Conversation between a biologist and a philosopher—has man become a semi-god?

January 4, 2018 by Jean-Pierre Jacquot And Roger Pouivet, The Conversation
Credit: karamel/Pixabay

Two professors from the University of Lorraine continue the exchanges initiated earlier in "Self-transformation and religion" and "Identity, metamorphosis and the self". Here they address the question of whether man has reached a "divine" status.

The proposition of Jean‑Pierre Jacquot

To answer the question, it is first useful to ask another one: why in the first place was the notion of God "invented"? It obviously seems a priori that living beings devoid of the capacity of abstraction characteristic of mankind live more or less comfortably in its absence. What is it then, and why was it conceived? It seems to me that the answers to those questions are tightly connected to two questions linked to intellectual curiosity and a third to existential anguish.

The mysteries of matter and life

Possibly from the moment that all humans have had access to reasoning, two mysteries have been the subject of intense speculation: the creation of matter and life. In the incapacity to provide a clear and rational answer to these questions, it was simple and comfortable to postulate the notion of a superior being responsible for the creation of matter and life. The third point, existential angst, can be translated into the question "What will happen to me after my death?". A calming answer is provided by several religions in the possibility of a survival of the soul, possibly in the form of reincarnation in some philosophies.

In our two first exchanges on the nature of the self, I have proposed that the self is by nature fluctuating, if not unreal, conditioned by the constant exchanges of matter between a given individual and its environment. I also indicated that upon the disappearance/disintegration of an organism, its material parts are redistributed in other organisms, an observation that is finally not so distant from the philosophy of reincarnation or metempsychosis.

It is by no means clear that the latter postulate will be sufficient to calm the anxieties of a majority of humans, but it seems to at least partially answer the question of a possible survival after death. Still, the mysteries of the creation of matter and life remain. In several religions it is suggested that God has first created matter and in a second step turned this inanimate matter into life. In the last decades, biology has brought essential information explaining how biological organisms can arise from inanimate matter. The first crucial experiments concerned "prebiotic" chemistry where Stanley Miller and other colleagues demonstrated as early as 1953 that by submitting a mixture of gases and liquids (ammoniac, methane, hydrogen and water) to high-voltage electric pulses mimicking the early atmosphere of Earth, it was possible to create the of life (nitrogen-containing bases of nucleic acids and amino acids).

This experiment demonstrated a clear porosity between the mineral and biological worlds. It has been argued that because prebiotic chemistry occurred several billions years ago, there has been more than enough time for life to assemble spontaneously from those building blocks. This possibility is of course vigorously fought by creationists for reasons easy enough to understand, but nevertheless seems highly likely given the time frame considered. Thus it seems not unreasonable to postulate that the mystery of the creation of life no longer exists (recent discoveries on the chemical composition of meteorites suggest that they may have also participated to the initial seeding of organic molecules).

Synthetic biology

Based on advances in molecular biology since the 1980s, more recent experiments have led to the creation of new biological organisms. Craig Venter and his team succeeded in creating a new version of a bacterium called Mycoplasma containing a simplified genome. This experiment is the first describing the creation of an entire biological organism that did not exist previously. Still, at that stage Venter and his team have only introduced new DNA into an existing cell deprived of its own genetic information and thus technically there remains a number of steps for the creation of a totally new biological organism, but this discovery is a key step in that direction. The possibility of creating de novo viruses (organisms that are simpler than bacteria) is already a reality, let's hope for the best of mankind.

Schematic of the Miller-Urey experiment. Credit: Carny/Wikimedia, CC BY

To go back to the philosophic aspects and the three themes that were defined above as tightly linked to the development of religions, it seems to me that we can indeed consider that mankind has indeed reached the status of semi-god – or third of a god, as the creation of life is only one of the three topics raised initially. We are now capable to create life from matter. I will explain in another chapter why this does not make us in any way superior to other living beings. In conclusion, the reader will note with interest that we have addressed only two of the three questions that may be linked to the notion of a superior being. The third, the creation of matter, has not been addressed and certainly remains the biggest unsolved mystery. Unless the physicists indicate to us that matter can be created from the void, we may still need the notion of God at that level.

