, people's emotions and personal character. KF also, is focused on fact, fact, fact again. Creationism is the proper foundation, validating both subjectivity and objectivity. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / factmohammadnursyamsu_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

SA said:
As I said, I do not need my mind to take in sensory stimuli through my senses (touching a block of wood – my fingers recognize that the wood is real and it is there, then my mind processes after). Where does science prove this wrong?
Because you don't feel things "in your fingers." If I chop your hand off, take it with me into the other room, and throw it into the fire, are you going to feel it burn? No. If I shut off your mind, what do you think you're going to experience while your mind is shut off? Are the fingers themselves going to experience the pain of burning?
WJM agreed that I could not do so unless I accepted his world first.
I think what I actually said was that, like my trying to understand KF's argument about "First Duties," absent the kind of experiences I and others have had that lead us to this theory or versions of it, it may not be possible to understand it. It certainly cannot be understood if one refuses to agree to it arguendo and try to follow the logic without comparing it to their ontologically-based rational system. Jerry said:
Isn’t this one of those self contradictory statements? He is using science that only exist in the external world to prove. the external world doesn’t exist. So he is using an imaginary thing (something that exists in the external world) to prove the external world doesn’t exist.
SA replied:
Right, that doesn’t make sense and is contradictory. I suggested that he needs scientific reports done from the IRT point of view, not from the normal science point of view.
This is bad reasoning. I'll explain why. At its heart, science is a process of pattern recognition, then creating models that explain that pattern and using that theoretical model to make predictions that can be verified or falsified via experimentation. Experimentation is one means of gathering evidence that will either support of undermine the model; it doesn't undermine the pattern. More details about the pattern can be found that we use to modify or change the model. For example, we notice that the sun appeas to move in a regular pattern through the sky. We create a model - a common sense one - that the sun is revolving around the Earth. We experiment with that model by using telescopes and other means to make predictions. of the behaviors of the things we observe. We gather up facts and change the model to a helio-centric model. Science disproves models all the time. Because of the way science is conducted, it doesn't matter what model you are conducting science under; it doesn't matter what your assumptions are. This holds true whether we live in an ERT or MRT world because of the way science is conducted, not because of the assumptions anyone has regarding what it is they are observing and testing. Assuming MRT true, all this time science has been examining, even though they didn't see it exactly this way, mutually verifiable, repeatable, and predictable phenomena in our common experience. We experience those patterns prior to any scientific investigation whatsoever regardless of what we assume it is we are experiencing. If MRT is true, that doesn't invalidate the patterns we mutually experience and have found via scientific investigation over the centuries; it only changes our concept of what those patterns are of and represent. The model changes, not the pattern - just as we have changed models in the past to fit our observations and the results of experiments. 100 years of quantum physics research and experimentation has demonstrated that our model of what we are investigating is in error. That is not in question, and it doesn't invalidate any of the patterns we mutually experience and verify. The mental monism model doesn't invalidate any of the prior evidence or any of the patterns we have thus far experienced and mutually verified. The idea that I cannot point to evidence collected or the experiments conducted under ERT to support MRT is as irrational as saying that Copernicus could not use the evidence and observations that Ptolemy collected, or the patterns that had been observed since well before any formal science was created, for the creation of his model. That doesn't make any sense and it is not how science is conducted. The only question is: does the IRT/MRT better explain the current evidence and make predictions about the mutually verifiable patterns of phenomena in our experience that the ERT-assumptive model cannot? The answer is yes, and those predictions have been supported both by 100 years of quantum physics research done under the assumption of ERT, and also by current physicists who have recently gravitated over to IRT models of reality. IRT could have been disproved long, long ago. We could have found that matter actually exists; we found out that it did not. We could have found out that energy actually exists; we found out that it does not (it never did, because "energy" is itself has always been abstract model that predicts behaviors, like gravity, entropy, etc.) We could have found "things" that have innate states or characteristics independent of observation: we did not. In fact, we found out something very startling: there are no innate, independent states or characteristics of "things" external of our observational experience. We found that what we call "reality" only exists in our experience, not in "things" assumed to be external of that experience. MRT doesn't invalidate the evidence gathered and patterns we've observed under the old assumptions; it only does what science is supposed to do: in light of new evidence that disproves the old model, construct a new model that incorporates the new evidence. That's exactly what MRT does. It is no different in principle than moving from geocentrism to heliocentrism (and, via BA77's evidence, to universal geocentrism) because of new evidence.William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Well said, KF@205. Keep teaching him. Maybe one day he will understand the truth. You can explain it to him, but you cannot comprehend it for him. Bravo for trying. You are a saint.Truth Will Set You Free_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

