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

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

From nothing.

Right, and if you allow that God can come from nothing, why not the universe itself?

Allowing the the universe to benefit from the same special pleading you're here allowing for your god(s) is the much simpler and more refined approach, one which is far less prone to be wrong. 

At the very least, by doing so you're eliminating the middle man, you're reducing the complexity of your perspective, and  you are no longer pinning all of your hopes and attempts at explanation on weak human mythologies to fill the ever shrinking gaps in our understanding.

Edited June 29, 2021 by iNow

[Holmes]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

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

Seems contradictory to me, how can you say its always been there and then at the same time hold out for the prospect that it hasn't?

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

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

There's nothing scientific about being unable to explain something scientifically. If a theory cannot be penned to explain something then by definition we don't have a scientific explanation.

God, creation is not a scientific explanation as I pointed out earlier, the explanation for the universe can never be scientific.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Neither is suggesting a supernatural agent 

Except for, where did god come from?

What do you mean "except"? since when does the presence of new questions invalidate an explanation?

[John Cuthber]

This nonsense is old enough to have been parodied ages ago.

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.”

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

You now cite Krauss of all people? "A universe from nothing"? this is pop-science and Krauss has been rightly dragged over the coals for his shenanigans.

Krauss? Sure I cite him...another excellent scientist.

7 hours 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.

Your position is imo clouded somewhat. And of course as the late great Carl Sagan, inferred, if we want to be logical and courages, one then must ask, how did this thing we call God eventuate?

The real position is of course that as yet we do not have enough data to confirm why and how our universe/space/time evolved, from the seething quantum foam. But it also makes reasonable sense [in light of the lack of data]  to propose that perhaps "nothing" as we are now defining, that is, no universe, no space, no time, no quantum foam, no deity, no nuttin, is not, nor ever has been possible. Perhaps the quantum foam is as close to nothing as we can get..perhaps it, the quantum foam did exist for eternity, prior to the BB. While of course still highly specuclative, the real answer is still we don't know. But just like unexplained/unidentified UFO's/UAP, being unexplained and/or we don't really know, does not equate to Alien origin. Likewise, not knowing the why or wherefor of the BB and origin of the universe, does not equate to some magical deity sitting up in the clouds somewhere.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing:

Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction.

more obviously at link...........

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

That at least to me, makes far more sense then invoking some unscientific supernatural being.

A quote comes to mind at this time by those that see the need to dismiss such reasonable scientific speculation.....

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?"

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

Of course while writing this book, Professor Krauss also committed a cardinal sin in critiquing philosophers, and consequently drew the wrath from that group. 😉 He was of course taken out of context by others with supernatural creation agendas.

Which reminds me of another quote [apologies to my philosophical friends]

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself".

Henry Louis Mencken

[Holmes]

49 minutes ago, exchemist said:

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.

I stated this early on when I said that the explanation for the presence of the universe is not and cannot be, scientific.

Quote

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.

I'm doing so out of a respect for logic.

Quote

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. 

Once again I have made it clear that this is not a scientific explanation, hoping, dreaming, believing that there is a scientific explanation is a delusion, it is hopeless for the reasons I've labored to bring to your attention.

It is the impossibility of a scientific explanation that leads to the suggestion it was a supernatural event, not random, not subject to law but the ultimate source of law.

I asked already and nobody has ventured to answer - can you envisage a scientific theory that has no axioms? can you envisage a scientific theory that has no laws? that does not refer to material quantities?

Here is the only form that a scientific theory of origins can take:

This is what your left with when you are forced to scientifically explain what exists without relying on what already exists.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Holmes

[MigL]

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

Seems contradictory to me, how can you say its always been there and then at the same time hold out for the prospect that it hasn't?

No, invoking the 'supernatural' relinquishes all hope of ever understanding.
But, we may someday understand how, or why, the universe has always been there. A valid quantum Gravity theory will get us much closer to knowing what happened in the first instants of time.

And I really don't expect the equations to plot out the face of God.

[Holmes]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, invoking the 'supernatural' relinquishes all hope of ever understanding.
But, we may someday understand how, or why, the universe has always been there. A valid quantum Gravity theory will get us much closer to knowing what happened in the first instants of time.

And I really don't expect the equations to plot out the face of God.

The explanation for origins cannot have equations because equations express relationships between things that already exist you cannot have equations, laws until something exists, the universe needs to exist before scientific theories can exist.

God is the means by which we explain what cannot be otherwise scientifically explained, it is inescapable, it is logic and it is not complex to understand.

There are some here, perhaps you, who are actually adherents of scientism rather than science, this is the source of much confusion.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Holmes

[exchemist]

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

This nonsense is old enough to have been parodied ages ago.

