So, here we go:
And, the rise of solid state laser pointers makes this sort of exercise so much easier, BUT YOU MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO GET SUCH A BRIGHT SOURCE INTO YOUR EYE AS THIS MAY CAUSE RETINAL BURNS THUS BLIND SPOTS. (I recall, buying and assembling a kit He-Ne laser to have this exercise for my High School students. We had a ball, using metre sticks stuck to a screen with blu-tack, to observe and measure effects from several metres away.)
So, now, what about, electrons:
Notice, the pattern here builds up statistically, one spot at a time.
Then, HT BA77 way back, here is Dr Quantum:
Now, if you think you have it all figured out, think again, and again, and again. KF
L&FP, 65: So, you think you understand the double slit experiment? (HT, Q & BA77)
–> Physics TV!
ChuckyD, on the thread from which the double slit experiments were referenced, stated,
To which I responded,
I went to point out how this falsification of hidden variables this NOT a minor problem for atheistic materialists, whereas it is very friendly to Judeo-Christian presuppositions. I even went on to note that Zeilinger himself, though not a Christian to my knowledge, finds quantum mechanics to be very friendly to a Judeo-Christian ‘interpretation’.
In short, all in all the Christian, and Theist in general, is sitting very comfortably in regards to recent findings in quantum mechanics, whereas the atheistic materialist is not.
And seeing as I find the atheist’s nihilistic worldview to be a vile, and repulsive, worldview that robs man of any real meaning, beauty, and purpose, for his life, then I find it desirable to further shatter the Atheist’s belief that quantum mechanics is somehow compatible with his worldview.
First a little background.
There was a heated argument between Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson, (who was a prominent philosopher in the early 1900s), 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 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 exactly 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, which falsified ‘realism’, 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 go 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 ‘provocative’ implications and 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, in his Nobel Prize lecture, after highlighting such experiments as the ones that I’ve now referenced, Anton 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 his 4-D space-time was the correct definition of time, and 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.”
In summation, I find the Christian Theist to be sitting VERY comfortably in regards to what recent findings in quantum mechanics have revealed about the ultimate nature, and/or foundation, of reality. And I find the atheistic materialist to be, to put it mildly, in severe discordance with what the empirical evidence from quantum mechanics is revealing to us about the ultimate nature, and/or foundation, of reality.
Verses:
Here’s a question: During the full moon the back side of the moon receives no sunlight, and during the new moon the back side gets full sunlight. Does the back side of the moon get hot when we have a new moon?
Ba77,
I take issue with the following:
“And seeing as I find the atheist’s nihilistic worldview to be a vile, and repulsive, worldview that robs man of any real meaning, beauty, and purpose, for his life, then I find it desirable to further shatter the Atheist’s belief that quantum mechanics is somehow compatible with his worldview.”
In my comments that follow, my goal is not to defend atheism but to expand on what atheists substitute for God.
Man is the highest form of life and worthy of praise. So men can only turn to men for advice on all life’s questions; how to live, how to view others, what to do and what to believe in a secular sense. The Catholic Church has defined sin as preferring substitutes of what theists know to be the right way to live, right behavior and right action. This is not to say all atheists live outrageously immoral lives but some do. Since God is not considered, or does not exist, they are free to pursue any interest they may think of or come across. There can be nihilism or just indifference. By purposely living without benefit of human religious guidance or contact with God through prayer, at the least, the current ‘spirit of the age’ can more easily affect them. Yes, some atheists promote nihilism. Some prefer reading or hearing elaborate explanations of some subject to justify or confirm some belief they hold. But this is not new or “modern.”
Regarding meaning:
Jean-Paul Sartre: “Man invents himself.” Man creates his own goals and only regards the words of other men for further guidance.
Beauty
Men who have not learned to see beauty in life may simply ignore it or engage with parts or certain aspects of it.
Purpose
For most people, survival and paying the bills is enough.
Summary: I would say the atheist lives a deficient life. He may be well educated or not. He may decide to post on this site his commitment to materialism, to reality without God. To defend it. But no matter how often he is discredited, to reword or just repeat what he defends and believes regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
John 14:6
‘Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Proverbs 14:12
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”
‘There is a way that seems right…” Here, we can see that some prefer a way that will lead to death.
It would be good to stick to the subject of the videos, rather than moving the discussion to religious views. The videos don’t bring up any religious topics.
Comments that may stray from what Viola Lee deems appropriate, may henceforth only be submitted to, and approved by, Viola Lee, before they will be allowed to be posted,,,, or not. 🙂
As to the question in the OP, my response is no, I don’t understand QM. Like one professor’s YouTube video, he said something like, “. . . and after taking my class in quantum mechanics, you’ll be able to not understand quantum mechanics as well as I don’t.”
Bornagain77 @2-4,
Thanks for the overview of the issues and confounding ideologies. Much appreciated.
Viola Lee @5,
Your question is similar to the venerable one about whether a tree falling in a forest without anyone present makes a sound. I think it’s even mentioned in one of the videos above. Edit: No, it’s here:
https://youtu.be/txlCvCSefYQ?t=81
Viola Lee @7,
Yes, I agree completely. There are also implications for other beliefs and ideologies including cosmic humanism and deterministic materialism. We should drop these from influencing our perceptions and ideas from the experimental results, wherever they might lead at the moment.
-Q
FYI, my background in quantum mechanics includes a college class (long ago) and reading a lot of books on the subject. I find physics mysteries totally intriguing. So, here’s the method I like to follow:
1. Let nature teach me rather than projecting my prejudices and preferences onto nature.
2. Separate experimental results from ideological interpretation, preferring to withhold judgment.
3. Recognize that conceptual frameworks and their supporting mathematics are expendable human-designed models of reality, but not reality. There’s always a new mathematics that can be found or invented to support a new model.
4. Understand the weaknesses and shortfalls of current theories. Ask lots of questions. As celebrated photographer, Anselm Adams, is reputed to have said, “Everything interesting happens at the edges.”
5. Remain open to new discoveries and new perspectives. Be willing to go down someone’s path with them uncritically for a distance rather than resorting to immediate a priori rejection.
My current interest:
Experimental evidence regarding “the measurement problem,” which involves the possibly central effects on quantum phenomena, if any, of (a) consciousness, (b) free will choices, (c) information extraction limits, and (d) information storage and retrieval.
For example, this might entail training a monkey or a hen to react to the display of two bars in the double-slit experiment (hopefully without running afoul of a Von Neumann chain). I believe that I’ve read about detection and recording devices used on a double-slit experiment that automatically erase what they’ve recorded, resulting in an undisturbed interference pattern, but I need to confirm this.
My favorite authors on the subject:
Lee Smolin
Leonard Susskind
Carlo Rovelli
Thomas Marcella
Philip Ball
Sabine Hossenfelder
Rosenblum and Kuttner
Anil Ananthaswamy
Manjit Kumar
Plus, I’d highly recommend Jim Mahaffey’s book, Atomic Accidents for anyone interested in pure horror! For example, did you know that the U.S. accidentally dropped a nuclear weapon on a small American town or that the warhead of an ICBM fell off the top of a missile and hit the bottom of its silo? In both cases, it was either luck or divine intervention that the warheads didn’t go off!
What I like to do is download a FREE SAMPLE chapter of a book I’m interested in on my Kindle, and then I decide whether to buy a Kindle version, a hard copy, or delete the sample.
However, I can’t recommend getting a Kindle until Amazon requires mandatory drug testing for Kindle’s UI designer, who continues to make the user interface experience as painful and frustrating as possible for people who keep more than three books at a time in their libraries. Caveat emptor!
-Q
Ba77 at 8,
I’ve come to a similar conclusion.
So does the back side of the moon get hot?
I assume it does, and that the wave function of the photons collapse when they hit the moon, and the energy of the photon is transferred to the substance of the moon. No one has to be watching, but nevertheless the moon heats up. This shows to me that measurement in terms of an interaction is what collapses the wave form, not specifically the presence of consciousness.
Could those of you who think that consciousness is necessary for the wave function to collapse explain what you think happens on the back side of the moon in this situation?
Claim: “measurement in terms of an interaction is what collapses the wave form”
Yet, “Decoherence” does not explain wave-function collapse.
Even the late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, rejected ‘decoherence’ as a coherent explanation in quantum mechanics:
And as I pointed out on the other thread, “as far as experimental science itself is concerned, the realist approach is falsified, and the instrumentalist approach is experimentally validated as being true.”
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-astronomer-the-wonders-of-the-universe-point-to-a-creator/#comment-775076
Moreover, decoherence has been falsified by what are termed ‘interaction-free’ measurements.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-astronomer-the-wonders-of-the-universe-point-to-a-creator/#comment-775064
So again, I find the Christian Theist to be sitting VERY comfortably in regards to what recent findings in quantum mechanics have revealed about the ultimate nature, and/or foundation, of reality. And I find the atheistic materialist to be, to put it mildly, in severe discordance with what the empirical evidence from quantum mechanics is revealing to us about the ultimate nature, and/or foundation, of reality.
Verses:
So, BA, I assume you think the moon gets hot. How do you explain that in the absence of any conscious observer?
BA@8. I respect the breadth of your knowledge, capacity to elucidate, and facility with quotations, but disagree with you at 8, and support VL.
VL has a long history of pleading that comments should be comments on the topic. Digressions become exponential when sticking to the topic does not happen, and when the digression leads into interpretation of what the topic is really implying, then into philosophy, where are there are no answers, only questions, the topic can end up being forgotten. When the philosophy shades into theology, rancour sets in.
Apologise for this digression, and regret I cannot add anything useful to the topic.
Thanks, Belfast.
Viola Lee @12,
How would you know that the moon heats up or not?
As soon as you measure/observe ANY effect, then the moon would (retroactively) have been hot. As a quantum effect, it’s known as “quantum erasure” or “delayed choice.”
However, others argue that at a macro scale, there are too many observers/measurements going on, so the “dark side” of the moon would indeed light up, while in the sparse environment of single particles, quantum effects occur more easily.
Also note, that even in a miniaturized environment such as in computer memory or microprocessors, the distances are so tiny, that “quantum tunneling” becomes a significant factor, allowing electrons to probabilistically (and perhaps mischievously) jump from one trace to another! This limits the miniaturization of microelectronic components. So, in this example, the “dark side of the moon” are the traces being lit up by the electrons (presumably while playing just the video of the 1939 production of The Wizard of Oz–haha).
-Q
“How do you explain that in the absence of any conscious observer?”
God is not an ‘absent observer’ in my Christian worldview. Indeed, I hold God to be collapsing the infinite dimensional/infinite information wave function
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-astronomer-the-wonders-of-the-universe-point-to-a-creator/#comment-775090
Of related note, after discussing some problems with ‘decoherence’, the ‘von Neumann chain’ is discussed at the 3:22 mark of this following video
Q @ 10,
>For example, did you know that the U.S. accidentally dropped a nuclear weapon on a small American town or that the warhead of an ICBM fell off the top of a missile and hit the bottom of its silo? In both cases, it was either luck or divine intervention that the warheads didn’t go off!
