Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is the search for meaning in quantum physics a form of religion?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From science historian James Gleick at the New York Times, reviewing astrophysicist Adam Becker’s What Is Real?:

So quantum physics — quite unlike any other realm of science — has acquired its own metaphysics, a shadow discipline tagging along like the tail of a comet. You can think of it as an “ideological superstructure” (Heisenberg’s phrase). This field is called quantum foundations, which is inadvertently ironic, because the point is that precisely where you would expect foundations you instead find quicksand.

The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics When scientists search for meaning in quantum physics, they may be straying into a no-man’s-land between philosophy and religion. But they can’t help themselves. They’re only human. “If you were to watch me by day, you would see me sitting at my desk solving Schrödinger’s equation…exactly like my colleagues,” says Sir Anthony Leggett, a Nobel Prize winner and pioneer in superfluidity. “But occasionally at night, when the full moon is bright, I do what in the physics community is the intellectual equivalent of turning into a werewolf: I question whether quantum mechanics is the complete and ultimate truth about the physical universe.”
More.

Well, when we hear people grousing that the public doesn’t “believe in” science, it might be helpful to ask, “What, specifically, should we ‘believe in’ that we can be reasonably sure is science? So many of the controversies revolve around dogmatic metaphysics claiming to be science.

See also: Laszlo Bencze on the current campaign against Karl Popper’s falsification criterion for science (Adam Becker)

and

Does a “fetish for falsification and observation” hold back science? (Adam Becker)

Comments
as to "As for purpose or the lack thereof, why do you think that your life can only be validated by a purpose conceived by some alien being?" And exactly why did atheists think that the now falsified Copernican principle rendered any significance, purpose, and meaning for our lives null and void?bornagain77
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PST
bornagain77 @ 7
So apparently, according to the response of Seversky and jdk to my posts in 1 and 2, it is OK for atheists to say, via the Copernican principle, that our lives have no more meaning and purpose than that of chemical scum and slime mold, but to show that quantum mechanics overturns the Copernican principle, and therefore our lives, using the atheist’s own method of reasoning from the Copernican principle, have meaning and purpose, is not OK??? REALLY??? Interesting double standard you guys have
Actually, all I was pointing out was that you are a good example of those who search for meaning or religious significance in quantum phenomena. Nobody was saying that you couldn't hold or express your own beliefs in this matter. As for purpose or the lack thereof, why do you think that your life can only be validated by a purpose conceived by some alien being?Seversky
May 13, 2018
May
05
May
13
13
2018
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PST
Fine. However, I'll note that your posts don't actually address any of the points I've made, either in general or about your specific posts about me. But we'll let things stand as they are, I suppose.jdk
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PST
I'll let my posts stand for the unbiased reader. As to your base metaphysics, I've seen you waiver, whenever the mood strikes you and put in a spot, between full blown reductive materialism and eastern mysticism.
jdk April 18, 2018 at 10:46 am Buddhists and Hindus believe the self is an illusion and that recognizing that is a key to enlightenment. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/aw-faceboook-quit-blaming-ai-for-your-goofs-and-shady-practices/#comment-656597 Panpsychists were often considered to be some form of pantheist by default, since if everything had mind, it was considered likely that this mind had a highest universal order of relation. And the biggest names in pantheism would tend to be some kind of panpsychist. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/5gm6gn/are_pantheism_and_panpsychism_compatible_with/
bornagain77
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PST
P.S. 1) Just looking at my posts, and not adding in things you think you know about me, what part of what I wrote was"atheistic" and might not have been written by a theist? 2. I am not a pantheist or a deist, and the things I wrote above have nothing to do with those those topics, so I don't know how the Dawkins quote you offered is relevant to me. 3. I just looked at your first post and I have no idea how the Copernicus Principle has anything to do with the issue raised in the OP. Did perhaps Copenhagen and Copernicus get mixed up in your copy-and-paste machine?jdk
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PST
Funny how you can, without citing any empirical evidence, and by force of your own personal opinion, reach a conclusion that exactly matches your atheistic/pantheistic premises. i.e. There is no meaning or purpose for our lives to be derived from quantum mechanics. Whereas, on the other hand, I cited specific scientific evidence to support my position that the Copernican principle itself is now overturned not only by quantum mechanics but also by general relativity, and that, therefore, using the atheist's own line of reasoning from the Copernican principle to discount any meaning and purpose for our lives, that our lives do indeed have meaning and purpose. Go figure. One of us is being forthright in the debate, the other simply ignores the scientific evidence and thinks his a-priori metphysical opinion is above empirical reproach. The unbiased readers can decide for themselves which one among us has been forthright.bornagain77
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PST
Seversky merely said that you are someone who thinks that QM can lead to and support your religious beliefs, and my point was that I did not think in general that was a necessary connection. I didn't need to read your particular posts to know what he was referring to.jdk
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PST
So you agreed with Seversky without bothering to know exactly what he was responding to? My argument stands on its merits especially when you don't even bother to know exactly what the merits of the argument are and 'happily' agree with Seversky just because you want to disagree with me regardless. How typical. A disingenuous and dishonest response. as to: "none of my responses had anything to do with an atheistic perspective: I think a theist could have written exactly what I did." HA, a laughable claim! Your metaphysics permeates your responses.
"Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.” - Richard Dawkins https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/554646-let-us-remind-ourselves-of-the-terminology-a-theist-believes
bornagain77
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PST
I didn't even respond to your posts 1 and 2, ba - didn't even bother to read them, as it just the same stuff over and over. I first responded to seversky, and then to the question posed by the OP. And in fact none of my responses had anything to do with an atheistic perspective: I think a theist could have written exactly what I did.jdk
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PST
So apparently, according to the response of Seversky and jdk to my posts in 1 and 2, it is OK for atheists to say, via the Copernican principle, that our lives have no more meaning and purpose than that of chemical scum and slime mold, but to show that quantum mechanics overturns the Copernican principle, and therefore our lives, using the atheist's own method of reasoning from the Copernican principle, have meaning and purpose, is not OK??? REALLY??? Interesting double standard you guys have. Your guys ability for sheer hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. Question: How do you guys develop any real meaning and purpose for your life from your nihilistic Atheistic worldview? And since you, by definition, can't have real meaning and purpose for your lives within atheism, does it bother you that you have to steal from Christian presuppositions in order to be able live your lives as if they had some kind of real meaning and purpose? If not, why not?
Study: Atheists Find Meaning In Life By Inventing Fairy Tales - Richard Weikart MARCH 29, 2018 Excerpt: However, there is a problem with this finding. The survey admitted the meaning that atheists and non-religious people found in their lives is entirely self-invented. According to the survey, they embraced the position: “Life is only meaningful if you provide the meaning yourself.” Thus, when religious people say non-religious people have no basis for finding meaning in life, and when non-religious people object, saying they do indeed find meaning in life, they are not talking about the same thing. If one can find meaning in life by creating one’s own meaning, then one is only “finding” the product of one’s own imagination. One has complete freedom to invent whatever meaning one wants. This makes “meaning” on par with myths and fairy tales. It may make the non-religious person feel good, but it has no objective existence. http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/29/study-atheists-find-meaning-life-inventing-fairy-tales/
bornagain77
May 12, 2018
May
05
May
12
12
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PST
FWIW, I just bought Becker's book. It got good reviews on Amazon, and I've read other stuff about the meaning of quantum mechanics lately, both physics and metaphysics. We'll see what I think of it. And I liked this quote from the linked article in the OP:
Before he died, Richard Feynman, who understood quantum theory as well as anyone, said, “I still get nervous with it...I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.” The problem is not with using the theory — making calculations, applying it to engineering tasks — but in understanding what it means. What does it tell us about the world?
jdk
May 11, 2018
May
05
May
11
11
2018
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PST
More seriously, I'm a fan of James Glieck, but I don't agree that he has asked a good question when he writes, "Is the search for meaning in quantum physics a form of religion?" I think attempts to understand what quantum mechanics says about the fundamental nature of reality are a form of metaphysical philosophy, but not in general religion. Religion involves a whole bunch of things that go beyond philosophy: worship, rituals, morals and other normative beliefs and behavior, stories about mankind's relationship to something beyond mankind, etc; and religion is something that is culturally shared and affirmed by a group. Now there are people who believe that their interpretation of quantum mechanics supports and even proves their religion, but that connection is not necessary, and goes beyond just the metaphysics. So my answer to the question is "no".jdk
May 11, 2018
May
05
May
11
11
2018
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PST
:-)jdk
May 11, 2018
May
05
May
11
11
2018
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PST
Is the search for meaning in quantum physics a form of religion?
I think we should record our appreciation of BA77's sterling work in providing substantial evidence to support an affirmative answer to the question.Seversky
May 11, 2018
May
05
May
11
11
2018
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PST
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].”
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. 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.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
Fred Hoyle and George Ellis add their considerable weight here in these following two quotes:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973. “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, 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… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55
As Einstein himself noted, there simply is no test that can be performed that can prove the earth is not the center of the universe:
“One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.” –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921
Here are a few more references that drives this point home:
"We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,, If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second" Historian Lincoln Barnett - "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" - pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein) “In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force such that the equation of motion takes the form of equation (8.47). Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface in the form –2mgvme ´ ?Ue, where vme is the velocity of the test body relative to the earth and ?Ue is the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth. The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars.” (Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191). “…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’… One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right.” Born, Max. “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”, Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
Even Stephen Hawking himself, who once claimed that we are just chemical scum on an insignificant planet, stated that it is not true that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong,,, 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.”
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, 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.” Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010
Even individual people, as the following article makes clear, can be considered to be central in the universe according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity,,,
You Technically Are the Center of the Universe – May 2016 Excerpt: (due to the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity) no matter where you stand, it will appear that everything in the universe is expanding around you. So the center of the universe is technically — everywhere. The moment you pick a frame of reference, that point becomes the center of the universe. Here's another way to think about it: The sphere of space we can see around us is the visible universe. We're looking at the light from stars that's traveled millions or billions of years to reach us. When we reach the 13.8 billion-light-year point, we're seeing the universe just moments after the Big Bang happened. But someone standing on another planet, a few light-years to the right, would see a different sphere of the universe. It's sort of like lighting a match in the middle of a dark room: Your observable universe is the sphere of the room that the light illuminates. But someone standing in a different spot in the room will be able to see a different sphere. So technically, we are all standing at the center of our own observable universes. https://mic.com/articles/144214/you-technically-are-the-center-of-the-universe-thanks-to-a-wacky-physics-quirk
,,, In fact, 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.
Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein's approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct "frame of reference" in which velocities are measured,,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity The happiest thought of my life. Excerpt: In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought of my life”: “The gravitational field has only a relative existence… Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.” http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node85.html
Whereas, on the other hand, in Quantum Mechanics 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,",,,
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, states “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.”
"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. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial, and have fears and agonies that are very similar to the fears and agonies that Copernicus and Galileo went through with their perturbations of society." Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html
Moreover, Quantum Mechanics further undermines the belief that humanity is just chemical scum by, instead of humans being the accidental result of the laws of nature as is presupposed in Darwinian thought, humans are instead brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level. As Steven Weinberg states in the following article, (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) 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,,,