Jack, perhaps I should note to you that EVERY worldview of consequence has a framework for how other worldviews are. Second, one of the broader lessons from Godel and from Popper is to be very cautious with what explains "everything," as that can be a property of incoherent systems, per the principle of explosion, from what is false anything follows, where the incoherent is necessarily false. As a result, one may happily spin out a scheme that covers the whole world, only to find that it rests on a fatal foundational crack. And in the case of the sort of panpsychism, nodal network simulationism [note how external reality, i.e. our embodiment . . . including our brains . . . and participation in a physical world are viewed as so dubious as to be practically false] in view, there is indeed a foundational challenge. I focussed it on the thought exercise of ceasing to breathe for an hour, which in dreams, visions and simulations is of no consequence, but in waking reality would be terminal, as in don't try this at home. The denial of embodiment as our first fact of self-aware consciousness through which we access all other facts -- notice, the general impact implied -- is not merely an unusual view, it entails grand delusion, thus discrediting our rationality. It matters not, that our bodily sensors have limitations and use signal processing and compression, nor that the macro-level of solid bodies, liquids and gases rests on a microstructure with quantum effects and dynamics, london force intermolecular interactions giving rise to contact forces etc and statistical thermodynamics giving rise to causal-temporal flow in time constrained by Gibbs Free Energy [a direct extension of the 2nd law of thermodynamics] etc, we are looking at fundamental incoherence and that is to be duly noted. Indeed, the Science we note pivots on recognising that observable, intelligible in part world we share with other creatures. We here have a failure due to fundamental incoherence. Such may not seem so to you, but it is readily recognisable and it is reasonable, fair comment to note that such is the case. KFkairosfocus_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

SA, thank you sincerely for your engagement. You seem like a good natured person who genuinely wants to understand.
Thanks, Jack. I don't agree with your point of view but I appreciate the opportunity to learn about what you believe. I consider it a belief system - in other words, theological and religious. It's like Hinduism or pantheism, a statement about God and the world. ID is open to believers of all kinds. For example, I disagree with Mormonism, but this wouldn't be the place to debate that. Mental monism, of what you guys propose is more than just religion though. You're making scientific and philosophical claims also, and those should be debated.
Your reality is fundamentally (and ever will be) mind-centric. And there’s nothing you can do about it.
The one thing I can do about it is disagree and refuse to accept it. Also, you're saying "fundamentally" and "centric" but what you mean is "only mind". It's not just "fundamental" to reality, in your view. But notice how you even worded your own belief as if mind is just "centric" and not the whole thing. Just "fundamental" and not entire. It makes me suspect the level of belief you have in that view when you leave the door open like that.
And… modern science conclusively supports our mental-centric view.
Well, no - it really doesn't. Science cannot even tell us what "mind" is. Because science doesn't know. it doesn't know what "mind" does either. It doesn't know what consciousness is or does. Because those are immaterial essences, and science is incapable of observing and analyzing the immaterial. For example, where does science prove that "mind is all there is"? Or even, "all we know is experience"? As I said, I do not need my mind to take in sensory stimuli through my senses (touching a block of wood - my fingers recognize that the wood is real and it is there, then my mind processes after). Where does science prove this wrong? Also, there is something more than mind because my soul recognizes the grace of God without need for thought at all. The grace and spirit of God comes directly into my soul without the use of mind. So, mind is not all there is. Where does science refute this and explain that "no, God does not speak directly to the soul and the only thing that exists is mind?" I haven't seen that sort of science.Silver Asiatic_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Interesting is that WJM's (and my) worldview can subsume the alternatives. But the alternatives cannot subsume our mental-centric view. And... modern science conclusively supports our mental-centric view. It's not even debatable unless you're ignorant of what's been happening in in the world of quantum physics in the last 100 years. (Sidebar #1: One possible "out" is if you deny free will. It's logically possible, but a difficult route for the materialists to brazen out, and I will assume that's not a live issue in this thread.) (Sidebar #2: WJM and I may not agree on every particular, but fundamentally we're in the same philosophical space. I don't speak for him, and he doesn't speak for me.)Jack_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Jerry: Jack like Murray has also discovered that humans have minds. Well, Jack like Murray has discovered that it's all mind.Jack_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

