The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, Holmes said:

My position is that material quantities must exist in order for material processes to operate.

That may be so (although you haven't demonstrated it).

However it does not follow from this that immaterial processess require the material objects.

[Holmes]

Just now, studiot said:

That may be so (although you haven't demonstrated it).

See: Conservation Laws.

 

Just now, studiot said:

However it does not follow from this that immaterial processes require the material objects.

I never said "immaterial processes require the material objects".

[exchemist]

5 minutes ago, Holmes said:

My position is that material quantities must exist in order for material processes to operate. A scientific explanation for anything at all therefore must presuppose the presence of material quantities. In the absence of material quantities no processes could occur, if they did then obviously the system does in fact have material properties.

Take any scientific theory, lets say a neat mathematical theory, look at it, it has axioms and refers to material quantities, it presupposes their existence.

The point is we cannot say this or that is the result of naturalistic, material activities unless there is an already existing physical realm, in the absence of material and laws nothing can ever happen (and if something did happen then there was not in fact an absence of matter/law in the first place).

One cannot invoke science and scientific explanations to explain how such things are possible.

PS: Must you append sarcastic remarks at the end of your posts?

There are many vocal critics of Krauss and his pseudo scientific claims that hide inside his otherwise well informed tomes.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

 

Yes this criticism has a point.

It seems to me that the deepest mystery of all about the universe is where the order in it (what we call the "laws of nature", though actually the laws are just our models of the order, as we perceive it) comes from.  As far as science can go , it "just is". We have to accept it as a given. 

Rather interestingly, it seems that, to Einstein and Spinoza, this order effectively is what we commonly call "God".

 

 

[studiot]

 

3 minutes ago, Holmes said:

1)See: Conservation Laws.

 

2) I never said "immaterial processes require the material objects".

1) Which conservation law ?

2) So in your estimation anything at all does not include immaterial objects, such as shadows ?

14 minutes ago, Holmes said:

A scientific explanation for anything at all therefore must presuppose the presence of material quantities

[Holmes]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

 

1) Which conservation law ?

2) So in your estimation anything at all does not include immaterial objects, such as shadows ?

The reason I mentioned conservation laws was to draw your attention to the fact that these are accepted as true not by being demonstrated as true but by scientific induction.

Asking me to demonstrate that material quantities must exist in order for material processes to operate is illogical, material processes are by definition state changes within systems of matter/energy.

I really don't think you've been following my arguments.

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

The reason I mentioned conservation laws was to draw your attention to the fact that these are accepted as true not by being demonstrated as true but by scientific induction.

Asking me to demonstrate that material quantities must exist in order for material processes to operate is illogical, material processes are by definition state changes within systems of matter/energy.

I really don't think you've been following my arguments.

So you can't support your claim and mentioning conservation was just an attempt at misdirection ?

[Holmes]

11 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes this criticism has a point.

It seems to me that the deepest mystery of all about the universe is where the order in it (what we call the "laws of nature", though actually the laws are just our models of the order, as we perceive it) comes from.  As far as science can go , it "just is". We have to accept it as a given. 

Rather interestingly, it seems that, to Einstein and Spinoza, this order effectively is what we commonly call "God".

 

 

Yes this is true. 

Just now, studiot said:

So you can't support your claim and mentioning conservation was just an attempt at misdirection ?

Mentioning conservation law was a step I took to show that science often does not demonstrate (as you appear to believe) the truth of some claim, much of science and our claims about the universe are in fact all based on scientific induction.

As for my claim that material quantities must exist in order for material processes to operate, this is not something that needs evidential support, it is in fact a definition of material processes.

Like the claim we cannot cook without a source of energy, this does not need evidence it is inherent in the definition of cooking.

[Prometheus]

23 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Rather interestingly, it seems that, to Einstein and Spinoza, this order effectively is what we commonly call "God".

It's also much closer to the Chinese concept of 'dao' than just about any Western concept of God - Spinoza excepted.

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Mentioning conservation law was a step I took to show that science often does not demonstrate (as you appear to believe) the truth of some claim, much of science and our claims about the universe are in fact all based on scientific induction.

More deflective smoke and mirrors.

Where exactly did I say that science demonstrates the proof of some claim or indeed anything about 'truth' ?