A plutonium sphere type warhead won’t “go off” unless the charges around the sphere are simultaneously detonated. Even if the conventional explosives detonated due to impact, the fissile material would be (mostly) ejected out the opposite side from where the detonation began. You may get plenty of radioactive material scattered around you, which isn’t good, but I would not have expected the warhead’s fissile material to have actually detonated. (And if it were a fusion warhead, therefore, the fusion reaction would not have occurred either.) (The one dropped on the town would have depended on whether it was properly armed, which it apparently wasn’t.)
EDTA at 19,
A lot of people do not understand the arming concept when it comes to nuclear warheads. They think it behaves exactly like a regular bomb, i.e. hits the ground and explodes. All the safeties have to be released. And for maximum effect, nuclear bombs explode above the ground. ICBM-type warheads could hit the ground or a body of water.
So BA’s interpretation is that the wave function collapses and the moon heats up because God observes everything.
Q writes, “However, others argue that at a macro scale, there are too many observers/measurements going on, so the “dark side” of the moon would indeed light up.”
First, I purposely didn’t say “lights up”. I said gets hot. Also, there is a difference between saying too many measurements (because one QM interpretation is that an interaction with other phenomena counts as a measurement) and too many observers, because no one is observing the back side of the moon. So saying observers/measurements slides right by one of the questions at hand, which whether consciousness is necessary for quantum phenomena to collapse.
So BA’s interpretation is that the wave function collapses and the moon heats up because God observes everything.
Q writes, “However, others argue that at a macro scale, there are too many observers/measurements going on, so the “dark side” of the moon would indeed light up.”
First, I purposely didn’t say “lights up”. I said gets hot. Also, there is a difference between saying too many measurements (because one QM interpretation is that an interaction with other phenomena counts as a measurement) and too many observers, because no one is observing the back side of the moon. So saying observers/measurements slides right by one of the questions at hand, which whether consciousness is necessary for quantum phenomena to collapse.
Really, I don’t understand what KF was intending, as his headline seemed to imply that some major clarification was going to take place, but actually the videos were short explanations of what is well-known about the double-slit experiment, as has been for decades. These videos are nothing new: I don’t get what new thing we’re supposed to get?
Also, the last one, Dr. Quantum one, is pretty bad. First he says calls electrons “tiny bits of matter”, which no one believes. Then he use the phrase “measuring or observing”, which is the big question mark in the issue, but illustrates with an eye, which prejudices the interpretation. And last, he makes the terrible remark that “the electron decides what to do, as if it were aware of being watched” ‘ anthropomorphizing the whole situation, and again assuming observation by a person, as opposed to just being measured.
EDTA and Relatd,
Here are some excerpts from Atomic Accidents.
One of these incidents occurred on just after midnight on January 24, 1961 over Faro, North Carolina, known as The Goldsboro Incident. It involved the B52G bomber number 58-187, which carried two MK-39 mod 2 thermonuclear weapons of 3.8 megatons each. Each one packed more explosive power than all detonations in human history combined, including the two dropped on Japan in WW2. Due to a failure cascade involving a fuel leak and an exploding wing, the plane broke apart in the air and the two bombs dropped. Page 378 reads . . .
The second bomb also armed, but its parachute did not deploy, and it reached its terminal velocity of about 700 mph, leaving a crater 15 feet in diameter and six feet deep. Flames were everywhere as the remaining jet fuel burned off. Four of the five crewmen parachuted successfully and survived the crash.
The second bomb was retrieved after digging 22 feet into the crater, where they found the MC-772 Arm-Safe Switch in the armed position. The recovery team found most, but not all of that bomb at 42 feet. They gave up digging and filled up the hole. Later simulations indicated that the missing portion was likely at about 120 feet down. There’s a historic marker there now that notes the crash of the bomber. I’d imagine that the force of the impact destroyed the detonating mechanism before it could activate.
Anyway, the book is a thrilling read and teaches important lessons about risk accumulation and failure cascades.
-Q
Viola Lee,
I guess you missed my Pink Floyd references . . . 😉
-Q
I did. Pink Floyd has never been on my playlist.
Another scenario. We put a thermometer in a completely uninhabited part of a desert and it records the temperature of the sand for a week. Later we retrieve the recording device. Did the photons hitting the desert collapse and release their energy as they hit, or are you seriously saying in 17 that the temperature of the desert didn’t fluctuate until we read the recording?
And then what about the very large number of other points in the desert that had no recording device. Did they in fact not go through any temperature fluctuations? The photons had no effect on the earth because no one was there watching?
Is there anything you can explain about what you think about this?
Q,
Very interesting; thanks for the details!
VL
“Really, I don’t understand what KF was intending, as his headline seemed to imply that some major clarification was going to take place, but actually the videos were short explanations of what is well-known about the double-slit experiment, as has been for decades. These videos are nothing new: I don’t get what new thing we’re supposed to get?”
Maybe his last sentence that if we think we have it all figured out think again and again?
A bit of humor? The cartoon doc was funny.
Personally I was not expecting some great revelation but that’s just me.
Vivid
The moon heats up. At the atomic scale, quantum effects rule, but at the macroscopic scale, they do not. I have found the following clear explanation:
VL,
a first, simple point is to recognise that quantum particles are wavicles and behave in radically different ways from things we address at ordinary macro scale. Notice, the vid with an electron beam pattern building up one by one, stochastically. Just what wave is interfering — thus diffracting and superposing — with what?
The classic Copenhagen answer is a probability wave. Which is itself weird beyond our understanding. Others suggest a sort of ever branching cosmos, which I doubt.
Then there is the correspondence principle that things must go to the classical limit as we get to classical scales, e.g. the Moon and heating its far side. Again, an observationally imposed constraint.
Then, why does observing after the slits still affect what should have happened before? Then, notice the observations imposed by scattering smoke particles on the laser light exercise, and contrast say how a cloud or smoke chamber or stack of photographic plates tracks a particle path, leading to our lab scale observations. Where, such can be both quantum and relativistic. BTW, in certain semiconductor media, current carrier speeds are a good fraction of the speed of light.
While we are at it, a laser itself is inherently a quantum device, and its population inversion imposes that the temperature is negative, which even more weirdly is “higher” than an infinite temperature, for the general rule that higher levels have fewer particles in them is violated by the laser. Phenomena first, math follows, talking third. Shut up and calculate.
Lurking silently, the gaps between quantum and relativity.
The key point is, first to recognise where the observations lead us, and that our mathematical, logic model descriptions have to address that observational reality, our forming concepts and verbal discussions is secondary. Learning that we have limited understanding is therefore pivotal.
KF
PS, Vivid, yes, you are right. The cartoon is vivid and makes a point, but learning to acknowledge wavicles and just plain weirdness that boggles us even as we can construct mathematical models of it is an exercise in paradigm shift; which the presenter experiences before our eyes — itself an observation that should not be overlooked. Thence, frankly, humility. We really, really, really don’t understand this stuff. Which is a key point of knowing our limitations. But better a known unknown than unknown unknowns.
PPS, try to figure out accent and word use by the first presenter. My guess is, Australian, with Indian parents, long settled in the US. Layers on layers, wheels within wheels. Which points to omnidirectional wheels.
Viola Lee @26,
The following link is to an excellent video with a good explanation.
Note that the double-slit experiment has been performed not just with light, but with electrons, atoms, Carbon “bucky balls,” and molecules of several thousand atoms.
Also note that information is at the core of the explanation and that physical measuring devices cannot measure probability waves (a form of information) except when collapsing them.
Why don’t quantum effects occur in large objects? double slit experiment with tennis balls
https://youtu.be/YbrxK1XMmVA
There are a couple of points that I’d question and some I’d raise, but on the whole, it will provide you with the information (no pun intended) you’re looking for.
-Q
EDTA @27,
You’re very welcome. I think this book should be required reading for all engineering students.
-Q
F/N: Jim Al-Khalili’s version is illuminating, especially sneaking in and turning off the observing machine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ [Thanks, JVL for the Al]
Q, Ash makes a very good point about information/interaction isolation. Q-mech is what happens when nothing is looking. KF
VL, Ash puts it well, a macro object is one not informationally isolated from the cosmos as a whole. Thus, correspondence principle; once one approaches that scale where such interaction is all but inevitable, classical results obtain. Here, he points out the problem with Schrodinger’s cat. BTW, double slit exercises are now up to thousand atom particles, but there are no tennis ball cases. KF
Querius @ 31
In the video, it is claimed that large objects are not informationally isolated and therefore are in a collapsed state and do not exhibit quantum effects. That makes sense, and it seems to contradict the explanation that I have quoted in #29.
However, no doubt you are aware, there are larger objects that show quantum effects and are not informationally isolated, so how does that fit in?
Bornagain77: I went to point out how this falsification of hidden variables this NOT a minor problem for atheistic materialists,
Perhaps I’ve missed some point but I’m not sure why you think that result is a problem for non-theists? If you could elucidate a bit that might help clear things up.
Kairosfocus: Jim Khalili’s version is illuminating,
It’s Jim Al-Khalili actually.
At 21 VL states,
and then VL, predictably, reverts back to decoherence even though she has been shown it is NOT a coherent explanation,
First, let’s just ‘observe’ the fact that the atheist’s belief that God is not observing everything has had some fairly terrible consequences in human history,
Whereas, on the other hand, the Christian’s belief that God is observing everything has been a source of great hope and comfort. As Eben Alexander stated after his Near Death Experience, “He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer… and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant.”
Aside from those two drastically different ‘moral results’, is there any scientific justification that we can appeal to justify the belief that God is watching everything? Yes there is.
As mentioned previously, after discussing some problems with ‘decoherence’, the ‘von Neumann chain’ is discussed in this following video. Where it is stated,
And Stephen Barr states the situation as such, “If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump!”
And to support the claim that “the wave function of a particle cannot be unentangled from that of whatever is used to measure it and so on and so on”, Charles Bennett, (of quantum teleportation fame), notes that “Entanglement is ubiquitous: Almost every interaction between two systems creates entanglement between them… Most systems in nature… interact so strongly with the environment as to become entangled with it almost immediately.”
In fact, to do experiments involving quantum entanglement, and to also build quantum computers, isolating a system, and preventing entanglement with surrounding macroscopic objects, is a major technical hurdle that has to be overcome and prevented.
Which is to say, contrary to popular belief that entanglement only applies in ‘special cases’ for microscopic systems, macroscopic systems themselves are, actually, massively quantumly entangled systems that are entangled with everything else.