The response of Roger Pouivet

Is God a human invention? In the beginning of his article, Jean-Pierre Jacquot suggests that the notion of God was "invented". Hence, God is a human creation who does not exist any more than Santa Claus or Superman. This concept has recently been made explicit by Pascal Boyer in Religion Explained . Let's notice that Jean-Pierre Jacquot wrote "invented" with quote marks. Is he hinting that God is a strange invention? He also postulates that other living organisms can live rather comfortably in the absence of this concept. God is thus only a mere construction of the human mind and this is exactly what Pascal Boyer suggests. In this way, man answers his curiosity and calms his existential angst.

The genealogy of the idea of God as a need to explain and comfort is a constant in the philosophical thinking – in particular among atheists. Setting aside all historical references, I will only comment on a few aspects.

It is right to say that human beings want to understand why there is something rather than nothing and why things are as they are rather than being different. It is also true that religions seek to explain these questions, but they do so in a variety of ways. For example, polytheistic religions do not believe in a single creator, while pantheist religions do not describe the creation of matter and life as divine. Some religious doctrines are interested in how everything stems from a principle independent from the notion of creation. This constitutes a large number of religions that are not concerned by Jean-Pierre Jacquot's argument.

Naming the mystery

Monotheism indeed believes in a unique God, the creator of everything. But was this God really "created" in order to provide a clear answer to the question of the creation of matter and life? This would provide an answer, but not a "clear" one or even a fully satisfactory one in the sense that once stated, there is nothing else to ask. Those who assert that God is the Creator have given a name to a mystery rather than to solve it. Reading the Old Testament reveals that the answer given to those who had received Revelation was in fact unclear. The assertion that God was the Creator of the material and biological worlds seems to have led the believers to wonder what they should then believe and do. In what way should we live if we are only God's creatures? Is the answer of a God who created everything so simple and comfortable as hinted by Jean-Pierre Jacquot? I believe that it is most likely neither.

For Saint Augustin or Saint Thomas, the scenario of Genesis should not be taken literally and in this way they are not creationists in the sense of the term used today. In a recent book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism, Alvin Plantinga affirms that Christian Theism and evolutionary biology – let's say everything treated by Jean-Pierre Jacquot in the second part of his article – are in fact totally compatible. One can even postulate that modern science was born in part from the idea that reason has created everything and made it understandable, a far cry from being opposed to religion, a scenario preferred by free thinkers but that the history of sciences does not corroborate.

Do we need comfort?

Let us turn now to the need for comfort. In what way is it reassuring to know that you have been created? After all, wouldn't it be more comforting to believe that we simply stem from a strictly material process that saw the appearance of life first and then of thinking organisms? A non-creationist theory is by no means less comforting… In addition, if after our time on Earth there is another life, it is perhaps even less comforting. According to Christian beliefs, the life after death is also the one of a person who will go to trial and could possibly be damned. The unfaithful for whom everything stops at death might be sad to leave that life, perhaps worried about the future of his offspring, but might also think "That's it! I am leaving that hell on earth that my life has become". Isn't that comforting, too? I am sceptical of the value of using the argument of comfort (like a child would use a teddy bear) for justifying the creation of God.

I do believe that we did not "invent" the notion of God. If God exists, the fact that we, its creature, finally becomes aware of our creator is not so surprising. If we have a notion of God, isn't it proof that it exists? Thinking that way is an ontological proof of the existence of God. In this respect, I recommend the writings of Anselm of Canterbury, who in the 11th Century formulated this much better than I do now.

Explore further: Are the world's religions ready for ET?

Related Stories

Are the world's religions ready for ET?

September 30, 2014

In 1930, Albert Einstein was asked for his opinion about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. "Other beings, perhaps, but not men," he answered. Then he was asked whether science and religion conflict. "Not ...

Is your religion ready to meet ET?