I don't agree with having these many points of view. The foundation is creationism, which validates the concepts of personal opinion (like opinion on beauty) and fact. discourse. Everyone is already forced to accept creationism, because of creationist logic being engrained in common discourse. And no one can avoid using the logic of common discourse, even if they tried. But besides it being forced by nature, creationism should also be enforced by morality. Because it is immoral not to acknowledge people's emotions, and only creationism ensures that. My judgement about it is, that all the other theories fail to properly acknowledge people's emotions, let alone God. It is not acceptable, and the other theories that compete with creationism must be thrown out.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

WJM: Enjoy your path. I’m thoroughly enjoying mine. Whose path is true, and whose isn't? Both? Neither? Square circle?AnimatedDust_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Jack has a short memory. Jack like Murray has also discovered that humans have minds.jerry_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Folks, your entire existence is consciousness-centric. Everything byond that is inferences from mere logic, which is good, but it can't tell you the nature of reality. And those inferences are happening in... wait for it... in your mind. Your reality is fundamentally (and ever will be) mind-centric. And there's nothing you can do about it. Love, God. ;)Jack_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Jerry: Jack thinks the Tooth Fairy is a legitimate world view. I have no reason to think that. Bizzare comment, Jerry. Leave it to SA. He discusses things in good faith. Your comment is just trollism. Whatever turns you on. At any rate, you don't seem to undertand the topic. Maybe you should be humble and sit it out. Or not. I don't care. ;) It's entertaining at very least.Jack_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Dinner is great under the fading sun. People have minds. Amazing. I rest my case. Aside: Jack thinks the Tooth Fairy is a legitimate world view. Maybe in Murray's world. Maybe it's part of aztral traveling.jerry_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

SA, thank you sincerely for your engagement. You seem like a good natured person who genuinely wants to understand. Jerry: Isn’t this one of those self contradictory statements? He is using science that only exist in the external world to prove. the external world doesn’t exist. No. The "external world" is not necessary to "do science." Your have "external senses" (states of mind) and "science" is about making hypotheses about the "sense data" (states of mind) and testing them in your... wait for it... mind. "Science" is an idea. In your mind. All ideas exist in your mind. All ideas about ideas exist in your mind. There is never any experience of logic, math, "outside world", "science", that doesn't exist in your mind. In. Your. Mind. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. :) It's a mind-centric world. And there's nothing you can do about it. ;)Jack_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Jerry
Isn’t this one of those self contradictory statements? He is using science that only exist in the external world to prove. the external world doesn’t exist. So he is using an imaginary thing (something that exists in the external world) to prove the external world doesn’t exist.
Right, that doesn't make sense and is contradictory. I suggested that he needs scientific reports done from the IRT point of view, not from the normal science point of view. At any rate, hope you enjoy your dinner. I would like to see if anyone understands it also - pinging Jack for the third time.Silver Asiatic_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Jerry
I’m off to dinner some place with a house guest. It will be interesting if anyone can find something coherent about Murray? I assume the answer is no. There has been a year and half and nothing has appeared yet.
Ok, "something coherent" is different than "an insight" as you said first. So in that case, no I haven't found anything coherent, but I was glad that WJM agreed that I could not do so unless I accepted his world first.Silver Asiatic_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Interesting, is how do people die in his world? What does pleasure mean in his imaginary world?
I've concluded that it doesn't make sense. WJM, to his credit, accepted and agrees that it couldn't make sense from my worldview. I would have to accept his idea in order for anything to make sense. Like I said, it's like Alice in Wonderland. You go through the Looking Glass and there are talking animals, a turtle with the head of a calf and a playing card that rules the land. Once you go into Wonderland, then everything is ok. But if you haven't gone through the Looking Glass, you can't judge it. I think he said that people don't really die they just change locations. There's no real reason for things - it's all just information in a mind. The idea that "everything that is possible is actual" is a core belief. I find that irrational and impossible to understand, but it is what it is.Silver Asiatic_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

if he’s correct about what the science proves
Isn't this one of those self contradictory statements? He is using science that only exist in the external world to prove. the external world doesn't exist. So he is using an imaginary thing (something that exists in the external world) to prove the external world doesn't exist. Is that an insight? No, it's gobbledegook. I'm off to dinner some place with a house guest. It will be interesting if anyone can find something coherent about Murray? I assume the answer is no. There has been a year and half and nothing has appeared yet.jerry_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