15 minutes ago, Holmes said:

As for my claim that material quantities must exist in order for material processes to operate, this is not something that needs evidential support, it is in fact a definition of material processes.

Not so.

A material process couple be conceptual only.

16 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Like the claim we cannot cook without a source of energy, this does not need evidence it is inherent in the definition of cooking.

I made no such claim, however (as I do not live in Alaska) when I 'cook' ice cream I remove energy I do not supply it.

Edited June 29, 2021 by studiot

[Holmes]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

More deflective smoke and mirrors.

Where exactly did I say that science demonstrates the proof of some claim or indeed anything about 'truth' ?

Not so.

A material process couple be conceptual only.

Please explain, what does "process couple be conceptual" mean?

[studiot]

Just now, Holmes said:

Please explain, what does "process couple be conceptual" mean?

Sure

A simple typographic error due to haste.

Apologies.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

A material process couple be conceptual only.

This should read

A material process couple can be conceptual only.

[joigus]

23 minutes ago, Holmes said:

My position is that material quantities must exist in order for material processes to operate. A scientific explanation for anything at all therefore must presuppose the presence of material quantities. In the absence of material quantities no processes could occur, if they did then obviously the system does in fact have material properties.

Take any scientific theory, lets say a neat mathematical theory, look at it, it has axioms and refers to material quantities, it presupposes their existence.

The point is we cannot say this or that is the result of naturalistic, material activities unless there is an already existing physical realm, in the absence of material and laws nothing can ever happen (and if something did happen then there was not in fact an absence of matter/law in the first place).

One cannot invoke science and scientific explanations to explain how such things are possible.

PS: Must you append sarcastic remarks at the end of your posts?

There are many other possibilities for the emergence of "material quantities", whatever the definition of "material quantities" may be. You have not cared to define "material quantities" in any degree of precision. There may have been chaotic scenarios in which any clear-cut cause-and-effect sequence cannot be properly defined. There may be a limitless but finite causal structure for physical events, similar to the surface of a sphere, in which there is no point farther north of the north pole, while our intuitive grasp of reality demands to extend our framework of concepts "farther north".

The example of hurricanes, that I proposed, was meant to illustrate that noticeable features may sometimes arise from a noisy background, without any particular macro or microscopic event serving as a valid cause of the whole thing.

As to cosmology, current inflationary models do not suppose the pre-existence on any definite physical realm, although they use fundamental physical constants and, unfortunately, a number of free parameters. In those scenarios, there were just quantum fluctuations, which by their very definition are nothing like an atom, molecule or star; and there was also a simple mathematical function called the inflaton field. There wasn't even space time. That's part of the power of mathematical abstractions; they allow us to formulate less contingent scenarios than those you can conceive of with ordinary language. Even if at times they are somehow crude and leave something to be desired. Ordinary language is heavily constrained by the context in which it arose. Namely; to describe a world of rocks, and water, and fire, and plants, and animals. Concrete things. The very same things that --I can only surmise-- you perhaps mean by "material quantities". Quantum amplitudes, eg., just aren't material determinations in any sense that's familiar to us, evolved hunter-gatherers. They are beyond anything you, or I, or any human anywhere has a direct experience of. But the mathematics of them is clear, unambiguous, and useful --even though it's difficult to grasp--, and it leads to predictions about the material world --your material quantities, I suppose-- that has no parallel in anything philosophers and theologians may have concocted for centuries by sheer unassisted thought.

Someone said that a philosopher is a person with a pen and a paper; while a scientist is a person with a pen, a paper, and a wastepaper basket. You really need a wastepaper basket for some of your ideas. I wasn't being facetious. I was dead serious when I said "I hope that helps". I still mean it.

I hope that was clear. Is that any better?

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Someone said that a philosopher is a person with a pen and a paper; while a scientist is a person with a pen, a paper, and a wastepaper basket. You really need a wastepaper basket for some of your ideas. I wasn't being facetious. I was dead serious when I said "I hope that helps". I still mean it.

+1

I also would to know why expressing a hope that something helps is considered sarcastic as I often append such a statement following an explanation because I consider it encouraging.

Edited June 29, 2021 by studiot

[Holmes]

41 minutes ago, joigus said:

There are many other possibilities for the emergence of "material quantities", whatever the definition of "material quantities" may be. You have not cared to define "material quantities" in any degree of precision. There may have been chaotic scenarios in which any clear-cut cause-and-effect sequence cannot be properly defined. There may be a limitless but finite causal structure for physical events, similar to the surface of a sphere, in which there is no point farther north of the north pole, while our intuitive grasp of reality demands to extend our framework of concepts "farther north".