November 6, 2014

How will humankind react after astronomers hand over rock-solid scientific evidence for the existence of life beyond the Earth? No more speculating. No more wondering. The moment scientists announce this discovery, everything ...

Recommended for you

How the building blocks of life may form in space

April 25, 2018

In a laboratory experiment that mimics astrophysical conditions, with cryogenic temperatures in an ultrahigh vacuum, scientists used an electron gun to irradiate thin sheets of ice covered in basic molecules of methane, ammonia ...

Why we need erasable MRI scans

April 25, 2018

Magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, is a widely used medical tool for taking pictures of the insides of our body. One way to make MRI scans easier to read is through the use of contrast agents—magnetic dyes injected into ...

Research gives new ray of hope for solar fuel

April 24, 2018

A team of Renewable Energy experts from the University of Exeter has pioneered a new technique to produce hydrogen from sunlight to create a clean, cheap and widely-available fuel.

100 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Ojorf
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
I do believe that we did not "invent" the notion of God. If God exists, the fact that we, its creature, finally becomes aware of our creator is not so surprising. If we have a notion of God, isn't it proof that it exists?


Well, if god existed its influence on the world would have been detected very long ago, and trust me, many have looked very carefully and for a very long time.
There really has been no reason to invents god(s) other than the psychological and that has long been explained.
Gigel
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
The influences of X-rays or the Great Attractor haven't been detected for tens of thousands of years but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't assume only what we detect or sense exists.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
To answer the question, it is first useful to ask another one: why in the first place was the notion of God "invented"?

Why the quotation marks?

It seems to me that the answers to those questions are tightly connected to two questions linked to intellectual curiosity and a third to existential anguish.

I'd add a third: The drive to do whatever the hell I want. It's a fundamental problem to do whatever I want but at the same time prohibit others from doing so (they might do something I don't like)... but there's no real, logical way to construct an argument that will give me that right and deny it to others. So what better way than to invent a power that gave me (but not others) that right?
"Monarch by god's grace...",
"In the name of god...",
"Holy/sacred/self-evident life/rights/order/truth/whatever..."
seem to be straightforward applications of this.

Of course you have to couple it with "god shall not be tested" - otherwise it all falls apart.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
the creation of matter and life.

Both of which are not a problem of explanation but a problem of definition.
The moniker 'life' is arbitrary. Every atom in a 'living' being behaves according to the same laws as every atom in a 'dead' object.
That this is just a problem of inventing a nonsensical label is particularly easy to see in our inability to define what life is and what it isn't.
Reincarnation and metempsychosis concepts are absurd philo-wankery for the same reason.

The 'problem' of matter is the same thing. Just because we experience it differently than, say, energy doesn't mean it *is* (fundamentally) something different. Since Einstein we know that the two are freely interchangeable so why stick to this false dichotomy? Sure, such a labeling is convenient when talking about stuff - but that doesn't mean it's a basis for a philosophical conundrum.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
The third, the creation of matter, has not been addressed and certainly remains the biggest unsolved mystery

The entire idea behind the word 'creation' might be flawed, too.

As humans we have a very linear experience of time. Therefore we have postulated that this is how time works for all future and all past. From Relativity we already know that this isn't so in extreme circumstances (e.g. inside the event horizon of black holes). The time around the Big Bang seems to me an even more extreme set of circumstances in which the idea of a linear time until (and particularly 'before') a singularity might not hold.

Especially if there is no 'before' (i.e. time as an intrinsic nature of spacetime which is only a relevant concept post-Big Bang) then the idea of creation - which is defined a *transition* from non-being to being - becomes nonsensical.
Eikka
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2018
If we have a notion of God, isn't it proof that it exists?


Apply the same idea to the notion of the boogeyman under the bed.

Notions like that can mean something exists by the fact that people collectively behave as if it does exist - because something which makes a difference in the world can be said to exist even if it exists only in virtue - but not before. Hence, if god exists because we have a notion of God, then God did not exist before we did, therefore we created God, God did not create us.

Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
The entire idea behind the word 'creation' might be flawed, too.


It's an empty word, as we do not know what "create" means in the universal sense. We know what it means in the human physical sense, where a creator takes something and makes something else out of it - but for the creation of everything the semantic breaks down and the word no longer describes anything.

So, whatever started the universe is "creator" - we've simply put a name on the event and pretend that naming is explaining.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
The influences of X-rays or the Great Attractor haven't been detected for tens of thousands of years but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't assume only what we detect or sense exists.


Not quite the same thing. They follow the laws of physics. We didn't know because it had not been observed, because the instruments had not yet been invented.

Why assume something exists if it is forever unobservable and doesn't interact with the universe at all? That really makes no sense. It might as well not exist and it doesn't.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2018
Why assume something exists if it is forever unobservable and doesn't interact with the universe at all? That really makes no sense. It might as well not exist and it doesn't.


Even worse. We don't exist for it.

The same principle goes both ways: if we can't observe God, then God can't observe us because there's no means by which it could obtain information about us without having an interaction with us. When God closes the gates of heaven, the world dissapears, for God.

That's always been the problem of mystical knowledge, because it doesn't answer how the supernatural couples down to the natural. If there's some sort of interaction, then the scope of "natural" simply extends to include God under the rules and laws of nature that govern everything, which means God can't be "from the outside".

There is no outside.

Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2018
Consider for example the problem of the invisible man. If his eyeball is invisible, then it cannot absorb photons, therefore he is blind. If his eyeballs do absorb light, then light is blocked and he is no longer the invisible man - at the very least we can see his eyes.

Likewise, if God cannot "absorb" anything we emit, any interaction or influence, then God is blind. If he does, then we can observe God by the very same mechanism of interaction as how God observes us.

Gigel
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
Why assume something exists if it is forever unobservable and doesn't interact with the universe at all? That really makes no sense. It might as well not exist and it doesn't.

I would not be too hasty to say God doesn't interact with the world. By the Bible, miracles seem to be his specialty. Moreover, he seems to reinforce a belief with more than 1 miracle (e.g. the 10 plagues of Egypt).

Even in contemporary history there are events that can be easily described as miracles. E.g. the apparitions at Fatima, especially the Miracle of the Sun, with many witnesses and above all with the fact it was predicted beforehand. And many more such events which occurred and are said to still occur.
Gigel
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
Consider for example the problem of the invisible man. If his eyeball is invisible, then it cannot absorb photons, therefore he is blind. If his eyeballs do absorb light, then light is blocked and he is no longer the invisible man - at the very least we can see his eyes.

Unless his eyes absorb little light which is then hugely amplified, which would make him not exactly invisible, but still practically so.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2018
Conversation between a biologist and a bowl of linguini. Thatsa soma spicy meataball eh?
I would not be too hasty to say God doesn't interact with the world. By the Bible, miracles seem to be his specialty. Moreover, he seems to reinforce a belief with more than 1 miracle (e.g. the 10 plagues of Egypt)
What about the miracle that a book about a people who never existed and events that never happened could nevertheless be an all-time best seller? Maybe the pasta bowl could enlighten us on that?

Yeah right.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2018
Even in contemporary history there are events that can be easily described as miracles
If you believe them then you will have to believe this

"...while Muhammad was in Mecca, Allah split the Moon as a miracle to the Meccans."

-as well as all the other equally valid and confirmed Muslim miracles.

And while you're at it you will have to acknowledge Hindu snake charmers, levitators, and faith healers, all validated by innumerable witnesses and recorded in holy texts.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
2 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2018
The influences of X-rays or the Great Attractor haven't been detected for tens of thousands of years but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't assume only what we detect or sense exists.


But we cannot assume what defeats logic and rationality and contradicts the laws of nature that we have already discovered and understood. A virtual figure that ridicules the laws of cause and effect falls into that category of mental trash.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2018
Do we value the reality and its truth that little? Why don't we just stick to the stable facts that we have already understood and continue to feverishly research the for the time being unknowns, without at the same time insisting to cover unknown terrain with random absurd crap to BELIEVE in? We know already that creating in our home universe is something continuously in full swing, it happens all around us, all the time. The (partially discovered) laws of physics, evolution, with a begin of finest energy at the starting point drive it ahead in this cosmos. No interference by anything or anyone is at play. So, one of the more interesting remaining questions is to find a model for the way these laws were originally ideated by the singular energy source.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Unless his eyes absorb little light which is then hugely amplified, which would make him not exactly invisible, but still practically so.


And by fiat, practically blind as well.

The lens of the eye has to focus light for the retina, and that would be more than apparent because there would be two floating lenses that distort the path of light.
Gigel
not rated yet Jan 07, 2018
And by fiat, practically blind as well.

The lens of the eye has to focus light for the retina, and that would be more than apparent because there would be two floating lenses that distort the path of light.

Not necessarily. The lens may process only a small fraction of light. Actually the whole body may interact with a small part of the light, which could make him practically invisible.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2018
But we cannot assume what defeats logic and rationality and contradicts the laws of nature that we have already discovered and understood. A virtual figure that ridicules the laws of cause and effect falls into that category of mental trash


Quite the contrary. Logic, rationality, and mental-trash, are elements of thought only, an emergent form in which a synthesis of experience is made by an evolved physical system. At best Reality is merely a limited reflection, which is subject to arbitrary conditions of this system (mind).

If one can empirically show that such concepts, as 'cause and effect', fail to order experience for the intuitive understanding at realms where we did not evolve, then one can show in principal that our knowledge of reality can be but at best a veiled reality, and therefore not itself omnipotent as if nothing could escape it's notice.

It might surprise you that quantum physics refutes causality, and many other such intuitive concepts.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
.... science studies 'phenomenal reality', which by definition implies that our scientific knowledge is subject to conditions which limits it's scope; If one proposes a metaphysical deity, it simply can not be refuted by science as by it's supposed definition it does not meet the conditions necessary for science. Metaphysics is by choice either meaningless within science, or extends beyond science,... in either case it is merely a belief.

[as an agnostic, I would choose 'meaningless', but would be forced to reject atheism as naïve].

EDIT: At best [phenomenal-] reality is merely a limited reflection,.... ['phenomenal reality' meaning 'our knowledge of' Reality].
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
Well, if god existed its influence on the world would have been detected very long ago, ....


Why assume something exists if it is forever unobservable and doesn't interact with the universe at all? That really makes no sense.


I will assume by "world" and "universe" that you're not making reference to a metaphysical thing, but rather as meaning just "totality of scientific knowledge".

Of course by "knowledge" a scientifically minded person could mean no more than, 'as experienced and inferred by a particular biologically emergent physical object that operates by its own emergent laws of synthesizing experience, and therefore is subject to contingent conditions of its evolution'.

Accepting this, then If one is to proposes that such a physical system could evolve from physicality to omnipotence in terms of its epistemological scope,.... one would be committing the same 'crime' as the theists.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
EDIT: Metaphysics is either meaningless within the context science, or extends beyond science as belief not subject to falsifiability.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
If we have a notion of God, isn't it proof that it exists?


Apply the same idea to the notion of the boogeyman under the bed.


You underestimate the ability of theologians and philosophers to render nothingness, merely convoluted and obscure.

The Ontological Argument, which is what you quoted in summary, is not dependent on that "we have a notion of God" but rather takes as a accepted premise the notion of god as,... omnipotence, omnipresence, absolute perfection, not deceitful, .... and then begins the argument from there.

It doesn't validate it, but no less than Descatres, Leibniz, Newton, etc followed variations of the argument, so one should at minimum respect it a bit more than oversimplifying it.