But, why don’t you point to some non trivial insight he has had. Since you are trying to understand what he is saying.
Just because I try to understand, doesn't mean I agree with it. But anyway, in my view, there's really only one point at issue. So, the one insight - or the one core argument is this:
It’s important to note that 100 years of experiments have been conducted from the ERT perspective that have, cumulatively, led to a recent expansion of idealism or MRT theories and more experimentation. In those hundred years of experiments, scientists using the ERT perspective were trying to establish a necessary entailment of ERT theory described in such experiments as “local reality,” or that discrete states and characteristics exist independent of observation as their own, independent (of the observational experience) “things.” They not only failed to do this, they proved it wasn’t possible even in principle. The “common sense” concept of reality has been scientifically disproved by those seeking to prove it from the perspective that it “must” exist.
He's saying that it's scientifically proven that the external world does not exist. That our common understanding of things has been disproven by science. That's either true or false. if false, then the whole MRT thing collapses. If true, then any sort of crazy ideas can follow. I don't think WJM is claiming to have an original insight on this. He's just claiming philosophical idealism based on quantum physics. The non-trivial insight is that if he's correct about what the science proves (that the external world does not exist) then some sort of "reality" has to be constructed, and it could be whatever anyone wants to come up with.Silver Asiatic_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

offers some element of science, some of philosophy, some of religion
Where his personal pleasures take precedence over other people dying. Interesting, is how do people die in his world? What does pleasure mean in his imaginary world? Whenever pushed, he reverts to physical world explanations/experiences. No, it's all BS and he gets upset when one points out his hypocrisy or personal animosity. But, why don't you point to some non trivial insight he has had. Since you are trying to understand what he is saying.jerry_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Jerry
Did you miss his astral travel ideas?
Ok, fair enough. WJM offers some element of science, some of philosophy, some of religion -- and some of personal experience that is pretty weird, as in that case. The science, philosophy and maybe religion are one thing. The personal things maybe are like someone talking about miracles that happened to them, or weird personal events. There's nothing to discuss there - and some is too weird to understand (in my view).
Also, he is especially focused on showing Kf wrong.
True. Things gets testy and sometimes irate - and I admit get lost trying to decipher both sides.Silver Asiatic_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

So for me, it’s necessary to understand this viewpoint
Murray has been espousing this viewpoint for about a year and half. There has been nothing but nonsense since he has done so. One does not get a free pass because they once were coherent. The only thing that Murray has shown is that we all have minds and there are different perceptions for the same phenomenon. Something everyone since the hunter gatherers have know. Did you miss his astral travel ideas? Also, he is especially focused on showing Kf wrong.jerry_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 185 For me it is important because MRT is a form of idealism (IRT) which was an attack on Realist Philosophy by Descartes to Kant to Berkeley and all the modern forms today. WJM won't be the last to hold this idea. It's just a little different now with supposed support from Quantum observations which are extrapolated to a philosophical view. So for me, it's necessary to understand this viewpoint - because I oppose it, and I also see that it has huge consequences for society, culture and religion - among many things. If people believe that there "is no external reality", I think it's important to take a position on it - for or against. Does quantum physics really prove there is no external world? As an ID-advocate and intelligent poster here for a decade or more, I think WJM deserves the time to understand what he is saying. If someone knowledgeable as himself can believe IRT, what is the attraction? Why does it make sense to him? One insight that can be found in IRT/MRT is that anybody can create a worldview for himself (maybe we already knew that, but anyway.). Once inside that view, a person can create it so things "make sense". They don't make sense to anyone else. It's like Alice and Wonderland or Dorothy on the yellow brick road. Once you go into the Looking Glass or the World of Oz - then things make sense. Outside, it's nonsense. WJM admits this, and I think that is good - I found that a very good insight. For me, it's a matter of realizing the strength of the commonsense view of the world and of realist philosophy from Aristotle on down to today. I also have learned that the claim that "everything is personal experience" is not necessarily a fact. There's no way to prove that from science. In the realist-view, not everything is reducible to "mind" either. We take in information from the senses, then process in the mind. When I put my hand on the table, I experience the table, not just my thoughts. When I sense the table, it is not my thoughts doing the sensing, but my hand. Plus, there's a big problem for IRT regarding God. In classic theology, God can communicate to a person without requiring mind, thoughts or information - but directly to the soul. For IRT (WJM's version) God is a composite. Is "the IRT God" worthy of being worshiped? This is radically different from classical theism, where creatures are not "parts" of God (God would not be composed of parts) but have been made in the image of God, and yet are independent beings. I oppose Descartes, Berkeley, Kant, Hume and the Idealists. I see them as the foundation for modern atheism. One problem we run into when arguing against materialists is to say that "the material world does not exist since quantum experiments prove that". So, materialists are refuted, but the external, material world is lost in the argument also. So, there's no God who created the universe, but just a Mind or even a collection of individual minds. But Quantum observations do not prove that the external world actually does not exist. That's the point in contention. WJM insists that 100s of experiments prove there is no external world. I don't think that's the case - and that's the real essence of the debate. The IRT/MRT just comes after the belief that quantum physics shows there is no external reality.Silver Asiatic_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