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus 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. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. 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,,, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/
And as leading experimental physicist 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.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, 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.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
Thus, contrary to popular belief, the Copernican principle and/or principle of mediocrity has now been overturned by both of our best theories in science. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics respectively. I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
Hebrews 4:13 "And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to Whom we must give account." Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
In other words, our lives, instead of being 'chemical scum', are found to have far more significance than was falsely presupposed by atheists (and even Christians), in the Copernican principle. Moreover, when we rightly let the Agent Causality of God "BACK" into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, then an empirically backed reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics readily pops out for us in Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead.
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw
Verses:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77
May 11, 2018
May
05
May
11
11
2018
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PST
Atheistic Materialists are quick to point to the supposedly unquestionable Copernican Principle in science to say that our lives have no intrinsic meaning and purpose in this universe. The Copernican principle, is named after Copernican heliocentrism and is the assumption that there is nothing very unusual or special about the earth or humanity:
Copernican principle Excerpt: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, is an alternative name of the mediocrity principle,,, stating that humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.[1] Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus's argument of a moving Earth.[2] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle Carl Sagan coined the term 'principle of mediocrity' to refer to the idea that scientists should assume that nothing is special about humanity's situation https://books.google.com/books?id=rR5BCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false Mediocrity principle Excerpt: The (Mediocrity) principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth's history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle
That is to say, with the removal of the earth from the center of the solar system, some people, particularly atheists, generalized it to mean humans in particular have no real meaning, purpose, and significance in this universe. In 1996, Michael Rowan-Robinson, former president of the Royal Astronomical Society, and apparently an atheist, emphasized the Copernican principle as the threshold test for modern thought, asserting that:
"It is evident that in the post-Copernican era of human history, no well-informed and rational person can imagine that Earth occupies a unique position in the universe." Michael Rowan-Robinson - (1996). Cosmology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 62–63.
In 2014 Princeton neuroscientist Michael Graziano stated,, “what is our relationship to the rest of the universe? Copernicus answered that one. We’re not at the center. We’re a speck in a large place.”
Are We Really Conscious? - OCT. 10, 2014 Excerpt: “First, what is our relationship to the rest of the universe? Copernicus answered that one. We’re not at the center. We’re a speck in a large place.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/opinion/sunday/are-we-really-conscious.html?_r=0
In 1980, Carl Sagan, in a Cosmos episode, stated the principle of mediocrity as such: “Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.”
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” - Carl Sagan - "100 Billion Galaxies each W/100 Billion Stars" – video (excerpt from Carl Sagan's Cosmos episode 7 – Nov. 1980) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ex__M-OwSA
In 2014. Tim Maudlin stated the mediocrity principle more succinctly as such: “No one looking at the vast extent of the universe and the completely random location of homo sapiens within it (in both space and time) could seriously maintain that the whole thing was intentionally created for us. This realization began with Galileo, and has only intensified ever since.”:
Modern Cosmology Versus God’s Creation By Gary Gutting June 15, 2014 Excerpt: No one looking at the vast extent of the universe and the completely random location of homo sapiens within it (in both space and time) could seriously maintain that the whole thing was intentionally created for us. This realization began with Galileo, and has only intensified ever since.,,, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/modern-cosmology-versus-gods-creation/ Tim Maudlin, a professor of philosophy at New York University and the author of “Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time.”
And in 1995 Stephen Hawking went much further in denigrating humanity and bluntly stated “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,” - Stephen Hawking - 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,
In 2002 John Gray, an English political philosopher, stated that “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.”
“human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” John Gray - Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals - page 33 - 2002
And in 1995 Richard Dawkins stated much the same thing when he stated “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”22 Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 133.
So according to some of these leading experts, no well-informed and rational person disagrees with the fact that we are just chemical scum who's lives have no more meaning than slime mold. Or disagrees with the fact that we have no free will and that we live in a purposeless universe of blind pitiless indifference. Mark me down as unimpressed by these supposed experts. Firstly, contrary to the popularly held belief that the Copernican principle has rendered any belief in the special status for the earth and humanity null and void, the fact of the matter is that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have themselves now overturned the Copernican principle and/or the principle of mediocrity as being a valid principle in science. Particularly, 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,,,
Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following article makes 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,,,
How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015 Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,, In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/
bornagain77
May 11, 2018
May
05
May
11
11
2018
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PST

Leave a Reply