StudentofSpiritualTeaching
2 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2018
@Noumenon: be serious, which of the religious flavours does not blatantly contradict logic? Take your omnipotent, all-knowing, fault free God-figure. An entity that has achieved total, ultimate perfection has no direction to evolve anymore, it has reached an end-point and is doomed to immediate death. And how and why would something absolutely perfect be able to and busy with creating an imperfect universe? Ridiculous is too little an expression for that. Do you want to postulate that the almighty flying spaghetti monster is a fair thing to believe in, because we can't be certain about anything around us? As far as the pseudo-argument about quantum physics is concerned, we are talking about many pending discoveries at the sub-atomic level that will lead to a gradual updating and expansion of our known-about laws of physics. We know thus for example currently about 4 fundamental forces, my current working assumption is that there might be 3 more in the waiting to be discovered...
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
2 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2018
...and no, I don't "believe" in that.

There is no single credible case that challenges the universal law of cause and effect. Everyone is thus in charge of the own life, no matter how hard one begs to a phantasy figure for unfair favours and privileges or upwards delegation of personal responsibilities in life.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
@Noumenon: be serious, which of the religious flavours does not blatantly contradict logic?


Probably all of them if they make claims about phenomenal reality, they enter into the realm where science can refute them. I thought the subject was god.

Take your omnipotent, all-knowing, fault free God-figure.

It's not my definition, nor do I believe in such a thing,.... but if one is to argue against the notion of such a metaphysical being, then one should take it as given,... then one can see that such a notion is not subject to scientific investigation to be able to refute.

Do you want to postulate that the almighty flying spaghetti monster is a fair thing to believe in, because we can't be certain about anything around us?

Can it be subject to scientific investigation?

Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2018
As far as the pseudo-argument about quantum physics is concerned, we are talking about many pending discoveries at the sub-atomic level that will lead to a gradual updating and expansion of our known-about laws of physics.


The non-intuitive nature of quantum physics will always remain. It has been empirically discovered, independent of theory, that there can be no future discoveries of some hidden influence, that will render quantum physics intuitive as is classical physics. The facts established by experiment has shown there will always remain some element of scientific-realism which is refuted.

This doesn't mean my point is valid, but you will have to use a different counter point to it.


Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2018
There is no single credible case that challenges the universal law of cause and effect.


Quantum mechanics is manifestly indeterminate. For example, an energy state of an atom jumps from one level to another releasing a photon with frequency given by the energy difference (vh),.... there simply IS no cause / effect there.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
There is no single credible case that challenges the universal law of cause and effect.


Quantum mechanics is manifestly indeterminate. For example, an energy state of an atom jumps from one level to another releasing a photon with frequency given by the energy difference (vh),.... there simply IS no cause / effect there.

That we can determine at this point in time...

@Student of...
@Noumenon: be serious, which of the religious flavours does not blatantly contradict logic?

Buddhism was intentionally developed to NOT contradict with logic...
IT was simply created as way of conducting your life - without expectation...

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
"Conversation between a biologist and a philosopher—has man become a semi-god?"
Only in the minds of a few.
I think everyone else is pretty happy with themselves and - sane...
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1.4 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2018
OK, so a few words on some logical fallacies of Buddha's teaching. While containing a lot of worthy stuff, the presented overall model for our universe does not make much sense, as it provides zero explanations on the why for undergoing continuous life cycles on Earth. All it offers is the perspective of a point of abolishment, once "perfected" as individual. Life is equaled with suffering. And think about Karma, the flawed claim of while being an innocent newborn baby which did not yet commit any harm to anyone and anything, nevertheless supposed to carry a package of guilt from a prior life to be punished for. Your consciousness and spirit live one life as an evolutionary decently progressed human being and might find yourself in the next one downgraded to a dog, seriously?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
Quite the contrary. Logic, rationality, and mental-trash, are elements of thought only, an emergent form in which a synthesis of experience is made by an evolved physical system. At best Reality is merely a limited reflection, which is subject to arbitrary conditions of this system (mind)
oink oink
If one can empirically show that such concepts, as 'cause and effect', fail to order experience for the intuitive understanding at realms where we did not evolve, then one can show in principal that our knowledge of reality can be but at best a veiled reality, and therefore not itself omnipotent as if nothing could escape it's notice
snort fart poop
It might surprise you that quantum physics refutes causality, and many other such intuitive concepts
weenie weenie wakka wakka... fart again
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
This
All it offers is the perspective of a point of abolishment, once "perfected" as individual. Life is equaled with suffering. And think about Karma, the flawed claim of while being an innocent newborn baby which did not yet commit any harm to anyone and anything, nevertheless supposed to carry a package of guilt from a prior life to be punished for. Your consciousness and spirit live one life as [full stop]
equals this
by "knowledge" a scientifically minded person could mean no more than, 'as experienced and inferred by a particular biologically emergent physical object that operates by its own emergent laws of synthesizing experience, and therefore is subject to contingent conditions of its evolution'
equals this

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!"

- and beware fashion whores and pseudointellectual smut peddlers
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
I admire your humour, Otto. Since more than 3,000 years the damage inflicted by religions is that serious, that they deserve to be challenged, wherever they raise their ugly head. It will take another few hundred years for this plague to disappear from Earth.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
All it offers is the perspective of a point of abolishment, once "perfected" as individual. Life is equaled with suffering. And think about Karma, the flawed claim of while being an innocent newborn baby which did not yet commit any harm to anyone and anything, nevertheless supposed to carry a package of guilt from a prior life to be punished for.


That's the mis-interpreted version of the story.

Buddhism doesn't claim the baby is guilty of anything, but that previous causes and conditions will nevertheless affect him. Karma isn't a personal moral score, because the point of Buddhism is that the self doesn't exist. The baby is not a separable entity from the rest of the universe, and therefore the baby's "karma" is whatever the universe is doing.

Likewise, Buddha didn't say life is suffering, but that there inevitably is suffering in life - as an inescapable condition of existence. He then explained what causes this suffering, and how to get rid of it.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
Your consciousness and spirit live one life as an evolutionary decently progressed human being and might find yourself in the next one downgraded to a dog, seriously?


That's not actually in the script. That's just tacked on folk mythology.

Read the Diamond Sutra, where Gautama explains that everything, including the concept of Nirvana itself, is a figure of speech. It very plainly says that all these cases are only analogies and allegories to illustrate the problem to the person who is trying to study the subject.

They are "upayas", clever means of storytelling. It means getting the person on the right path even though they don't yet understand where they're going. If you want to believe in spirits and reincarnation, the Buddhist will allow you. They have no quarrel with your personal beliefs, as it's your job to get rid of your own illusions.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 08, 2018
but if one is to argue against the notion of such a metaphysical being, then one should take it as given,... then one can see that such a notion is not subject to scientific investigation to be able to refute.


The ontological argument fails in several ways.

Most importantly, it makes unwarranted assumptions about the order of reality, which it then uses to argue the necessity of God. It's just kicking the can further down the road because you then need to define "perfection" in an objective fashion. Without assuming God a-priori, how do you derive your criteria of perfection?

A satirical version of the ontological argument goes that creating the universe is the greatest thing, but what makes a deed even greater is the difficulty of performing it, and the greatest difficulty for a God to create the universe is if God didn't exist.

Therefore if God truly is the greatest, God doesn't exist.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 08, 2018
Or as Kant pointed out, "exists" is not a definition you can apply to God, or to anything. Existence is not a property of a thing:

This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. He states that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, "I add no new predicate to the conception of God". He argues that the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate; if this is not so, he claims the ontological argument is invalidated, as it is then conceivable a completely perfect being doesn't exist.


So the statement "God exists" can be true only if we change the meaning of "God" to something which does exist, but that's shifting the goalposts.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
Or as Kant pointed out, "exists" is not a definition you can apply to God, or to anything. Existence is not a property of a thing:


I agree, and am definitely not defending the ontological argument.

My point was that one should accept the notion of 'god' as given, which includes 'omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence',... the point of which is to attempt to convey that no language can encapsulate this metaphysical notion.

For the same reason given by Kant that you pointed out, science cannot refute metaphysics.