If anyone reading this can point to one thing that Murray has said that is insightful, please post it so we can possibly gain this insight too. I have yet to see anything.jerry_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

I'm going to stay a second longer to post this. SA said:
But that really wouldn’t be the case since MRT is a method that “works” for some people in circumstances and makes sense in ways to them.
Exactly. Thank you for that. Now for that nap ...William J Murray_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

SA said:
Logic is a part of rational thought, but if you’re saying that there is something more than logic needed to argue rationally, then yes.
Exactly. Two different rational systems can both have no logical faults, but one cannot be used to understand or criticize the other.
Plus, nobody signed up for wanting to learn it in the first place. Why not create an “IRT Site” somewhere, where the whole thing is done in the IRT language and has no ERT in it? Then, just point people to that site.
Fair enough. I guess the short way of saying this is, why are you subjecting us to a theory nobody here wants to take the time or effort to understand? IOW, if I am looking to enjoy the experience of having valid criticisms and challenges presented, why am I repeatedly returning to sources that have no capacity or intention of providing that enjoyment? My answer is: I don't really expect anyone here to be able to offer a valid criticism; I'm using the exchanges as a kind of information pool to see if I, as someone who understands it, can, from that pool, come up with valid criticisms. Sort of like a brainstorming session where all kinds of suggestions are thrown out from various perspectives, hoping that something said can trigger a perspective or criticism I hadn't thought of before. This is how I have developed and refined my theory for years. Now, why subject you and others to this? My answer is: I'm not subjecting anyone to anything. I'm not forcing anyone to engage with me. Why do you and KF engage with anything I write here? IT's not like I bogart most threads here with my IRT perspective. Look at my comments in KF's various political threads. Not a trace of MRT. Most threads here I don't even participate in. There are commenters here that say things, or outline perspectives of, that are not of interest to me; I don't engage them. Why would I? When I interacted with BA77 about the evidence and his argument for geocentrism, I didn't introduce a word about MRT because I wanted to understand his argument and the evidence. It was interesting to me. The same thing happened when I asked Upright Biped to explain his semiotics argument and evidence. I engage people on their subjects because the subject interests me and I want to understand their perspective. I did the same with the whole "First Duties" argument; I was trying to understand KF's perspective. Ultimately, I had to write it off as something KF and others experience that I just don't experience. I couldn't find a way to understand his argument. That's probably equally true for many who may try to understand MRT; they just can't, probably because they don't experience some of the things I experience. The real question is: why are you engaging me in a discussion about something you have no interest in understanding? Why would anybody? I expect that the bulk of people here who are not engaging me have no interest in doing so. If I'm delusional or irrational, what does anyone hope to gain by engaging my comments? Perhaps it's to demonstrate to onlookers that I'm delusional, irrational, or a troll so they don't get tripped up by or sucked into my way of thinking? I mean, engage or not, it's your choice. Try to understand or not, it's your choice. The subject either interests you for discussion, or it doesn't. Until Mr. Arrington kicks me out, I'll continue enjoying what participation here provides me until it doesn't provide me enough enjoyment to continue participating. Now, I'm sorry I'm leaving questions unanswered, and forgive me if I forget about some questions, but this old man has to take a nap and do other things for a while. Have a great rest of your day!William J Murray_{August 10, 2021
August
08
Aug
10
10
2021
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply