2 2
mbohu

Inconsistencies with Atheism

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, mbohu said:

1. (Material) Science is true
2. (Material) Science describes the TOTAL of everything that exists
3. Morality exists

2) is not true.  It does not, for example, explain the popularity of Pee Wee Herman or Miller Lite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

2) is not true.  It does not, for example, explain the popularity of Pee Wee Herman or Miller Lite.

:rofl:
But seriously. If you believe in a reductionist materialist world it does. Every single thing that happens is explained by the simple progression of the evolution equations.

I am not saying that we can currently calculate them out--or that we can write an explanation of HOW exactly it happens, but we know that it is explained by it. There is nothing else that makes Pee Wee Herman popular, but a simple progression of physical events, ultimately explained by the equations.
@wolfriverjoe misunderstands me there too. I am not saying that reductionist materialists say they can specifically explain or calculate out how everything happens (i.e. how consciousness is exactly created, etc.) BUT I am saying that they clearly think that it is simply explained by those same physical laws and equations (even if we may have to refine the equations to explain it) 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

It has nothing to do with the fact that your assumptions are based on the idea that we actually understand what's going on in the brain and can understand how 'consciousness' operates. 

We don't and we can't. 

So, then the question is, do you actually agree with me, or: Are you saying that even though we cannot explain it--you know for certain that the eventual explanation is only an expansion on existing principles of science. Nothing more.

If you are saying this, then it would have been good to watch the video, because in it she points out one of the existing principles of material science and that is that the "evolution equations" are time reversible.
This means that every specific state of matter can ONLY result in one specific future state of matter, and you can reverse this to find that from every current state of matter you can calculate back, from what unique, previous state of matter it resulted. It doesn't mean that we can do this in practice, because our calculations can only be exact, if we have ALL the data that is part of the state of matter, which we almost never have (we do not know the location and vector of every atom in the brain--or in quantum mechanical terms: we do not have the wave function of all particles comprising the brain) But IN PRINCIPLE, if we had them, the next state of the brain (and all the states into eternity) would be completely determined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, mbohu said:

I am not saying that reductionist materialists say they can specifically explain or calculate out how everything happens (i.e. how consciousness is exactly created, etc.) BUT I am saying that they clearly think that it is simply explained by those same physical laws and equations (even if we may have to refine the equations to explain it) 

But why are you saying that when you clearly don't think they have to think that?

You think there is a loophole in the physics you are using to prove the above point that would allow your consciousness realm to affect the physical world, breaking the simple chain of mathematical progress. But if it's a loophole for your idea, it's a loophole for everything else as well. Everything is either preditable cause and effect or it isn't. And if it isn't, you don't get to say why it isn't because with all due respect you sure as hell aren't smart enough to figure that out on your own. No-one is.

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mbohu said:

This means that every specific state of matter can ONLY result in one specific future state of matter, and you can reverse this to find that from every current state of matter you can calculate back, from what unique, previous state of matter it resulted. It doesn't mean that we can do this in practice, because our calculations can only be exact, if we have ALL the data that is part of the state of matter, which we almost never have (we do not know the location and vector of every atom in the brain--or in quantum mechanical terms: we do not have the wave function of all particles comprising the brain) But IN PRINCIPLE, if we had them, the next state of the brain (and all the states into eternity) would be completely determined.

Which, again, means that you are in the same boat as the rest of us. Your consciousness realm existing seperate to the material realm is completely and utterly irrelevant. Anything that the self aware, conscious, independent free will part of you thinks about in the consciousness realm would have absolutely zero impact on what the material you thinks, says and does in the material realm. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other unless the science does not mean that everything has to be pre-determined. 

So, again, if atheism is incosistent because it doesn't allow for morality, your worldview is equally inconsistent because it doesn't allow for it either. If your worldview does allow for morality, then so  does atheism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mbohu said:

Sorry, just had to: This video explains best what I mean. Since brains are not black holes and other than for black holes all evolution equations are time reversible (even quantum equations, which I previously wasn't sure about), there is simply nothing that could be called "moral choice" if your view of the world makes consciousness only a phenomenon of brain activity.

To make sure, @JerryBaumchen and others: I am NOT saying that YOU cannot be moral if you are an Atheist (in the sense of "material reality alone exists"), but that, if your view is entirely correct, NO ONE can be moral. (or otherwise the definition of the word "moral" would be entirely meaningless)

Here is the video: 

 

But then. . . .  .

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-black-hole-information-paradox-comes-to-an-end-20201029/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mbohu said:

:rofl:
But seriously. If you believe in a reductionist materialist world it does. Every single thing that happens is explained by the simple progression of the evolution equations.
 

But scientists know that is not true.  Because of Heisenberg, we know that some things are not knowable.  It's not that they are hard to know - it's that they are impossible to know.

So no, every single thing that happens is not explainable by equations and never will be.
 

Quote

This means that every specific state of matter can ONLY result in one specific future state of matter

Nope.  Schrodinger's Cat is a simple example where this is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, billvon said:

But scientists know that is not true.  Because of Heisenberg, we know that some things are not knowable.  It's not that they are hard to know - it's that they are impossible to know.

So no, every single thing that happens is not explainable by equations and never will be.
 

Nope.  Schrodinger's Cat is a simple example where this is not true.

No, I thought the same--but as she explained in the video, and as I did verify to my best ability with some people in the field, this seems to be not entirely the case:

Both, the Schroedinger's Cat example and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle refer to the problem of measurement. The problem of measurement is the only place where that uncertainty exists--at least according to how it seems to be understood at present.

What that means is that the wave function calculations of quantum mechanics are 100% predictable and are also time reversible in the same sense that the functions of classical physics are. So, if you know the wave functions of a set of particles at one time, you can 100% calculate the wave functions of that set of particles at a future time (and you can reverse this to calculate the original wave functions from the future state)

It is only when you introduce specific measurements that you cannot say which way the specific measurement is going to go in an individual case. HOWEVER: The ways it CAN go and how likely the specific measurements are going to be, is still COMPLETELY determined by the wave functions, which are deterministic.

So yes, and to Jakee's previous point, this is actually ONE place where there could be an interaction from something OTHER than these deterministic functions. The question is how meaningful it is, and if there is something more to it than "chance" that can determine the specific outcome of a measurement.

So to your point, the wave functions are knowable and deterministic. When you make specific measurements of one property (location, for example) you cannot at the same time also make specific measurements of another property (the vector of movement, for example)--so at that moment the 2nd property is unknowable--but only insofar as specific measurement is concerned. You can still know that its value is determined by the parameters of the wave function. That is, what to my understanding, the Heisenberg principle says.

Does this explain Pee Wee Herman? Well.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mbohu said:

Both, the Schroedinger's Cat example and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle refer to the problem of measurement. The problem of measurement is the only place where that uncertainty exists--at least according to how it seems to be understood at present.

That uncertainty makes every subsequent thing uncertain.

Quote

So, if you know the wave functions of a set of particles at one time, you can 100% calculate the wave functions of that set of particles at a future time

But you can't know them, so you 100% can't.

Quote

So to your point, the wave functions are knowable and deterministic. When you make specific measurements of one property (location, for example) you cannot at the same time also make specific measurements of another property (the vector of movement, for example)--so at that moment the 2nd property is unknowable

You can't say they're both knowable and unknowable.

Quote

So yes, and to Jakee's previous point, this is actually ONE place where there could be an interaction from something OTHER than these deterministic functions. The question is how meaningful it is, and if there is something more to it than "chance" that can determine the specific outcome of a measurement.

So again, we're back to the fact that we either have free will or we don't. Everything is either pre-determined or it isn't. If it is, it's pre-determined regardless of your imaginary consciousness realm. If it isn't, you have absolutely no clue whatsoever why it isn't or how it works. Therefore, you either have no evidence for any inconsistency with atheism, or if you insist that you do, you must admit that your own worldview suffers from the exact same inconsistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mbohu said:

The problem of measurement is the only place where that uncertainty exists--at least according to how it seems to be understood at present.

In a way, yes.  There is no measurement you can make on that cat (before you open the box) to determine whether it is alive or dead.  In fact, it is both until it is observed.  Once you observe it, the cat "collapses" into one of two states (if the conditions for the gendanken are met.)

Quote

What that means is that the wave function calculations of quantum mechanics are 100% predictable and are also time reversible in the same sense that the functions of classical physics are. So, if you know the wave functions of a set of particles at one time, you can 100% calculate the wave functions of that set of particles at a future time (and you can reverse this to calculate the original wave functions from the future state)

The math is indeed predictable and reversible.  But the phenomena they represent are not.  You can use math to predict the energy and position of any particle.  You cannot, in reality, measure both - and thus there will be a fundamental, and unalterable, lack of knowledge about the future.

Shorter version - math is the map, not the territory.

Quote

You can still know that its value is determined by the parameters of the wave function.

Yes.  But you cannot know what will actually happen to that system in the real world.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yes.  But you cannot know what will actually happen to that system in the real world.

Well, that is only one interpretation and you interpret it that way, because to you, the "real world" is the world of particles and "things" you can observe. That's because this is what you are used to as a human observing physical objects.
So to you the particle does not "exist" while it is in the indeterminate state of the wave function--but that is just an interpretation. Your perception of the particle is also just a map--NOT the real world. It is a map in the sense that it is a representation of a phenomena that is neither a particle NOR a wave, but something that we simply do not understand and that may be beyond the theoretical capacity of humans to understand--which is why we have to represent it using two partial concepts.

I would argue that to most physicists the wave function state is the "real world". It describes the complete state of the particle and it is predictable and the calculations can tell them EVERYTHING about what that particle will do and how it affects the "real world". The collapsed state of the measurement is more like an artifact--very important to our every day human perception (we like things to be in ONE place at a time) but almost irrelevant in terms of its effects on the "real, real world."

In regards to Schrödinger's cat: The same woman in the video I shared, has a video on that as well, and it seems that the current interpretation of the standard model of quantum physics actually interprets this thought experiment in a way that the cat is always either alive or dead (even though we don't know which, until we open the box)--as I understand it: because the apparatus that connects the decaying atom to the vile of poison, is in itself a measurement system that already collapses the wave function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, olofscience said:

No, that's why you have the Copenhagen interpretation of the wavefunction.

I don't think it does contradict what I wrote:

The Copenhagen Interpretation has three primary parts:

 

  • The wave function is a complete description of a wave/particle. Any information that cannot be derived from the wave function does not exist. For example, a wave is spread over a broad region, therefore does not have a specific location.

     

  • When a measurement of the wave/particle is made, its wave function collapses. In the case of momentum, a wave packet is made of many waves each with its own momentum value. Measurement reduced the wave packet to a single wave and a single momentum.

     

  • If two properties are related by an uncertainty relation, no measurement can simultaneously determine both properties to a precision greater than the uncertainty relation allows. So, if we measure a wave/particles position, its momentum becomes uncertain.

(source: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec15.html )

So, the very first sentence is "The wave function is a complete description...." and "Any information that cannot be derived from the wave function does not exist" So: The wave function is describing the "real world", even if it does not give us simple location, as we are used to.

 

Also: even though it is the most commonly cited interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is just that, an interpretation. For example:

Quote

But because Bohr’s view on complementarity has wrongly been associated with positivism and subjectivism, much confusion still seems to stick to the Copenhagen interpretation. Don Howard (2004) argues, however, that what is commonly known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, regarded as representing a unitary Copenhagen point of view, differs significantly from Bohr’s complementarity interpretation. He holds that “the Copenhagen interpretation is an invention of the mid-1950s, for which Heisenberg is chiefly responsible, [and that] various other physicists and philosophers, including Bohm, Feyerabend, Hanson, and Popper, hav[e] further promoted the invention in the service of their own philosophical agendas”

(source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ )

Anyway, that stuff is fascinating, but I am not sure it is clear in which way this affects questions of determinism and consciousness--and in any way I do not believe that most reductionist materialists base their ideas on these concepts. Most still base their ideas on a traditional interpretation of classical physics, which they do believe to be deterministic.

Edited by mbohu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Well, that is only one interpretation and you interpret it that way, because to you, the "real world" is the world of particles and "things" you can observe. That's because this is what you are used to as a human observing physical objects.  So to you the particle does not "exist" while it is in the indeterminate state of the wave function--but that is just an interpretation. Your perception of the particle is also just a map--NOT the real world. It is a map in the sense that it is a representation of a phenomena that is neither a particle NOR a wave, but something that we simply do not understand and that may be beyond the theoretical capacity of humans to understand--which is why we have to represent it using two partial concepts.

That may well be.  It may be that we are unaware of a deterministic universe and because of our limitations cannot be aware of it.  In that case, anything that can affect us is in fact nondeterministic - because if we cannot be aware of the factors that lead to it BEING deterministic, it is indeterminate.

(This is basically Musk's argument, which is that we are living in a simulation of some sort.  Agency is different but results are the same.)

Quote

but I am not sure it is clear in which way this affects questions of determinism and consciousness

Because if you fundamentally cannot determine the outcome of something, then there's no predestination.

 

Quote

 Most still base their ideas on a traditional interpretation of classical physics, which they do believe to be deterministic.

I assume you are not saying "most physicists."  If you mean most people, I'd agree with you there,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billvon said:

I assume you are not saying "most physicists."  If you mean most people, I'd agree with you there,

Right, not physicists. I am talking about what I originally called "Atheists"--but since everyone is giving me crap about it, then called "reductionist materialists"--most of those--whatever you want to call them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jakee said:
Quote

So, if you know the wave functions of a set of particles at one time, you can 100% calculate the wave functions of that set of particles at a future time

But you can't know them, so you 100% can't.

Yes. you can. completely. The wave function is known and describes the particles completely. It just doesn't give you simple location. That's not a problem though--except for our expectations.

 

21 hours ago, jakee said:

Therefore, you either have no evidence for any inconsistency with atheism, or if you insist that you do, you must admit that your own worldview suffers from the exact same inconsistency.

I haven't mentioned my worldview--at least not in any completeness--so yes, and no.
I do not have any fixed worldview on this. I like some parts of the "Atheist" view, but I find inconsistencies with it. That's all I am pointing out.

I probably find it a bit presumptuous to have a fixed worldview on this particular issue. So I am looking for parts of philosophies/worldviews that make sense, but trying to eliminate the parts that are not consistent. That's what this thread is about.

I do lean towards certain ideas and I find others untenable (for example: a God imbued with human-like qualities that controls everything, or a world entirely devoid of anything but mechanistic externalities)--but beyond that, I think it makes no sense to have (and defend) a fixed view on something that clearly we have a very limited set of knowledge about.

My personal experience led me through the study of physics (although again, to be honest: I did not complete my degree in it) as well as a period of 10 years of intense meditation and monk-like existence. Both explorations gave me some insights that I feel are relevant--yet none of it gave me a fixed worldview...if anything it made me drop much of what I had in that respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mbohu said:

Yes. you can. completely. The wave function is known and describes the particles completely. It just doesn't give you simple location. That's not a problem though--except for our expectations.

I agree.  But it also means we can't accurately predict the outcome of many QM experiments - which, when scaled up, means you can't predict the outcome of many real world experiments.  (While QM largely becomes invisible at large scales, you can still have outlying events as the result of an averaging of a lot of anomalies at the microscopic level.)

Knowing how the math works does not equal knowing what the outcome will be in terms of real-world results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

I agree.  But it also means we can't accurately predict the outcome of many QM experiments - which, when scaled up, means you can't predict the outcome of many real world experiments.  (While QM largely becomes invisible at large scales, you can still have outlying events as the result of an averaging of a lot of anomalies at the microscopic level.)

Knowing how the math works does not equal knowing what the outcome will be in terms of real-world results.

Yes, I think that may be true and I would actually like this to be true, because wouldn't that leave the possibility open that something other than deterministic materialistic events, is having an influence on the physical world. This would at least leave the door open for how the realm of consciousness (or choice, if you will) CAN affect the physical world.

I am just saying that generally deterministic materialistic atheists do NOT believe this is the case. Nor do most Physicists believe it has anything to do with consciousness or free will. (Although I recently talked to one in the field, who does think the two may be related)
Even I am somewhat agnostic about this, and do not think that this feature of quantum mechanics necessarily has anything to do with consciousness or choice (nor does it need to in order to allow for consciousness to be a reality that is not completely determined by physical matter)

It's also a matter of the definition of "real world". It used to be that most theoretical physicists were very interested in the philosophical implications of what they found. Physics was really meant to not only give us practical results but also help us understand our world and our place in it. Einstein was a prime example, and even Heisenberg was interested in this.
However, modern Quantum Physics has gone away from this (it may have something to do with the difficulties of understanding their own theories, that eventually led to the Copenhagen Interpretation). Most modern quantum physicists like the saying: "shut up and calculate", meaning: don't worry about what this means and simply use the calculations to get extremely accurate and useful results that you can use to predict events and build machines, etc.
So to them, the mathematical formulas are the "real world", our perceptions and even measurements to some extent, have become secondary (because they are indeterminate and "troublesome")
I think that's a loss--but that's a different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 5:39 PM, mbohu said:

I would argue that to most physicists the wave function state is the "real world". It describes the complete state of the particle and it is predictable and the calculations can tell them EVERYTHING about what that particle will do and how it affects the "real world".

Go on then - predict the future of a particle without measuring it first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mbohu said:

Yes. you can. completely. 

No. Not completely. Here, let me prove it:

Quote

It just doesn't give you simple location. 

See?

Quote

I haven't mentioned my worldview--at least not in any completeness--so yes, and no.

No, not in completeness. but you have mentioned already the parts that suffer from the same inconsistency that you're saying atheism has, and you've offered absolutely nothing to resolve that inconsistency.

Which is kind of ok though because it's an inconsistency that does not, any any functional level, matter. Say you're right and the entire universe is pre-determined. So what? So morality doesn't really exist even though we think it does - well, we're just pre-determined to think that and there's nothing we can do about it anyway, so what's the problem?

Quote

I think it makes no sense to have (and defend) a fixed view on something that clearly we have a very limited set of knowledge about.

Then why are you dead set on defending your initial premise in this thread even though it's so clearly flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a weird thread to catch up on. It seems to have nothing to do with either atheism or morals anymore now that the goalposts have moved so many times. It seems like there are a lot of arguments now about whether or not free will exists, but what I've lost now is: What is the overall point mbohu is currently trying to defend? Is it simply that free will exists? Is anyone refuting that?

I'm always amused with people bring up Schrödinger's cat, as it seems to *always* be misinterpreted. People seem to try to use it to support superposition theory when in reality Schrödinger's entire point in the thought experiment was to show how silly it was. His point was that this theory says a cat should be both alive and dead, and that obviously isn't possible, therefore the theory is wrong. This idea that it was some serious explanation for how a cat could actually be both alive and dead is hilarious and infuriating to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, nwt said:

This has been a weird thread to catch up on.

I stopped doing more than skimming it quite a while ago. I am glad that the participants seem to enjoy it. I will say that is has always been a point of contention whether free will exists or not. I long ago came to a personal conclusion that it is another of the things that we can never know. And that it does not matter.

Edited by gowlerk
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I will say that is has always been a point of contention whether free will exists or not.

For anyone interested in fiction exploring these concepts, "Devs" was one of my more enjoyed tv shows of this year. Made by the same guy as "Ex Machina" and "Annihilation", so be prepared for slower pacing but great cinematography. It was a one-and-done season as well, which I think improves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2