Material quantities are what we represent with variables in our mathematical theories.

See? D, B, J etc. I hope this helps.

Now you mention "chaotic scenarios" well that requires something physical and it is the origin of this - of anything - physical, that's what I'm concerned with.

The point is that whatever it is one postulates as you are doing, is something who's presence must be explained IF REALITY CAN BE EXPLAINED SCIENTIFICALLY.

 

Quote

The example of hurricanes, that I proposed, was meant to illustrate that noticeable features may sometimes arise from a noisy background, without any particular macro or microscopic event serving as a valid cause of the whole thing.

Of course, I get that, I don't dispute that but "noise" is a material phenomena is it not?

Quote

As to cosmology, current inflationary models do not suppose the pre-existence on any definite physical realm, although they use fundamental physical constants and, unfortunately, a number of free parameters.

How can one even write down a model without referring to something that's presupposed?

Quote

In those scenarios, there were just quantum fluctuations, which by their very definition are nothing like an atom, molecule or star; and there was also a simple mathematical function called the inflaton field.

Right, so that mathematical function is presupposed yes? it's origin is not addressed nor can it be unless we first presuppose something else.

Quote

There wasn't even space time. That's part of the power of mathematical abstractions; they allow us to formulate less contingent scenarios than those you can conceive of with ordinary language. Even if at times they are somehow crude and leave something to be desired. Ordinary language is heavily constrained by the context in which it arose. Namely; to describe a world of rocks, and water, and fire, and plants, and animals. Concrete things. The very same things that --I can only surmise-- you perhaps mean by "material quantities". Quantum amplitudes, eg., just aren't material determinations in any sense that's familiar to us, evolved hunter-gatherers. They are beyond anything you, or I, or any human anywhere has a direct experience of. But the mathematics of them is clear, unambiguous, and useful --even though it's difficult to grasp--, and it leads to predictions about the material world --your material quantities, I suppose-- that has no parallel in anything philosophers and theologians may have concocted for centuries by sheer unassisted thought.

Someone said that a philosopher is a person with a pen and a paper; while a scientist is a person with a pen, a paper, and a wastepaper basket. You really need a wastepaper basket for some of your ideas. I wasn't being facetious. I was dead serious when I said "I hope that helps". I still mean it.

I hope that was clear. Is that any better?

It was clear but hardly amounts to a rebuttal of anything I've said.

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Holmes

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

It was clear but hardly amounts to a rebuttal of anything I've said.

Fascinating that you care so much for rebuttal when you ignored the one already offered a page or 2 ago in the discussion.

You assume ALL events MUST have a cause.

Others here demonstrated that this assumption is AT BEST indeterminate right now. It cannot be stated as fact, only as supposition... an option... perhaps correct, but also perhaps wrong. 

Ergo, your entire house of cards has crumbled... But... you ignored it and keep asking for rebuttals so you can ignore those, too. Fascinating. 

[Holmes]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fascinating that you care so much for rebuttal when you ignored the one already offered a page or 2 ago in the discussion.

You assume ALL events MUST have a cause.

Well actually lets focus on what I did say. I said that all scientific explanations must presuppose the presence of material quantities and laws that relate these quantities.

Are you aware of a scientific explanation that does not have that characteristic? No, of course you are not.

Therefore a scientific explanation for the origin of material quantities and laws is clearly paradoxical because it must first presuppose the presence of the things it seeks to explain.

Consider for a moment a mathematical theory that explains the origin of matter, energy, etc what would its axioms be? what laws, equations might we find in such a theory? 

Quote

Others here demonstrated that this assumption is AT BEST indeterminate right now. It cannot be stated as fact, only as supposition... an option... perhaps correct, but also perhaps wrong. 

Ergo, your entire house of cards has crumbled... But... you ignored it and keep asking for rebuttals so you can ignore those, too. Fascinating. 

I do not see how our inability to predict the future for certain physical systems undermines what I've said.

If you are trying to argue that anything can happen at any time, matter, fields, laws can appear uncaused where there were none before then you are reducing science to magic which is odd since when supernatural explanations are posited it is you and others (no doubt) who will accuse those advocating that view, of belief in magic.

Perhaps you are confusing the state of a physical system with the system itself, I may not be able to predict a dice throw but I'm not trying to, I'm asking how can the dice come to exist in the first place.

The bottom line here is this - there cannot possibly ever be a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe, that's my thesis.

So one either accepts that and says that the end result of all our science is that it explains absolutely nothing or we posit another kind of explanation, a non-scientific explanation, an explanation that does not presuppose matter, energy, laws.

On what grounds do you object to me positing this?

Edited June 29, 2021 by Holmes

[iNow]

Nobody’s talking about predicting the future. You’re either moving the goal posts, introducing strawmen, or failing to comprehend what others are saying. 

13 minutes ago, Holmes said:

The bottom line here is this - there cannot possibly ever be a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe, that's my thesis.

It’s not “your” thesis. It’s the first cause thesis which has already been shown to be rather lacking. 

14 minutes ago, Holmes said:

So one either accepts that and says that the end result of all our science is that it explains absolutely nothing <…> On what grounds do you object to me positing this?

In the grounds that science DOES explain things and your position that the only way to understand the material (the natural) is to introduce a completely unfounded immaterial (supernatural) agent is absurd. 

[Holmes]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody’s talking about predicting the future. You’re either moving the goal posts, introducing strawmen, or failing to comprehend what others are saying. 

It’s not “your” thesis. It’s the first cause thesis which has already been shown to be rather lacking. 

I see you elected to not answer my rather valid and polite questions, yet feel justified in accusing me of making strawman arguments.

Are you aware of a scientific explanation that does not have that characteristic? 

Consider for a moment a mathematical theory that explains the origin of matter, energy, etc. what would its axioms be? what laws, equations might we find in such a theory? 

To which I can add:

What axioms might we use to formulate a theory that explains the presence of the universe?

Can one even have a theory that has no axioms?

So, if you know as much as you profess, if you have the insights that you profess to have - lets have some answers...

Edited June 29, 2021 by Holmes

[MigL]

15 minutes ago, Holmes said:

What axioms might we use to formulate a theory that explains the presence of the universe?

Well, a much simpler explanation than invoking the 'supernatural' ( as you have posited ) might be to suppose that it has always existed, albeit in different forms.
No one suggests the universe sprang from a point source ( singularity ), but from a hot dense state. This state was present before the manifestation of geometry ( the 'field' of GR ) and, as such, the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.
That 'indeterminate' state could have 'always' existed; why suppose that it was brought into being by 'supernatural' forces/events ?

[Holmes]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well, a much simpler explanation than invoking the 'supernatural' ( as you have posited ) might be to suppose that it has always existed, albeit in different forms.

Yes I agree, that too is a possibility. I reject it myself because it seems to actually be an admission that nothing can be explained, it just is and that doesn't satisfy me, it doesn't satisfy me in the same way it wouldn't satisfy my in other fields.

Its also not a scientific explanation, the "always existed" proposition is not a scientific explanation, so on that basis reaffirms my original point that the explanation for the universe cannot be a scientific one.

Quote

No one suggests the universe sprang from a point source ( singularity ), but from a hot dense state. This state was present before the manifestation of geometry ( the 'field' of GR ) and, as such, the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.

But why? what could have led to such a state of affairs? something existed, it exists today but how could that hot dense state come to exist at all?

Quote

That 'indeterminate' state could have 'always' existed; why suppose that it was brought into being by 'supernatural' forces/events ?

That's a fair question. In my own vague, subjective analysis I do not see postulating a supernatural agency as less justified than postulating an external existence that had no beginning.

The supernatural agency is a better answer I guess that's what I'm saying. Does it raise more questions? yes of course it does but all explanations in science do that already and we don't hold that against them.

The supernatural agency ("God" if you will) is a way out of the paradox, on that basis alone we should at least consider it, take it more seriously than some do.

I studied GR many years ago to quite some depth, I did well with the mathematics in some areas but not others (for example I can understand the non-Euclidean geometry, metric tensors, curvature, coordinate transformations and so on but could never derive a solution to the field equations).

Once I began to appreciate the profound relationship Einstein uncovered between space/time/gravitation etc I began to ask how that came to be, how these laws came to exist.

It became clear that all a scientist could ever do is find deeper laws connecting things in deeper ways but that this would always be an act of discovery, the question but why do these things exist could never be answered, it was in a sense an epiphany and my love of the subject took a large blow. 

The supernatural agency seems - to me anyway - to offer a deeper way to understand, I do not regard it as a religious concept (not at this level we're discussing things anyway) but as a way to explain what I see, it also allows me to seriously consider that there is a thing called "will" or "intent" and to view this not as some consequence of mechanism, not some side effect of a brain but as perhaps something very fundamental indeed, more fundamental than anything in physics.

So in a way there isn't really cause and effect, cause and effect are the product of will, intent, they are aspects of this created thing we call the universe, by positing God, and attributing will, intent, choice to that God many very deep problems simply vanish.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Holmes

[iNow]

32 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Its also not a scientific explanation

Neither is suggesting a supernatural agent 

34 minutes ago, Holmes said:

by positing God, and attributing will, intent, choice to that God many very deep problems simply vanish

Except for, where did god come from?

[MigL]

42 minutes ago, Holmes said:

In my own vague, subjective analysis I do not see postulating a supernatural agency as less justified than postulating an external existence that had no beginning.

A 'supernatural' solution guarantees we will never have answers to these questions.
The 'always been there' solution holds out hope that, eventually, we might.

The latter option seems scientific to me, the former, not so much.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

Yes I agree, that too is a possibility. I reject it myself because it seems to actually be an admission that nothing can be explained, it just is and that doesn't satisfy me, it doesn't satisfy me in the same way it wouldn't satisfy my in other fields.

Its also not a scientific explanation, the "always existed" proposition is not a scientific explanation, so on that basis reaffirms my original point that the explanation for the universe cannot be a scientific one.

But why? what could have led to such a state of affairs? something existed, it exists today but how could that hot dense state come to exist at all?

That's a fair question. In my own vague, subjective analysis I do not see postulating a supernatural agency as less justified than postulating an external existence that had no beginning.

The supernatural agency is a better answer I guess that's what I'm saying. Does it raise more questions? yes of course it does but all explanations in science do that already and we don't hold that against them.

The supernatural agency ("God" if you will) is a way out of the paradox, on that basis alone we should at least consider it, take it more seriously than some do.

I studied GR many years ago to quite some depth, I did well with the mathematics in some areas but not others (for example I can understand the non-Euclidean geometry, metric tensors, curvature, coordinate transformations and so on but could never derive a solution to the field equations).

Once I began to appreciate the profound relationship Einstein uncovered between space/time/gravitation etc I began to ask how that came to be, how these laws came to exist.

It became clear that all a scientist could ever do is find deeper laws connecting things in deeper ways but that this would always be an act of discovery, the question but why do these things exist could never be answered, it was in a sense an epiphany and my love of the subject took a large blow. 

The supernatural agency seems - to me anyway - to offer a deeper way to understand, I do not regard it as a religious concept (not at this level we're discussing things anyway) but as a way to explain what I see, it also allows me to seriously consider that there is a thing called "will" or "intent" and to view this not as some consequence of mechanism, not some side effect of a brain but as perhaps something very fundamental indeed, more fundamental than anything in physics.

So in a way there isn't really cause and effect, cause and effect are the product of will, intent, they are aspects of this created thing we call the universe, by positing God, and attributing will, intent, choice to that God many very deep problems simply vanish.

I think this clarifies things greatly.

What you are doing is trying to find an answer to a question that science cannot answer, due to the lack of any relevant observations to test any hypothesis. So, by proposing God as a First Cause, what you are doing is jumping out of science into metaphysics. You can do that if you like. Many people, including many respected scientists, do so, on aesthetic or cultural grounds or out of personal conviction due to religious experience.

But what you can't do is expect people with a science training to agree that it is a scientific idea. "Explaining" something by means of an untestable hypothesis is not an explanation at all, scientifically speaking. 

 

 

[Conscious Energy]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Except for, where did god come from?

From nothing.

God in my reality: the information the first empty dot of space(time) presents: 0 

At t0 a simple information is everything in proportion to nothing.

[MigL]

19 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

At t0 a simple information is everything in proportion to nothing.

Information cannot be created or destroyed; where did the rest of the universe's information come from ? 
So, not science either.

Actually a thread hijack ...
And nonsense unless you back it with evidence.