In short, VL’s appeal to the ‘far side of the moon’ does not give her an escape from dealing with the non-local, ‘beyond space and time’, collapse of the wave function.
Again, in order to explain the effect of non-locality in quantum mechanics, you need a beyond space and time cause. (Aspect, Clauser, Zeilinger).
Christian Theists have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to. Atheists do not.
Querius said:
Literally impossible. Every choice. every thought is an act of preference and/or programming, that programming (prejudice) supplied by figures of authority, society, media, school and culture operating across decades of time as one grows up.
If the nature of reality is that it reflects back at you that which is the structure of your own mind, then it cannot teach you anything.
VL asked @26,
I think the quantum physics answer would be that all possible outcomes of examining that recording are in a state of superposition until an observing consciousness checks the results, which then collapses the superpositions for that observer. It’s another version of Schrodinger’s Cat.
The interesting part is that collapsing that information for that observer doesn’t even collapse it for all observers. That experiment has also been conducted. It appears reality is individually collapsed per each observer.
JVL, thanks, forgot the al, “the.” KF
Origenes and Q, I think the quantum events are at molecular scale as in a laser [lasing and negative temperature], similar for semiconductor devices, the photoeffect, blackbody radiation, spectrum of a flame or gas discharge lamp, liquid He II superfluidity, superconductivity esp in interaction with a B field. . Did I miss something key? KF
Origenes @29,
You quoted this,
Exactly how is this being demonstrated? What exactly are the “quantum effects” we are supposedly “not observing” in the behavior of the macro-world?
As to: “I think the quantum events are at molecular scale”,
Yet,
Also of note:, “the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales.,,, We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.”
WJM @44
Here are some examples of quantum effects that are observable in larger objects, with an explanation of how improbable their occurrence is.
– – – –
The examples above are NOT “informationally isolated.” If being informationally isolated is a prerequisite for their occurrence [according to youtuber Ash], why is it that they happen anyway?
Thanks for the examples at #46, Origenes.
However, it seems to me that it is a perspective that is largely an ideological holdover from classical physics that there is some kind of dividing line between ordinary macro experiences and what is going on in the subatomic world under special conditions. I’ve read where there is no known dividing line even in principle or theory. It’s more like a habit of thinking that there is must be some kind of fundamental difference.
How Quantum Mechanics Lets Us See, Smell and Touch
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-quantum-mechanics-lets-us-see-smell-and-touch
If reality is fundamentally informational, then everything we experience is a form of informational transactions and representations, whether micro or macro. Perhaps the reason we don’t think of the macro world being a collection of quantum effects is because scientists haven’t thought to test it out from a different perspective, or perhaps it’s because testing it out might look too much like mysticism or psi research.
corrected link:
WJM @ 47
You are correct about Baird’s classical inclination. Elsewhere he writes about “Schrodinger’s Cat”:
Nonetheless, his explanation of the relationship between quantum events and macroscopic objects made sense to me (#29, #46).
The role of the observer is not clear to me.
There are two camps. One of my questions for the ‘observer/information only’ camp is: why can we observe something like superfluid helium? Isn’t it supposed to collapse in a classical state because we are looking at it?
Origenes @36,
I’m not sure what specific cases you’re referring to, but let me take a shot at one of them.
The sun converts hydrogen into helium by one of four pathways, three of them fuse nuclei, the fourth involves fusion plus a decay series. All of them end up as helium nuclei releasing high-energy gamma photons that we observe as sunlight.
But, how do the positively charged nuclei come close enough together to fuse? Remember positive charges repel and the repulsion force increases with proximity squared (the repulsive force at ¼ the distance is 16x).
The answer is quantum tunneling, where a particle probabilistically crosses any barrier simply by chance . . . it disappears from one location and (ta-da!) appears at another, in this case on top of another nucleus.
Are these reactions informationally isolated?
I’d say yes, because the high-energy photons are released randomly (not deterministically). An interesting question then is whether information (the location and momentum of the nuclei) is destroyed in this process.
You might also consider the operation of conjugate variables such as location and momentum. Under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, your CHOOSING to measure one of these two variables in a particle to some degree of precision limits the information that you can extract about the other variable. Why this should be the case, I have no idea.
Isn’t this absolutely fascinating?
-Q
William J Murray @40,
Quite frankly, that’s not been my experience. Maybe you could argue that my learning things by experimentation and observation is an illusion. If it is, then it’s a very convincing illusion.
I suppose you’d also assert that there’s no such thing as an original thought. Is that right?
-Q
Querius @50
In #46 I gave 3 examples: Superconductivity, superfluidity , Bose Einstein Condensates.
My question is: why can we observe something like superfluid helium? Isn’t it supposed to collapse in a classical state because we are looking at it?
Origenes @52,
Sorry I missed that.
Arvin Ash might talk about how cooling an object to near absolute zero significantly reduces information being transmitted to the universe. But, here’s a great video explaining how superconducting materials work, involves quantum locking at a “critical temperature”:
https://youtu.be/h6FYs_AUCsQ?t=32
However, his classical description of electron flow through a conductor is false and has been known to be false for well over 100 years!
Here’s how electrical energy really works:
https://youtu.be/bHIhgxav9LY?t=180
So why in your opinion are Darwinism, deterministic materialism, and much of physics still being taught as these subjects were conceived over 100 years ago?
-Q
Querius:
The superconductivity was presented at ‘Tedtalk’, millions of viewers, but still it acted as if it was unobserved/informationally isolated.
I have to say that the concept of informational isolation does not make sense to me. Ash says that the interaction with one single photon destroys informational isolation. “The universe says: hey, I already know the path. Now it’s a particle. You can’t have your wave back, The path has to be taken in absolute secrecy.” With such extreme demands, one wonders what in the universe could be in a state of informational isolation. What has never interacted with anything else?
Does it make sense to you? Something acts like a wave only if it has managed to avoid all collisions with photons and everything else. Really?
If Ash is right then every wavicle has already collapsed into a particle. Quantum mechanics would have nothing to work with.
Origenes @54,
Good points. Theories abound, which is why I like to stick with the experimental results along with any challenges and additional tests.
As a learning experience in how hypotheses work and the relative difficulty of guessing rules from behaviors, I did the following. I placed a pawn in the middle of the chess board and told them that they had to guess the rule. I first moved the pawn to adjacent diagonals and they made their first hypothesis. The I moved the pawn two squares in vertical and horizontal directions. They made a second hypothesis. Then the pawn made some crazy moves that didn’t seem to make any sense and made things very complicated.
What was the rule?
It was simply that the pawn moved a knight’s move twice in succession to reach its destination. Surprisingly simple.
Understanding the “rules” in quantum effects are much more challenging! And many more experiments com to mind. That’s why I thought Mithuna Yoganathan’s impromptu experiments with her finger to trace disruptions of the interference pattern was brilliant.
And why does measuring information such as with conjugate variables have any effect on a different measurement? This is so intriguing!
-Q
Origenes, when one observes Liquid He II or a superconductor, one is observing lab scale macro phenomena, that trace to molecular scale events, which are where the interactions are happening. Similarly, a Geisler spectral discharge tube or neon tube or laser etc are showing quantum phenomena, or even a flame — all of which are mass phenomena based on molecular scale events. I suggest, you look again at how the electron double slit pattern videotaped and shown above builds up. My wider point is, if you think you understand quantum physics, think again. KF
Querius @51 said:
Depends on what you think you’re learning, and what you think that learning is about. There is an enormous difference in those ideas if your premise is (1) I am experiencing an external, independent, objective world, or (2) I am experiencing an internal, subjective world that is entirely rooted in and generated by my own thoughts, psychology, and subconscious programming.
Kinda depends on what you mean by that. Every possible thought has always existed in the infinite potential, and time is ultimately a non-linear dimension, so how “original” any thought is really is just a matter of how you look at it.
Every thought I have at any particular multi-dimensional nexus is unique to me in that place, so I think it’s fairly accurate to say that’s a unique thought, even if it is the same string of English words from prior experiences or in other people’s experiences. The string of English words is just one aspect of the whole of that thought. One might say every single whole thought by every conscious entity is an original thought that only occurs in a single nexus point of that being’s existence.
Thanks for asking that question. That’s a very interesting line of thought. 🙂
I would suggest that the reason the results from ongoing quantum physics experimental research “don’t make sense” is the same reason that the results of evolutionary research “don’t make sense” (meaning, they keep making discoveries that are counter-intuitive and mind-boggling.) It is because the research is conducted under the wrong assumptive paradigm.
From the perspective of intelligent design, what we find in biology is not surprising (precise nano-technology building from code in a highly controlled, complex, organized and regulated environment.) From a non-ID perspective, it’s totally baffling and unexpected.
Similarly, from a the perspective of ontological realism/materialism, the quantum research results are baffling and unexpected.
We’re conducting experiments to find out the “true nature” (collective and individual definitive characteristics) of what we assume is an external, objective world. Ask yourself what one would expect to find, or how one would conduct an experiment, if instead one assumed ontological idealism? Meaning, there was no such thing as an external, objective world, no such thing as matter other than as an internal, mental experience?
WJM @
Which experiments specifically have convinced you that there is “no such thing as an external, objective world, no such thing as matter other than as an internal, mental experience”?
Origenes @59,
30 years of personal, first-hand experimentation on daily basis using techniques such as meditation, visualization, affirmation, subconscious deprogramming and deliberate reprogramming supported my view, but what proved idealism to me was simple logic, similar to how Mr. Arrington, in another recent thread, demonstrated logically how materialism, even if it were true, cannot be asserted as true without putting yourself in a self-defeating position.
Simply put, there is no logically available avenue, even in principle, to demonstrate or gain one iota of evidence that any such external world exists. An external world might exist; there’s just no way to know or even evidence – ever – that you’re actually accessing that world in any meaningful way. It is a completely imagined world. Meaning, it can literally only ever exist – to us – in our mind. We have no verifiable way to access it.
We are all, as far as I know, locked tight in our own perspectives/minds with no way out. That’s the existential fact of first person, subjective experience. I cannot experience anything outside of my mind when mind = all my personal experience.
WJM @
Which experiments in quantum mechanics support the following:
Your larger claim seems to be that there is no external world. Which experiment specifically makes that case?
Origenes @61,
Your inference is incorrect. There is literally no way, even in principle, I can ever know or gather evidence about whether or not there is a world external of my mental experience. How would I ever support a claim that there is, factually, no external world?
@WJM
You cannot tell whether or not you are Joe Biden?
If the “external world” is in fact only my mental experience. If my mind produces an illusionary external world, without my conscious involvement, if my mind tricks me into the illusion of an external world, then I do not have a coherent mind, then I cannot trust my mind and every belief it produces, the belief in solipsism included.
Solipsism is self-defeating.
And, we started with the double slit experiment . . .