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.”

That limerick was composed by a Catholic priest and scholar, Mgr. Ronald Knox, in relation to Bishop Berkeley's ideas. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

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

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Except for, where did god come from?

 

21 minutes ago, Holmes said:

What do you mean "except"? since when does the presence of new questions invalidate an explanation?

Did I stutter again?

It means you haven’t vanished the deep problems/questions. You’ve merely displaced them, but they very much still remain contrary to your assertions otherwise. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by iNow

[Holmes]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Did I stutter again?

It means you haven’t vanished the deep questions. You’ve merely displaced them 

And so? show me an explanation in science that does not refer at some level to things that are not themselves explained.

Science is reductionist, things are reduced to other things and no matter what it is we are dealing with there are always things yet to be explained.

This is exactly what Feynman explains here in the video I posted already, perhaps you missed it:

So if you are wont to reject explanations that raise further questions you might as well reject all of science my friend.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Holmes

[exchemist]

18 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I stated this early on when I said that the explanation for the presence of the universe is not and cannot be, scientific.

I'm doing so out of a respect for logic.

Once again I have made it clear that this is not a scientific explanation, hoping, dreaming, believing that there is a scientific explanation is a delusion, it is hopeless for the reasons I've labored to bring to your attention.

It is the impossibility of a scientific explanation that leads to the suggestion it was a supernatural event, not random, not subject to law but the ultimate source of law.

I asked already and nobody has ventured to answer - can you envisage a scientific theory that has no axioms? can you envisage a scientific theory that has no laws? that does not refer to material quantities?

Here is the only form that a scientific theory of origins can take:

This is what your left with when you are forced to scientifically explain what exists without relying on what already exists.

Good. So we are doing metaphysics here, rather than science.

It then comes down to individual preference whether one feels the need to try to force an explanation for which there is no  evidence, or whether one is content to say that where  the evidence stops, that's where I stop demanding answers.

There is nothing remotely "inescapable" about a God hypothesis, unless you demand that every question must be answered, whether we have any supporting evidence or not - in other words, that any answer, even made up one, is preferable to no answer.  

 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by exchemist

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I asked already and nobody has ventured to answer - can you envisage a scientific theory that has no axioms? can you envisage a theory that has no laws? that does not refer to material quantities?

Why would you want to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.

5 minutes ago, Holmes said:

God is the means by which we explain what cannot be otherwise scientifically explained, it is inescapable, it is logic and it is not complex to understand..

 

The usual cop out nonsense. Ancient man saw and claimed deities in the Sun, Moon, Mountains, etc, and probably in some situations, still do today. But voila! then science came along and explained such wonders via natural means, rather then the continuing raising of unscientific mythical fairy tales. Invoking God is unscientific in the extreme, much like ghosts, goblins and Bigfoot.

[MigL]

6 minutes ago, Holmes said:

There are some here, perhaps you, who are actually adherents of scientism rather than science, this is the source of much confusion.

Absolutely, scientism AND science, not rather than.
And being a scientist, I base that on the observation that Science has worked out a lot better for humanity than Religion.

[Holmes]

9 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Good. So we are doing metaphysics here, rather than science.

Science cannot be decoupled from metaphysics, that's the true take away here.

Quote

It then comes down to individual preference whether one feels the need to try to force an explanation for which there is no  evidence, or whether one is content to say that where  the evidence stops, that's where I stop demanding answers. 

I asked already and nobody has ventured to answer - can you envisage a scientific theory that has no axioms? can you envisage a scientific theory that has no laws? that does not refer to material quantities?

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

Absolutely, scientism AND science, not rather than.
And being a scientist, I base that on the observation that Science has worked out a lot better for humanity than Religion.

This is unfortunate, I am not and have not been discussing religion, you're in danger of creating a strawman post so be careful, I'm sure its not deliberate but be vigilante.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Why would you want to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.

 

The usual cop out nonsense. Ancient man saw and claimed deities in the Sun, Moon, Mountains, etc, and probably in some situations, still do today. But voila! then science came along and explained such wonders via natural means, rather then the continuing raising of unscientific mythical fairy tales. Invoking God is unscientific in the extreme, much like ghosts, goblins and Bigfoot.

Shall I respond in kind? is that how you want to "debate" the usual atheist vacuous nonsense? is this how you want to speak to me and me to you?

I'm quite capable of debating at that primitive emotional level if that's what suits you.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Holmes

[exchemist]

Just now, Holmes said:

Science cannot be decoupled from metaphysics, that's the true take away here.