Kairosfocus writes:
The operative term is “physics”. Not supernatural. Again, quantum physics is studied by physicists, not mysticists, philosophers, IDists or theists. I wonder why that is.
Origenes said:
I don’t know about your mind, but my mind doesn’t produce an “illusionary external world.” It produces an experiential world.
The capacity for error doesn’t mean we do not have a coherent mind. Saying that your mind has “tricked” you is a bizarre way of saying that you’re wrong about something.
I didn’t say anything about solipsism. Solipsism is how some formulations of idealism are characterized from a non-idealist perspective. Idealism does not mean that other people do not exist. Whether or not other people exist in some external, objective world is irrelevant since I don’t have any way to validate that I have any meaningful access to them. Other people exist in my experience.
FP, There is a reason why Feynman suggested no one understands and why it was a common saying, shut up and calculate. The whimsical term, wavicle, goes to the heart, we haven’t a clue what such is or what it would look like, never mind that we map orbitals; as a visual species, that alone is enough to ensure a lingering sense of not understanding. BTW, Feynman was the youngest of the Manhattan Physicists and a Nobel Prize winner, his diagram is a very useful tool. Further, electronics sits on a quantum foundation, e.g. it is the heart of semiconductor and especially of transistor action, with the Fermi level a crucial concept. However, again, the gap between mathematical models and comfortable understanding leading to the famed physicist’s intuition, remains. Given that backdrop, your sneering simply exposes the superficiality of your scientism and unwillingness to recognise that people on the other side are not one dimensional cartoon caricatures. Personally, for example, I remain a Copenhagenist [never mind the popularity in some quarters of many worlds], and simply recognise with Lifschitz et al, that this is a theory where the observer and act of observation are inextricably intertwined with the structure of the theory. But never forget the force of both the uncertainty principle and the correspondence principle. I recall, too, my double paradigm shift as a student, recognising that relativistic and quantum frames simply were empirically superior, strange as they were and are. I can understand the struggles of the young Physicist in the OP. KF
WJM @67
And is the sun part of your experiential world? And do you experience the sun as something external to you? Does it not seem to you that the sun is ‘out there’, pretty far away from you?
If there are no things external to me, then we are not talking about an ‘error’, that would be a massive understatement.
I assumed that the existence of other people presupposes an external world for them and you to be in. We cannot all live in your mind, right?
I don’t understand the last part of the sentence. The existence of an external world is irrelevant because … ?
Sure, but clearly, that is not their only location, right? We do not only exist in your experience because that would be solipsism.
Origenes asks:
Yes.
Of course not. All my experiences of the sun are internal experiences. Do you have any experiences external of yourself? If so, in what way are they “your” experiences? How is it that you have those experiences if they are not internal? I’ve never heard of anyone having an external experience..
I don’t think we have the same concept of experiential distance.
Your questions are all apparently rooted in a non-idealist ontological premise. They really aren’t very good questions from the idealist perspective. They’re rather nonsensical.
Origenes asked:
That’s the only place I’m aware of anyone existing, myself included. Are you aware of someone’s existence outside of your mind? How is that external-of-mind awareness achieved? Isn’t awareness a quality of mind?
I have no way to verify any interaction with it.
It’s the only location I can possibly be aware of.
No, it’s not. Other people exist in exactly the same way I exist – in my experience. That doesn’t make them “not other people.”
Origenes said:
It’s nothing more than an error. The models of our existence and the universe have gone through several large upheavals with new understandings over time. It’s not like idealism is a new perspective – it’s been around for over 2000 years. Also, there are many spiritual perspectives that have been around for centuries that consider the external world to be an “illusion” (maya) generated by the reality within.
Origenes
Warning you cannot believe anything coming from WJM according to his own words he puts out arguments for the fun of it, it’s strictly entertainment.
So let’s have some fun ourself!
“And is the sun part of your experiential world? “
You write of a “sun” what is a sun, what is this “sun” you are referring to?
William J Murray:
I’m curious . . . what do think will happen to ‘you’ when your ‘body’ dies?
poof, vanished comment
Okay, let’s try again.
First, a Harvard prof gives a summary:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/waves_quantum.pdf
Next, we try space dot com, looking at a Young double slit pattern tuned down to single photon at a time:
https://www.space.com/double-slit-experiment-light-wave-or-particle
Thus we see that particles are waves and waves are inherently spread out in space. Waves, of probability.
What about having the detector after the slit:
All of this is such that the article comments “We still don’t fully understand how exactly the particle-wave duality of matter works, which is why it is regarded as one of the greatest mysteries of quantum mechanics.”
Hence, the point in the OP, if you imagine you have this figured out, think again.
[there was a lot more in the poof, but what to say.]
KF
Kairosfocus: there was a lot more in the poof, but what to say
Well, the poof should be in the pudding. So I’ve heard.
WJM @
Your experience of the sun is internal and you are agnostic about the sun itself having an independent existence of your experience.
However, you do hold that other people exist. I am curious to learn why that is, since, like the sun, other people appear to you as internal experiences only. Why is it that you only argue against the existence of matter, to the point that you conclude that we should reject the existence of matter: “Realism has also been scientifically disproved” and “… all we have left, ontologically speaking, is idealism.”?
So, my question is:
If your ‘argument from internal experience’ is valid against the existence of matter, why is it not equally valid WRT other people?
JVL, recall your complaints? I am thread owner and had a comment go poof in toto, irrecoverable. KF
WJM, have you been able to spend time with your wife consistently since we last spoke about it?
AnimatedDust asked:
Well thank you for asking! That’s very pleasant of you. I appreciate it. Yes, we are doing extremely well and we spend a lot of time together on a daily basis, mostly exploring and experimenting (in a fun way) various classically “internal” spaces. Fortunately I’m in a situation where I can devote all the time and effort I want to this kind of study of and experimentation with consciousness/mind.
Origenes said:
I equally hold that the sun exists, so there is no difference between the two in where and how I hold that they exist.
Because people and things in my experience are not made of matter doesn’t mean they do not exist.
Do you claim that the experiences that occur in your mind are made of matter?
Vividblue said:
This is not exactly true. While it is true that I operate from a fundamental motivation of enjoyment, I have said repeatedly that I strive to be absolutely truthful about what I experience and believe here – even to the point (obviously) of being attacked and ridiculed. The reason for this, as I have said, is that I like to get honest, well-informed feedback and challenges to my perspective because it helps me understand it better by examining aspects or angles that other people may bring to light. This has happened on many occasions here. It’s probably the only reason I still participate at all from time to time.
Kairosfocus: recall your complaints? I am thread owner and had a comment go poof in toto, irrecoverable.
I get that, just couldn’t resist the joke.
JVL @74 said:
I expect that my consciousness will find itself in my astral body in my astral home much like waking up from a very intense and consistent dream.
William J Murray: I expect that my consciousness will find itself in my astral body in my astral home much like waking up from a very intense and consistent dream.
What convinces you that you have an astral body and an astral home?
JVL @86 aks,
First, let me say that under my version of idealism, it’s not a matter of what convinces me of an idea or proposition; it’s a matter of “what idea or proposition do I choose to guide my experience into?” IOW, reality is ultimately something I am in general directorial control over. I deliberately reprogram or “brainwash” myself into whatever beliefs I desire.
Second, though, that is not to say that I can’t supply traditional forms of evidence from an externalist perspective. I can, but I want to make it clear that it is not that evidence which “convinces” me of anything.
Personally, I have visited my astral home a few times and have been in my astral body, so I have personal experience. This happened through a process generally called “astral projection.” There are many testimonial reports of people that have also used astral projection to visit what we call the astral realm or plane, talked to the dead there, and have reported back their observations and experiences. Then there are multiple different categories of afterlife research which provides some basic corresponding and in some cases identical descriptions of what happens at death, how the “dead” live in the astral, what the various regions of the astral are like, etc.
Like I said, it’s not that evidence which “convinces” me personally; that’s not how my mind works. However, that multi-discipline, multi-categorical depth of afterlife and astral research, which has been going on for over a hundred years, has convinced several scientists and former materialists who took the time to examine the available evidence.
William J Murray: IOW, reality is ultimately something I am in general directorial control over. I deliberately reprogram or “brainwash” myself into whatever beliefs I desire.
If there is no astral plane and ‘you’ die when your body dies then it doesn’t matter what you believe.
Second, though, that is not to say that I can’t supply traditional forms of evidence from an externalist perspective. I can, but I want to make it clear that it is not that evidence which “convinces” me of anything.
Okay.
Personally, I have visited my astral home a few times and have been in my astral body, so I have personal experience. This happened through a process generally called “astral projection.” There are many testimonial reports of people that have also used astral projection to visit what we call the astral realm or plane, talked to the dead there, and have reported back their observations and experiences.
Okay.
Then there are multiple different categories of afterlife research which provides some basic corresponding and in some cases identical descriptions of what happens at death, how the “dead” live in the astral, what the various regions of the astral are like, etc.
Okay.
However, that multi-discipline, multi-categorical depth of afterlife and astral research, which has been going on for over a hundred years, has convinced several scientists and former materialists who took the time to examine the available evidence.
“Several” seems about right.
Again, if you’re wrong and you’ve ‘brainwashed’ yourself into believing something that isn’t true and ‘you’ die when you body dies . . . what would that say about your view of ‘reality’?
JVL said :
True 🙂 There’s always the possibility that everything I believe is 100% untrue and all my experiences are explicable in other ways, like hallucinations, delusion, etc. That doesn’t really matter to me because it is very, very enjoyable. I’m unaware of any perspective that would render my life more enjoyable at this point.
WJM @82
For the sake of clarity, the following questions:
1. Do you hold that something exists outside of, and independent from, your internal experience?
2. Do you hold that the sun has an existence independent from your internal experience of it?
3. Do you hold that other people have an existence independent from your internal experience of them?
JVL/77
I believe there’s a special place in Hell reserved for for people who make jokes like that.
It’s called Slough.
Seversky at 91,
Your college professor just called. He confirmed you failed Christianity 101. 🙂
William J Murray: That doesn’t really matter to me because it is very, very enjoyable. I’m unaware of any perspective that would render my life more enjoyable at this point.
How is that different from hedonism?
So, if there was a way to disprove your beliefs are you saying that you wouldn’t change your behaviour?
Seversky: It’s called Slough.
Is that where the friendly bombs fall?
Origenes asks:
I think there is an infinite number of things that are possible for me to experience that I am not currently experiencing in any conscious, aware way. However, it is my perspective that all of those possible things are internal, like aspects of what one would call the subconscious or in the vast potential of the unconscious.
No. It might, but I don’t hold that it does.
No. They might, but I don’t hold that they do. Unless you call “potential” a form of “existing.” I do, but I’m trying to phrase my answers in a way where they will likely be meaningful to you based on how you are wording your questions, what assumptions you appear to be implying.
BTW, another way to look at this is by thinking of all of us being within each other; that we are all using one universal consciousness to explore the available potential within universal mind, if that makes more sense to you. There are not “other consciousness” because there is only one. You might think of it as being in a dream where there is only one consciousness at work, but the “you” in the dream are still an individual avatar that appears to be equal in self-ness to all of the other people in the dream.
In my view, the dreaming mind is “me,” but that’s what anyone in the dream can accurate say. None of us are actually external of each other’s mind – we’re all in the same mind using the same consciousness to generate what appear to be individual avatars and experiences.
As I’ve said before, this form of Idealism cannot be understood from the externalist perspective because it doesn’t make any sense under the fundamental premises of that perspective. The language we’re using is deeply externalist and makes it difficult to formulate accurate descriptions of internalist idealism.
JVL at 94,
No. That would be Ubombistan.
JVL asks:
Enjoyment does not reduce everything into the false dichotomy of pain and pleasure, especially not down to pains and pleasures of the flesh. Some very enjoyable things are conceptual and abstract, and often involve foregoing the pleasures of the flesh or even the pleasure of immediate gratification.
The concept of “disproving” my beliefs is not applicable to my perspective. I don’t hold my beliefs by whether or not they can be proved or disproved. I hold them because of the life enjoyment they provide. If you can give a more enjoyable belief, then I’ll switch, but frankly I don’t see how that would be possible.
I’ve spent literally decades honing in on what is, for me, the most enjoyable belief system possible. It relieves me from all stress, allows me to enjoy virtually anything, puts me at ease in any situation, provides a constant sense of being whole and satisfied, and fills my heart with love, joy, wondrous anticipation, and other sensations and experiences I cannot adequately describe. Why on Earth would I change my beliefs for something else, when this belief has literally been responsible for bringing into my life everything I could possibly want, and much, much more that I never dreamed was even remotely possible?
JVL/94
As I believe they say in North Dakota, oh, ja, you Betje-man.
Seversky: As I believe they say in North Dakota, oh, ja, you Betje-man.
Well done! I may have to Fargo a witty reply.
William J Murray: Enjoyment does not reduce everything into the false dichotomy of pain and pleasure, especially not down to pains and pleasures of the flesh. Some very enjoyable things are conceptual and abstract, and often involve foregoing the pleasures of the flesh or even the pleasure of immediate gratification.
Okay.
The concept of “disproving” my beliefs is not applicable to my perspective. I don’t hold my beliefs by whether or not they can be proved or disproved. I hold them because of the life enjoyment they provide. If you can give a more enjoyable belief, then I’ll switch, but frankly I don’t see how that would be possible.
So their truth (or not) is not a consideration. Okay.
I’ve spent literally decades honing in on what is, for me, the most enjoyable belief system possible. It relieves me from all stress, allows me to enjoy virtually anything, puts me at ease in any situation, provides a constant sense of being whole and satisfied, and fills my heart with love, joy, wondrous anticipation, and other sensations and experiences I cannot adequately describe. Why on Earth would I change my beliefs for something else, when this belief has literally been responsible for bringing into my life everything I could possibly want, and much, much more that I never dreamed was even remotely possible?
Hey, if you’re not actually interested in reality then whatever trips your trigger(s). I guess.
I assume you’ve considered the possibility that everyone else is doing the same thing to some extent or another. They are ‘creating their reality’ as they see fit or as they want it to be. This does all remind me of Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts. Well, of course you think everyone else is doing the same thing because you think that’s how stuff works.
I assume you have memories of ageing, of being different now than you were several decades ago. And I assume that some of your physical and perhaps mental abilities are somewhat diminished from the time you perceived yourself to be, say, 23 years old. Why would you create a reality where your body and mind lessen to some extent? Why do some people go down the path of dementia or serious injury if they don’t have to?
JVL asks:
I can’t speak for why other people do what they do.
For myself, this has to do with the difference between hedonism and enjoyment. Enjoyment is a much deeper, much richer category of experience. Many exquisite enjoyments require an enormous amount of context. For example, there is an enjoyable experience to be had when one goes through many years of struggle and hard work until they have built something they are proud of and gives them a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.
Another thing to consider is that some enjoyments require contrast to be more fully appreciated. A person born wealthy may not be able to enjoy their wealth as much as person who was born poor, struggled to attain it, and now enjoys deep sense of appreciation for the value wealth offers him or her. The wealthy are more likely to take all of that for granted, and may even focus more on the downsides of wealth, increasing their unhappiness.
There is context and contrast I must experience, that I must gather and collect along the way in order to maximize the potential for future enjoyment. Sometimes that means going through very painful and miserable periods, or losing enjoyable qualities and/or commodities for a time. I have seen this play out in my own life many times, and I trust the pattern will continue.
William J Murray: I can’t speak for why other people do what they do.
That makes sense.
For myself, this has to do with the difference between hedonism and enjoyment. Enjoyment is a much deeper, much richer category of experience. Many exquisite enjoyments require an enormous amount of context. For example, there is an enjoyable experience to be had when one goes through many years of struggle and hard work until they have built something they are proud of and gives them a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.
All judged from your idiosyncratic point of view. You are expressing your values and judgments. As you have to do. Especially based on your belief system.
Another thing to consider is that some enjoyments require contrast to be more fully appreciated. A person born wealthy may not be able to enjoy their wealth as much as person who was born poor, struggled to attain it, and now enjoys deep sense of appreciation for the value wealth offers him or her. The wealthy are more likely to take all of that for granted, and may even focus more on the downsides of wealth, increasing their unhappiness.
You reference categories (like wealthy) that your worldview would label fiction. Or maybe just one interpretation. I don’t understand how you move from creating ones own reality to judging others. Can you judge others if, in the end, they are just constructs in your mind? Are there actually wealthy people in your mind?
There is context and contrast I must experience, that I must gather and collect along the way in order to maximize the potential for future enjoyment. Sometimes that means going through very painful and miserable periods, or losing enjoyable qualities and/or commodities for a time. I have seen this play out in my own life many times, and I trust the pattern will continue.
Why should there ever be periods of pain or misery if, indeed, you are in charge? How does sadness or depression or despair match up with you deciding and picking what makes you happy?
Is the universe, the reality you perceive just you sorting out your own personal psychological issues? No matter how petty or stupid they are. It’s all just down to you? All the time?
Why can’t you just grow up and get on with things? Why do you, personally, have to go through periods of doubt and pain? Is that a lack of understanding on your part? Lack of experience? Why didn’t you choose to manifest the necessary lessons in your life earlier so you didn’t have to have painful and emotional upheaval?
And, in the end, what is the point? Why are you bothering?
WJM @
Consider also this: I am certain that I exist. Moreover, the ground of my self-aware existence has nothing to do with your internal experience of me.
I know for a fact that I am a self-aware person. And I do not share “I” with you or anyone else.
If I am dreaming then I can neither trust my mind nor my beliefs—the beliefs ‘there is but one consciousness’ and ‘I am dreaming’ included.
If my mind generates “what appear to be individual avatars and experiences”, then I can neither trust my mind nor my beliefs. Self-defeating proposition.
JVL said:
Does it work differently for you?
Why would I label such things “fiction” because of my worldview?
I’m not sure what I said about wealth that isn’t basic common sense. Are you saying that you do not think that those born into wealth would be more likely to take that wealth for granted than someone who had to build it from scratch by their own hard work? Are you saying that the having of wealth would be roughly the same experience in both situations?
I know that when I am parched, a cool glass of water feels and tastes wonderful. However, the rest of the time I either take it for granted and barely notice it, or must actively remember the “parched” context/contrast to return to that same degree of enjoyment and appreciation. I’m not sure how my particular worldview changes these basic observations about human nature.
What does “actually” mean? Is there some other place (other than my experience) for them to be that I should have access to?
I just explained it. It adds depth, contrast and context to various structures of enjoyment. I’m in charge of the direction of my experiences, with some degree of control over a certain radius of action which my physical body represents. There is a huge middle area that I am not in direct conscious control over.
As I said, by providing depth, contrast and context that are required for certain kinds of enjoyment experiences. For example, the extreme sadness, grief and despair that occurred for a few months after my wife died is an experience I now treasure. It is one of my most treasured experiences, because it showed me everything that she means to me in all of it’s terrible beauty. Now, when I see her, I will always carry with me that knowledge, that depth, that understanding.
Well I don’t spend that much time sorting them out. I’ve done most of that work. I’m basically just enjoying life these days.
Petty or stupid compared to what, judged by what system of evaluation? I enjoy it when other people are happy and enjoying life, so that’s one of my main activities. Is there something else I should be doing?
I don’t know what this means. I’ve lived a full life. I had a couple of careers, helped raise 6 children, retired, took care of my mother as she atrophied and eventually died here at my home, in bed, with dementia from dementia-related issues; took care of my wife as she was ill for two and a half years until she died of cancer. I was able to do those things because of the work-from-home self-employed business I created for myself. I’ve authored a few books, and established an online group that helps people deal with grief and the death of their romantic partners/spouses.
I found the love of my eternal life and, if I do say so myself, I was and still am a good husband to her. I feel like I’ve accomplished all and more here in this life than I could have reasonably expected or asked for. In this later stage of life I have devoted myself to exploring the realms of mind to see what kind of experiences are possible. Do you see this as “not growing up” for some reason, or “not getting on with things?” What kind of things would I have to do for you to see me as “growing up” or “getting on with things?”
I can’t say I currently go through periods of doubt, but if I did, as I explained, that and pain are part of context and contrast building.
I don’t think you’ve really understood what I said about enjoyment. I have learned how to enjoy my life, what great enjoyments cost in terms of context and contrast. I’ve described it to you and you’re now asking me, why didn’t I do something else?
Because it’s incredibly enjoyable in so many different ways 🙂
Origenes @103:
Well, we can all make assertions, such as: Externalism is a self-defeating proposition.
Also, by the way, the dream comparison was an analogy. Sorry, I thought my wording made that clear.
Calling back to focus, Q-mech is more than enough for this and related threads
William J Murray: I’m not sure how my particular worldview changes these basic observations about human nature.
It’s a question of whether they are real in any kind of physical sense.
What does “actually” mean?
Again, a question of what actually exists outside of your perceptions. I’m not sure why I keep asking that over and over again when you have been pretty clear. It’s just hard for me to imagine me only having a reality in your perceptions. From your point of view.
I don’t know what this means.
I didn’t express it very well . . . what I meant was why do you/we go through a period of maturation instead of just becoming mature.
As I said, by providing depth, contrast and context that are required for certain kinds of enjoyment experiences. For example, the extreme sadness, grief and despair that occurred for a few months after my wife died is an experience I now treasure. It is one of my most treasured experiences, because it showed me everything that she means to me in all of its terrible beauty. Now, when I see her, I will always carry with me that knowledge, that depth, that understanding.
IF you’re wrong and there is no astral plane then what was the point of all that pain? When will you know if you’re right or wrong?
I’ve been badgering you for quite a while and I appreciate the time and patience you have displayed trying to answer the same basic question(s) over and over again. I don’t actually have any more questions except when will you know if you’re right or wrong.
And, if you are wrong then I find your stance to have an aspect of victim blaming (i.e. your life is bad because you choose it to be that way) and I cannot go along that path personally. Because I am, in some sense, opposite to you: I think there is a physical reality that shaped us, fine tuned us. And, many times, that physical reality doesn’t really care about us at all. We do create/find our own happiness and peace in that context not by assuming it’s just a construct.
JVL said:
You’re conflating two different axiomatic systems. What “real” and “fictional” mean are two entirely different things under the two different worldviews. Which leads us to this:
Which makes it difficult to ask meaningful questions or make meaningful criticisms. That can’t be done while looking at idealist internalism through an externalist perspective. It’s like criticizing someone’s choices without having any knowledge of his or her motivations or history. You would be criticizing them on the basis of your motivations and history, not theirs.
As I have said when I pointed out that it’s not about proof, it’s not about whether or not I’m right or wrong about my model of existence and reality. That’s all it is – a model. I don’t create models and test them out to see if they are true so I can believe in them as true: I test them out to see if they appear to be successful at producing enjoyment in my life. I have a lifetime of experience working with different models of reality and existence and none of the others produced anything close to the multidimensional depth and forms of enjoyment the mental reality theory has produced. I’m not wrong in stating the fact that my level of daily enjoyment is fantastic. ALL the other existential models I tried out before – atheism, Sant Mat, Methodist Christianity, etc – did not produce anything like this; they produced more misery, confusion, dissatisfaction, stress and angst than anything else.
I’m not claiming my model will do that for other people, but it definitely works for me. Materialism, Christianity, other beliefs seem to work better for other people at producing the kind of lives they want to live. I don’t think my model can produce the kind of psychological structures that they enjoy by finding deep meaning and value in certain ideas of reality. “Serving the God of Universal Good” and “fighting evil” or “fighting for justice” or “saving the planet” are perspectives that are unavailable under my form of idealist internalism. IOW, MRT undermines those kinds of belief structures. So, obviously my internalist form of MRT is not something those people would flourish under or enjoy.
Well, nobody is asking you to 🙂 This isn’t a religion where you either convert or go to hell for eternity. You’re free to live your life as you see fit, and I respect that. I appreciate the civil conversation. You have a great day!
__________
[ED –> WJM, I just note on a point of balance given a polarising assertion, that it is failure to repent from wrongdoing and refusal to turn to truth and right that renders one subject to Judgement. See Rom 2:6 – 8. KF]
Can we refocus the quantum themes, please.
ROFL!!! This conversation is the only thing keeping ANY of your 4 recent quantum-themed posts active, KF. You have three more recent posts, another one just going up a few minutes ago on the same subject.
But you want to keep the conversation in THIS particular post on theme, when literally nobody else is talking about anything here and there are literally 3 more recent posts you put up ON THE SAME SUBJECT for those “on theme” conversations to be carried on in?
Bruh
JVL, Origenes, I’m sorry to say we must discontinue our conversations. Well, they appeared to have reached their natural end anyway, so it’s not that big a deal. Apparently KF is expecting a flood of conversation about Quantum physics to occur in this post as soon as we stop talking about this subject. Apparently, it was preventing anyone else from commenting about QM physics in this thread.
Obviously, that lack of on-topic conversation here had nothing to do with the fact that KF has made three more recent posts on the same subject.
I appreciate the conversation and you guys have a great day. Let the QM conversation commence!!
WJM, JVL, perhaps we can continue our conversation in the new thread ‘Whistling Into The Wind: There Is No Consciousness Problem!’?
I am not sure, but …
… has a familiar ring to it.
WJM, I have decided to put up point of reference posts because of the frequent exchanges on quantum themes. Those interested or needing, will have that. KF
Kairosfocus: I just note on a point of balance given a polarising assertion, that it is failure to repent from wrongdoing and refusal to turn to truth and right that renders one subject to Judgement
What does that have to do with quantum mechanics?
I will just add, having caught up, that JVL, your questions could be turned around on you. You could be wrong. And you’re pretty sure you’re not. And so you spend a tremendous amount of time here trying to get us to see the world your way.
For you, when you die, it’s lights out. Full stop.
What if you’re wrong?
What’s ultimately true about the universe is going to be true once we die. You think you won’t know, because you’ll be done. Or you won’t be.
You can’t see it, but you have a tremendous amount of blind faith. If BA77’s long posts bore you, it’s at your peril. Tons of EVIDENCE that life doesn’t end at the grave. WJM’s MRT worldview shows him that materialism is an untenable position to continue to hold. As does Quantum Mechanics. Neither of the latter two involve Christianity. Quantum Mechanics reveals Free Will in the very nature of the particles that make up our reality. It’s all about us, the only conscious observers with the ability and means to unlock what that means.
This universe is not an external matter based paradigm, much as our perceptions tell us it is. It was designed that way. In fact, it’s exactly the kind of universe that is what we would expect, if the designer wanted, at bottom, for relationship to be possible.
For love.
And for love, must exist the ability to say no. And all that entails.
I would suggest that you give serious consideration to the possibility that you’re the one who is wrong, and the consequences of that, after you take your last breath, would be the abject horror that you chose thusly, and are now actualized in that choice forever. You are simply given what you’ve asked for your entire life.
And you will be able to see your life in every detail, including your thoughts, played back in fine detail so that you will be without excuse.
If your heart has darkened you to think of God only as a cosmic killjoy, who only wants to keep you down, you’ve bought into The Lie.
Humbling yourself allows you to see the errors in your thinking, and allows you to accept the possibility that you’ve got a lot more math to do.
Could I be wrong? Of course. But when I look at and examine love, justice, relationship, integrity, character and truth, it doesn’t make any logical sense to hold that those immaterial qualities are evolutionary adaptations that emerged from matter. The evidence is on our side. And most materialists hold that we are the ones who believe in the absence of evidence. Actually, it’s your side. That case has been successfully made here for decades, despite your protestations.
If your worldview doesn’t add up, based on the evidence, it might be time to consider a different one. Your worldview is causing you to decide which evidence you accept and which you don’t. You’re a marionette whose strings are pulled by your worldview.
But that can’t start until you swallow your pride, humble yourself and become wise.
Those aren’t my words in that last sentence. You think they were penned by illiterate sheep herders in the Bronze Age.
Allow for the possibility that they were onto something.
AnimatedDust: You could be wrong.
Yup, that’s a possibility.
What’s ultimately true about the universe is going to be true once we die. You think you won’t know, because you’ll be done. Or you won’t be.
Yup.
Tons of EVIDENCE that life doesn’t end at the grave
Actually, I’ve spent quite a few years looking at the evidence for NDEs (near death experiences) especially via the podcast Skeptico.
As does Quantum Mechanics.
I don’t think QM says diddly-squat about life without corporeal form.
Quantum Mechanics reveals Free Will in the very nature of the particles that make up our reality.
I don’t think QM has anything to say about Free Will either. Free Willy maybe.
For love.
I don’t see that at all. In fact, since every human life is chock-a-block full of sham, drudgery and broken dreams (to say nothing of the uncountable number of life forms and individuals that came before us and died) I find it more . . . reflecting the data to assume the universe is profoundly indifferent to us.
If your heart has darkened you to think of God only as a cosmic killjoy, who only wants to keep you down, you’ve bought into The Lie.
The thing about not finding a cosmic designer a necessary hypothesis is you don’t anthropomorphise he/she/it. If there’s no supreme being then there’s no motivation or intent, good or evil.
Could I be wrong? Of course. But when I look at and examine love, justice, relationship, integrity, character and truth, it doesn’t make any logical sense to hold that those immaterial qualities are evolutionary adaptations that emerged from matter.
Hey, that’s your prerogative. I think it does make sense to think of them that way. Sometimes, it explains aspects of those as well.
That case has been successfully made here for decades, despite your protestations.
Well, about 1.7 decades. And I disagree.
If your worldview doesn’t add up, based on the evidence, it might be time to consider a different one.
I think it does add up; that’s why I hold it.
Your worldview is causing you to decide which evidence you accept and which you don’t.
I don’t think that’s true either. That’s just an assumption you make in an attempt to understand why I disagree with you. I MUST not be looking at all the evidence.
But that can’t start until you swallow your pride, humble yourself and become wise.
Maybe I already did that and came to a different conclusion than yours.
Those aren’t my words in that last sentence. You think they were penned by illiterate sheep herders in the Bronze Age.
Illiterate people don’t ‘pen’ anything. They can’t write.
Oh well, I tried. Free Willy made me laugh. And re second to last reply, it’s dripping with pride, so I would venture to say, sorry, not so.
Enjoy the day.
“Maybe I already did that and came to a different conclusion than yours.”
JVL,
There are indications you didn’t do that yet.
Andrew
Asauber: There are indications you didn’t do that yet.
Such as?
“Such as?”
JVL,
You seem emotionally/personally invested in denying there’s design in biology. Like whatever culture you align with, that seems to be the M.O of that group. You’re here a lot opposing ID. Why not let live and let live?
Andrew
JVL, there are some fairly common views that are unnecessarily polarising, which tends to bias discussion even on seemingly unrelated topics. For example some days back, I was pounced on as pushing supernaturalism, for the thought crime of quoting Feynman [whose Physics lectures are a treat] on how “nobody” truly understands Q-Mech. KF
AS, I missed the March, did you go and do you have pics? KF
KF,
Unfortunately, I didn’t go again this year. The missus started another new job and she couldn’t get the time off. I don’t travel without her, so it takes two to tango to the March. It pains me to miss it. I always feel called to go. I heard it was great, but haven’t read any reports or looked at any pics…yet.
Andrew
P.S. If my lovely wife doesn’t change jobs again, we’ll likely be there next year.
Asauber: You seem emotionally/personally invested in denying there’s design in biology.
That’s just you imposing that impression on me. You have zero idea of where I’ve come from or what I’ve looked at and considered.
You’re here a lot opposing ID. Why not let live and let live?
I started out just asking questions and trying to honestly answer the ones posed to me. But people got real belligerent and aggressive, telling me I was a fool and a clown and dishonest and delusional and God-hating. So, slowly, even though I still try and ask questions, I find myself getting more and more defensive. In other words: most people here do not treat me with a live and let live attitude. You assumed I was not humble and honest. Why do you make those assumptions? Just because I disagree with you?