I asked already and nobody has ventured to answer - can you envisage a scientific theory that has no axioms? can you envisage a scientific theory that has no laws? that does not refer to material quantities?

I am not aware of any axioms in any theory of science. Axioms belong in logic and mathematics, surely? 

And I do not see the relevance of all this about laws and material quantities to the untestable hypothesis of a First Cause. 

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Holmes said:

This is unfortunate, I am not and have not been discussing religion, you're in danger of creating a strawman post so be careful, I'm sure its not deliberate but be vigilante.

Despite of course being in the "religion" forum, and plenty of inferences to supernatural creation.

12 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Shall I respond in kind? is that how you want to "debate" the usual atheist vacuous nonsense? is this how you want to speak to me and me to you?

I'm quite capable of debating at that primitive emotional level if that's what suits you.

Why not just invalidate what I have said. Let me sum it up.

[1] Creationism/God/deities is an unscientific explantion.

[2] Ancient man saw "God"or magic everywhere as detailed.

[3] The reason why he/she saw God, was that no other explantion was available

[4] Science finally through the process of gathering knowledge and standing on the shoulders of giants, eliminated much of that myth. [the myth of God being the Sun, Moon etc.

18 minutes ago, Holmes said:

This is exactly what Feynman explains here in the video I posted already, perhaps you missed it:

So if you are wont to reject explanations that raise further questions you might as well reject all of science my friend.

Ahh, one of my favourite videos. Actually what Feynman does is explain to a novice, the magnetic force, an detailed how that explanation depends largely on who he is explaining it to. I dare say we all have been in situations where an expert/professional maybe trying to explain a process to us, and we may ask him to dumb it down.

Your final remark about the need to reject all of science, does absolutely nothing for whatever you are trying to convey here. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by beecee

[MigL]

13 minutes ago, Holmes said:

This is unfortunate, I am not and have not been discussing religion, you're in danger of creating a strawman post so be careful,

You suggested I was an adherent of scientism, not science, and I simply offered my reasons for being one.
I did not imply you were an adherent of religion, so I have no reason to 'be careful'.

[Kartazion]

9 hours 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.

Like some kind of DNA from the universe with a way forward?

10 hours ago, studiot said:

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

As the spirituality? Or do you have another example to define that immaterial processess without material objects in this OP context?

I hesitated to write this for fear of being irrelevant.

On 6/28/2021 at 10:45 PM, exchemist said:

It is what the theory predicts and observation is in line with that prediction. 

What prediction are you talking about?

This prediction must be related to the OP.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

It means you haven’t vanished the deep problems/questions. You’ve merely displaced them, but they very much still remain contrary to your assertions otherwise. 

3 hours ago, Holmes said:

And so?

Let me just quote you from earlier in this thread as my response:

 

On 6/28/2021 at 1:19 PM, Holmes said:

Is that a rebuttal?

8 hours ago, Holmes said:

[This] hardly amounts to a rebuttal of anything I've said.

 

[Kartazion]

10 hours ago, exchemist said:

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".

 

Very well said.

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

 

What prediction are you talking about?

This prediction must be related to the OP.

The prediction that there should be uncaused events. I think that's fairly clear from the context of the discussion. 

[Kartazion]

13 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The prediction that there should be uncaused events. I think that's fairly clear from the context of the discussion. 

What is an uncaused event please ?

[exchemist]

20 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

What is an uncaused event please ?

This has been discussed at length in the thread. 

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This has been discussed at length in the thread. 

Discussed but not answered. (I am still waiting for an answer to when I put this question)

[joigus]

"God did it" looks more like the blank sheet of paper that you've shown before, @Holmes.

What god did it? Enki? Quetzalcoátl? How did he (or she, or it) do it? Why?

You're playing semantic games. We now know something very much like the inflaton field explains structure formation in the universe. Why that happened and what this inflaton field is, etc is unknown. It explains planar large-scale structure, horizons problem, absence of monopoles...

According to your "explanation", did god hate monopoles?

The parametrics is by no means satisfactorily explained in the inflationary models. But,

It must have had a very gentle slope and a very long time to evolve previous to the inflationary epoch. It must have had a very steep slope, dominated by friction, during the inflationary era. It must have bounced back in so-called re-heating. Those assumptions pretty damn well explain structure formation. Problem is, you need to assume parameters (those are the assumptions (axioms) that seem to bother you so much when they involve numbers and mathematical structure). Arguably, all physical theories are parametrizations in a context that we have very good reasons to believe is what physics looks like (a quantum field theory.)

Did God like to play with scalar-field slopes? What's your explanation for planarity, horizon problem, and monopole absence?

Answer: blank piece of paper.

That's sarcasm.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by joigus
minor stylistic correction