Nothing would make me happier that to just have civilised discussions: What does ID say about this or that? Ah, that’s interesting. What does unguided evolutionary theory say about this or that? Ah, that’s how you think; thanks for explaining that. But it doesn’t go that way ’cause I must be here because I “seem emotionally/personally invested in denying there’s design in biology”. That’s what you think. That’s what you assume. You paint my colours in based on your own palate instead of supposing that I maybe I have read the Bible, read lots of material about intelligent design, spent some time trying to find out if I’ve missed something about it and then, still, decided that I find unguided evolution more parsimonious.
Parsimonious: Frugal to the point of stinginess. Sparing, restrained.
Is that really the word you wanted for your last sentence?
Kairosfocus: I was pounced on as pushing supernaturalism, for the thought crime of quoting Feynman [whose Physics lectures are a treat] on how “nobody” truly understands Q-Mech
Yeah, it’s a tough crowd. I agree, he was a brilliant science communicator.
And it is clear that nobody really understands QM, why else are there two competing interpretations? Shut up and calculate is the only thing that makes sense! The mathematical models work, use them and don’t worry so much about why.
JVL at 126,
I’m going to agree with JVL (write down time and date). When dealing with engineering problems and that includes the quantum realm, you throw everything you can at it, see what works and figure out the details later. Math? Who cares? You design experiments that work, let the math guys in on it and keep going.
“I started out just asking questions and trying to honestly answer the ones posed to me”
JVL,
Sorry. Not buying it. You use comments to oppose. The fact that you deny it isn’t helping you.
Andrew
For William J Murray with respect.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/engaged
AnimatedDust: Parsimonious: Frugal to the point of stinginess. Sparing, restrained. Is that really the word you wanted for your last sentence?
From Wikipedia:
Works for me.
Relatd: When dealing with engineering problems and that includes the quantum realm, you throw everything you can at it, see what works and figure out the details later
My father is a mechanical engineer and I taught lots of engineers. After three sig-figs they don’t care much unless they’re working on extremely high-performance stuff or stuff that has to perform in extremely tricky situations. And why not? Do what works. And then try and streamline the production process to make it affordable.
you are just noticing that now
There has never been a constructive response from an anti ID person in 15 years. Unless they can be used as a foil to make a point, they should be ignored.
Asauber: Sorry. Not buying it. You use comments to oppose. The fact that you deny it isn’t helping you.
Why can’t you just live and let live?
Jerry: There has never been a constructive response from an anti ID person in 15 years. Unless they can be used as a foil to make a point, they should be ignored.
See what I mean Asauber? I’m assumed to be not fair or honest or sincere. Is that my problem or those that, perhaps, just give a knee-jerk reaction to someone that disagrees with them and that they assume holds certain values?
JVL at 134,
You know what? Everything can’t be a compromise. We can’t have a half Evolution and half ID solution. Understand? It CAN’T happen. So your not-honest attempt at some stupid idea can’t happen, like ‘I don’t want 2 + 2 = 4. Let’s compromise and make it 4 1/2.” Really?
That’s what you’re proposing. It can’t work because it doesn’t work.
JVL it’s baffling to me that as the son of a mech engineer, that design when done by humans in all its intricate beauty and complexity, is easily inferred with our inventions, but cause and effect reasoning when you see the staggeringly complex and intricate mechanisms in nature, and think time plus matter plus chance. That’s just box of rocks dumb, in my book, and you strike me as quite bright.
It can only mean willful disregard of the evidence. You don’t see it because you refuse to see it.
The pride is strong with this one…
AD at 136,
I would rule out pride. ID cannot win in terms of popular opinion, it can’t be taught in classrooms and it should not be part of sermons. So an opponent to ID – called Evolution – needs to stand in the way. People can’t be allowed to believe ID is what it claims to be, meaning our bodies are designed. They are not accidents.
I think JVL sees the evidence. I think he understands it. But Intelligent Design would “ruin everything” for a lot of people. Why? Who is the Designer? It’s God. The Abrahamic God. What does that mean? People will become more religious. They will know that God actually created them and everything else. If you were an atheist, you just have one less reason to not believe in God because the evidence against unguided evolution is 100%.
But those against ID have no choice but to put up a fight. Whether it makes sense or not.
Asauber: Everything can’t be a compromise.
I didn’t say that it should be.
So your not-honest attempt at some stupid idea can’t happen, like ‘I don’t want 2 + 2 = 4. Let’s compromise and make it 4 1/2.” Really?
I didn’t mean we ‘should’ find a compromise. I meant we should try and spend time understanding each other’s viewpoint. It’s pretty clear we are not going to agree on certain topics but that doesn’t mean we can’t spend time being clear about what the other person believes.
I’d like to think that understanding each other is the first step on the road to dealing with some common societal issues. If I really understand your view then I’m less likely to forgo it when support a change in legislation for example.
That’s what you’re proposing. It can’t work because it doesn’t work.
That’s not what I am proposing. I’m just asking for consideration.
In the past, on this forum, when I have tried to explain my view and why I hold it I have frequently been met with derision and abuse. That I do not understand. If I just wanted to abuse ID proponents then I wouldn’t be participating in a conversation with you. I expect you to be honest and I assume you expect me to be honest.
And I’d like to think that UD could rise above the rabble and noise.
AnimatedDust: It can only mean willful disregard of the evidence. You don’t see it because you refuse to see it. The pride is strong with this one…
Again, (tip of the hat to Asauber), just because I disagree with you why do you assume I am ignorant or blinded by ideology?
This is a constant chord played by commenters here. It’s tiring to fight against that all day every day.
JVL at 138,
Hey. You responded to the wrong person. So, before you start on an attempt to Solve ALL The World’s Problems, stick to the subject.
You’re being dishonest again. You’ve seen the evidence for ID. You don’t care. You are part of the Evolution Defense Force and you will say anything to keep that failed idea afloat here. Keep it up. Someone will call you out on it.
JVL at 139,
“I’ve been SO abused!” Cut the [SNIP]…
JVL, yes, that message of humility needs to soak in. BTW, IIRC, it is about five main schools of thought, Copenhagen, Many Worlds, De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave, information theories, and of course shaddup and calculate (sub school, take off yer shoes to get ten more to count with*). Mix and match, with other views and sub views. KF
*PS, in actuality, many of these in the old days would have counted as human computers, a now vanished job category. More reliable and faster than calculating machines. When my dad finally gave in and got a calculator he was still checking it in his head. I wondered why he bothered, I guess people expected to see a machine.
“you are just noticing that now”
Jerry,
No. JVL and I have had several exchanges over the last year already related to this one. It won’t be the last either, because *I’m* trying to keep it real. 😉
Andrew
Relatd: But those against ID have no choice but to put up a fight. Whether it makes sense or not.
Again, you are so convinced of your own position that you assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be ideologically motivated. You cannot see how any intelligent person can look at the same data as you and yet come to a different conclusion.
I am willing to acknowledge that you see things differently from me. And I don’t assume you are dishonest or foolish or delusional. Can you at the very least extend the same courtesy to me?
F/N: I ran across this at Arxiv — recall, a physics preprints site:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.04711
As in . . .
KF
JVL at 144,
OK. Answer the following: Are living things actually designed? Yes or no.
JVL at 139:
So why do you?
Relatd: You’re being dishonest again. You’ve seen the evidence for ID. You don’t care. You are part of the Evolution Defense Force and you will say anything to keep that failed idea afloat here. Keep it up. Someone will call you out on it.
I have seen the evidence and didn’t find it convincing. You have a with us or against us attitude. And then you label those who disagree with you as being dishonest or mad or manipulative. You cannot accept that an intelligent person might come to a different conclusion from you.
Is that an honest, objective scientific attitude? Can your view accept dissension? Or its is always right or so wrong you’re evil?
Relatd: Are living things actually designed? Yes or no.
I don’t think they are designed.
AnimatedDust: So why do you?
Participate in this forum? Or . . . it would be good if you could be more specific.
JVL at 149,
“I don’t think they are designed.” Why not? How did living things come to look the way they do?
“How did living things come to look the way they do?”
No, please… let me…
Deep in the Mists of The Past, Millions and Millions of Millions of Eons ago, Evolution Emerged, did some heavy lifting and POOF! Here we are.
Andrew
I for one don’t think you’re evil for not seeing the evidence as I do. But the fact that you are here and remain here is no longer to inquire with an open mind, as you said you initially did.
Now you are witnessing for your faith in the Darwinian Church. It’s no secret that Darwin was very angry with God. Several of his children died in childhood. Who wouldn’t be?
Don’t know what keeps you here, as you’ve admitted tedium. But, it’s pretty clear. You’re a preacher, an evangelist, for Archbishop Dawkins.
The irony is delicious. 🙂
Relatd: Why not? How did living things come to look the way they do?
I accept the standard, unguided, evolutionary theory as being the best explanation for what we see and observe as far as life on Earth is concerned.
But you surely knew or anticipated that so I’m at a bit of a loss to explain you line of questioning. But, go ahead.
AnimatedDust: But the fact that you are here and remain here is no longer to inquire with an open mind, as you said you initially did.
That doesn’t quite make sense.
Now you are witnessing for your faith in the Darwinian Church.
There is no theology involved. No matter what you assume.
You’re a preacher, an evangelist, for Archbishop Dawkins.
Again, see the assumptions made regarding me and my views.
JVL at 154,
So, you are a member of the Evolution Defense Force. You do realize that unguided evolution is a failed theory? That its only apparent function today is to convince people that nobody made them? That atheism is true? You are not promoting science, just a belief.
• ‘The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”
• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”
“Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
Asauber: Deep in the Mists of The Past, Millions and Millions of Millions of Eons ago, Evolution Emerged, did some heavy lifting and POOF! Here we are.
If you want to have a discussion about unguided evolutionary theory then fine. But if you’re just going to make fun of it and deride it ahead of time then . . . why should I bother?
Do you want a dialogue or not?
Relatd: You do realize that unguided evolution is a failed theory?
You really do not want a dialogue. You have made up your mind.
Why should I try to continue to have a conversation with you? A scientific conversation?
“Do you want a dialogue or not?”
JVL,
I don’t think we can have an honest dialogue currently, for reasons set forth above. We can have exchanges, a la (metaphorical) artillery fire. I’m OK with that.
Andrew
It is clear that my point about being labelled and treated as delusional or mad or manipulative has been shown to be the case based on this thread alone.
Is that the consensus view here? Does anyone here actually want to acknowledge that there are differing views?
@157
Do you seriously imagine that anyone here actually wants a dialogue?
For most people here, it’s an article of faith that evolution is a failed theory, that design theory is obviously true, and the only reason why anyone promotes evolution is because we want to rationalize having our godless drug-fueled orgies.
In other words, from their point of view, you and I cannot be arguing in good faith. The kind of polite, respectful dialogue you indicated in 124 is not going to happen at Uncommon Descent. If that’s what you want, Uncommon Descent will bring you nothing but disappointment and aggravation.
“Does anyone here actually want to acknowledge that there are differing views?”
JVL,
Obviously, there are differing views. But that’s not the issue. The issue is why, when everyone is supposedly looking at the same information.
Andrew
Apparently, KF only gives a &$#% about staying on-topic when certain people are discussing certain things in his posts. Let me see if I can steer my experiential reality into a KF-free area ….
JVL @129:
LOL
Asauber: I don’t think we can have an honest dialogue currently, for reasons set forth above.
Because I disagree with you and you think the only possible way for me to disagree with you is to be dishonest and to ignore some of the data? Is that right?
Asauber: Obviously, there are differing views. But that’s not the issue. The issue is why, when everyone is supposedly looking at the same information.
I agree. Are you not interested in why the disagreement arises? I'm interested. Is your answer that clearly those who disagree with you are delusional or blinded by an ideology? Or are you willing to accept that maybe they are intelligent and thoughtful people who have come to a different conclusion from your own?
PyrrhoManiac1: the only reason why anyone promotes evolution is because we want to rationalize having our godless drug-fueled orgies.
Really? I missed the orgies. What have I done wrong?
It’s not that we’re ignoring the data, but rather that our commitment to godless liberalism (or whatever) prevents us from actually seeing the data and following through on what the data entail.
The story is that we’re ideologically motivated against the very idea of anything like God, because we like our drug-fueled orgies or babykilling or whatever. So we’re just not able to see the data for what it is. If we could, we would just see that an intelligence of some kind is the only possible source of biological information — that it’s just not possible for life to emerge from physics and chemistry alone. We would just see that abiogenesis research is a massive fraud. But we don’t, because we’re self-deceived, and because we’re ideologically motivated to be self-deceived.
In other words, from their point of view, we don’t deserve to be taken seriously. The fact that you’re trying to take them seriously doesn’t do anything to move the needle.
“Or are you willing to accept that maybe they are intelligent and thoughtful people who have come to a different conclusion from your own?”
JVL,
It obvious that intelligent and thoughtful people come to a different conclusion. You are just repeating yourself. I’m intelligent and thoughtful and so are you. Why do you and I come to different conclusions when looking at the same stuff? What could be making the difference? Go ahead and list the possibilities. It’s not rocket or cosmetology science. lol
Andrew
JVL at 158,
You have no testable science to show you are right. Or, to put it another way, you’re wrong.
Kairosfocus @75,
After being burned on several occasions, I nearly always compose my comments in Word and then copy-paste them into the Comment field.
This method protects me when WordPress randomly performs a quantum leap with my text, I’ve got my text entangled locally for rapid reinstantiation. 😉
-Q
Asouber @169,
A great question! I’m looking forward to JVL’s intelligent and thoughtful response.
Haha! I thought the expression was “It’s not rocket surgery or brain science.” 😉
-Q
PyrrhoManiac1 @168,
Yes, exactly! And entirely a great post–thank you!
-Q
JVL at 160,
I want you to acknowledge that both sides can’t be right. Someone is wrong here.
PyrrhoManiac @161,
That’s a little harsh.
I used to believe in Darwinism, but lost the faith in it when I was in college. “Godless drug-fueled orgies” notwithstanding, the problem was with its contradictions and its not conforming to the scientific method as in my other scientific coursework.
For example, when I took astrophysics, I was gratified that the course presented both the currently established theories, PLUS the unanswered questions and issues with them. Same with quantum physics. We were encouraged to challenge any of the theories and our professor delved into the evidence for them and how our objections were currently being explained.
The honesty and desire not to be limited by pat answers and rationalizations was refreshing in comparison! We were interacting with the material, not being indoctrinated by the material or EVER being hysterically accused of being anti-science!
-Q
“and the only reason why anyone promotes evolution is because we want to rationalize having our godless drug-fueled orgies.”
Gosh, I don’t recall mentioning that last part – ever. But now that you bring it up…
Asauber: Why do you and I come to different conclusions when looking at the same stuff?
Because we give more (or less weight) to certain aspects or implications of that data?
“it’s an article of faith that evolution is a failed theory”
Ah…see. This is an example of doing the very thing you complain about- mischaracterizing your opponent.
Andrew
Relatd: You have no testable science to show you are right. Or, to put it another way, you’re wrong.
I don’t think that is the case. How do I try and persuade you that you might be incorrect?
JVL at 177,
That’s an answer? It’s obvious. Any data for ID is false because, for you, evolution is true. And that must be repeated by you forever.
JVL at 179,
You can’t. Living things are designed. Period. As opposed to Richard Dawkins who says they’re not.
I’m beginning to think GUILT is the problem here. The guilt you might experience, and others, about those godless, drug fueled orgies…
Relatd: I want you to acknowledge that both sides can’t be right. Someone is wrong here.
Why don’t we look at the data instead of presupposing there is a conflict?
JVL at 182,
I’ve been at this for a very long time. I’ve seen the data. Some took the time to post lengthy explanations with images in an attempt to “educate” me. That wasn’t their goal. Intelligent Design is the only plausible explanation. Unguided evolution – no.
I never mentioned “conflict.” I know both sides can’t be right.
Asauber: Ah…see. This is an example of doing the very thing you complain about- mischaracterizing your opponent.
I didn’t say that.
Relatd: That’s an answer? It’s obvious. Any data for ID is false because, for you, evolution is true. And that must be repeated by you forever.
I was just trying to quickly respond in a thread which has quickly generated a lot of traffic. I’m happy to discuss any particular data in depth if you wish.
Relatd: You can’t. Living things are designed. Period. As opposed to Richard Dawkins who says they’re not.
If you’ve made your mind up there’s not much point in trying to have a discussion. Is there?
I’m beginning to think GUILT is the problem here. The guilt you might experience, and others, about those godless, drug fueled orgies…
I’d love to feel guilty about those except . . . I can’t ’cause I didn’t have them!
Relatd: I’ve been at this for a very long time. I’ve seen the data. Some took the time to post lengthy explanations with images in an attempt to “educate” me. That wasn’t their goal. Intelligent Design is the only plausible explanation. Unguided evolution – no.
If you’ve already decided then perhaps we should just leave it. I mean if someone tried to use images and that didn’t work.
JVL at 186,
You’re wrong. Got that? You’re wrong. The data points to Intelligent Design not unguided monkey business.
And by the way, YOU have obviously made up your mind.
Relatd: You’re wrong. Got that? You’re wrong. The data points to Intelligent Design not unguided monkey business.
We’ll just leave it at that then.
And by the way, YOU have obviously made up your mind.
We’ll just leave it at that then.
JVL at 187,
You’ve made up your mind. And yes, the images didn’t brainwash me into believing dead chemicals can turn into any living thing.
Relatd: You’ve made up your mind. And yes, the images didn’t brainwash me into believing dead chemicals can turn into any living thing.
We’ll just leave it at that then.
JVL at 191,
Unilateral disagreement is like unilateral disarmament. It doesn’t work.
Relatd: Unilateral disagreement is like unilateral disarmament. It doesn’t work.
If you want to discuss things fine. Otherwise, we’ll leave it at that then.
JVL at 193,
Discuss what exactly? Your unwavering commitment to unguided evolution? You’ve made up your mind.
Relatd: Discuss what exactly? Your unwavering commitment to unguided evolution? You’ve made up your mind.
We’ll definitely just leave it at that then.
Q 175
I took me longer than you to abandon Darwin’s theory because the overwhelming consensus by scientists that it was as settled a fact as the earth is round. When ever I started to doubt I would remind myself that all these Scientists could not be wrong after all they are scientists, then I happened to read a couple of books that opened my eyes so to speak.
The first one was “Algreny” by Jeremy Rifkin that lead me to the second, Kuhns “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” and the third was “Darwin on Trial” by P Johnson.
Darwin’s theory in its original form is that all of life is a result of trial and error (random mutation the error and natural selection the trial)then add extrapolation ( we see small changes therefore any change is possible). I also quickly learned how the word “evolution” is sometimes used to describe “micro evolution” then yielded as a cudgel that any change is possible “macro evolution” The first no one disputes, equivocate much?
Then of course there is the assumption regarding the mechanism of change as Behe highlighted in his book “ Darwin’s Black Box”in discussing the fossil record. Does the fossil record tell us anything about mechanism? No. Does change tell us anything about mechanism? No. Are they both consistent with Darwin’s theory?Yes. Are they consistent with ID? Yes.
Finally when I look at just the factual experimental data I think of the fruit fly or nylonaze or bacteria, or finch beaks, etc. What does the actual experimental data show SO FAR? Change has limits. That poor ole fruit fly is still a fruit fly, bacteria are still bacteria, finches are still finches, change has limits.
Then I noticed how abiogenesis is walled off from Darwin’s theory. Yes it is true that Darwin addressed how life changed over time after life originated however if life is originally a product of design then doesn’t that affect the mechanisms going forward?
Prediction virtually every criticism of my post, if any, will appeal in one form or another to micro evolution as the evidence for both the mechanism and proof that any change is possible.
Vivid
Vividbleau @196,
Yeah, exactly. And we should see ALL living things in transition along with novel features in development, which we don’t. What we see is dramatic one-generation changes due to epigenetic programming. Also, we see unlikely radical transitions such as with metamorphosis and alternation of generations (medusa and polyp, or as with sea lettuce: https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/seafood-profiles/sea-lettuce), and so on.
Yeah, that’s odd, isn’t it? The debates I’ve seen usually put this difficult bit off-the-table right from the start.
They also say that there’s no evidence for OOL due to the rarity of fossils and soft body parts that don’t lend themselves to fossilization. Yet researchers have found fossil sea jellies that appear very similar to modern ones, but they give them different biological classifications for some reason.
Early on, I noticed this position as an unwarranted extrapolation. At that time, it seemed more likely to me that Darwinistic evolution was only the “fine tuning” mechanism. Apparently, there’s little evidence for even such fine tuning.
Since then, It’s seemed to me that extinction was an overlooked aspect in the diversity of life, and that what we observe would also fit a “comb model.”
1. Imagine a long comb with 1,000 teeth, each slightly different from its neighbors.
2. Next imagine that 900 teeth are randomly broken off.
3. One could still reasonably assert that the result was evidence for an evolutionary tree rather than a comb.
As for mutation as a driver for genetic change, we would need far more and far faster iterations of each generation. Thus, it would make far more sense from a Darwinian point of view that humans are the result of gut bacteria evolving an exoskeleton (our bodies) for effective distribution of feces comprising mostly gut bacteria.
Not to mention that there are far more bacterial cells in and on a human than human cells. If each cell got to vote on it, humans would be considered a form of bacteria.
-Q