As Kant said,... 'I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
I admire your humour, Otto. Since more than 3,000 years the damage inflicted by religions is that serious, that they deserve to be challenged, wherever they raise their ugly head. It will take another few hundred years for this plague to disappear from Earth
Oh and I agree. I thought you were preaching psychobabble like the pseudoreligionist noumenon always does.
The ontological argument fails in several ways
Mostly because the word is indefinable. Ask any 2 philos from different 'schools' (fashion crazes) what the word means to confirm the point.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
preaching psychobabble like the pseudoreligionist noumenon always does.


As you were told numerous times, Noumenon does not believe in god nor hold any religion. Of course, your only recourse is to lie and caste aspersions upon others. Is dishonesty worse than religion?

It must have been psychobabble to you, when I spoke of "ensembles" in a previous discussion, to which you accused me of speaking philosophy. So, therefore it appears "psychobabble" is a relative term.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
As you were told numerous times, Noumenon does not believe in god nor hold any religion
And as youve also been told many times, philosophy is a pseudoreligion.

Lets evoke kant, who also wrote an unfathomable book that can be interpreted in any number of ways, the mark of the true word of god. And it takes priests to actually interpret it for you who in the end, after many questions any many cryptic esoteric answers, proclaim that only god/kant really knew what he was talking about.

Philos dont seek enlightenment from their gods, they worship them. They repeat select quotes like mantras, as if it gives them more meaning than they actually have.

And what is the value of more and more of nothing?
https://www.youtu...Qq-0ApFM

"When will this nightmare be over, tell me..."
Gigel
not rated yet Jan 09, 2018
oink oink

For some reason you seem unable to cope with reasons beyond the scientific way. Stepping into the unknown and uncertain has some unpredictable and funny consequences. Yet you fail to reckon that science doesn't have hard knowledge (only hard facts), instead it has only approximate models. What is the deep meaning of an approximation, what reason to be is reflected in it?
Gigel
not rated yet Jan 09, 2018
I admire your humour, Otto. Since more than 3,000 years the damage inflicted by religions is that serious, that they deserve to be challenged, wherever they raise their ugly head. It will take another few hundred years for this plague to disappear from Earth.

Quoth the Raven, 'Nevermore!' You ignore human nature, which is not essentially scientific, not even logical. Religion is in the human nature, its way of looking into the unknown, of knowing that which is beyond the human ability of controlling. Religion has advanced in time, it has included logic and reason and cosmological aspects. It is far from disappearing. And it is not a purely human endeavour. Not even close. Friends and foes are out there and no material eye can see them clearly. Different eyes work there.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
@Gigel: We have two kinds of issues on this planet. The first one is more serious. 1) An aberration of religious cults, that are by no means a natural matter. Only for the most primitive early humans it is natural to fear thunder, noises in the dark forest and to make up comforting explanations for that. A natural course of development leads straight from such shamanistic cults to realism. 2) What we summarize as science is nowadays pretty lopsided, respecting the material sciences, technology, engineering, mathematics, but not so much the softer disciplines of psychology, sociology etc. That, while all aspects of our universe, full span of human capabilities, purpose of life cannot be fully understood and discovered when approaching it solely with measurement instruments of material sciences. So, I only agree with you that spirituality is one real, important, natural aspect of us humans. Religious cults are not, not on this planet and on no other planet.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
OK, .... While containing a lot of worthy stuff, the presented overall model for our universe does not make much sense, as ... [to] the why for undergoing continuous life cycles on Earth.

It just is.
"What do Buddhists believe about karma?
Karma is not an external force, not a system of punishment or reward dealt out by a god. The concept is more accurately understood as a natural law similar to gravity."
All it offers is the perspective of a point of abolishment, once "perfected" as individual.

?
Life is equaled with suffering.

No. Certain actions in life cause/equals suffering.

(cont.)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
And think about Karma, the flawed claim of while being an innocent newborn baby which did not yet commit any harm to anyone and anything, nevertheless supposed to carry a package of guilt from a prior life to be punished for.

Not Buddhist belief. Sounds more like Catholic "Original sin".
Your consciousness and spirit live one life as an evolutionary decently progressed human being and might find yourself in the next one downgraded to a dog, seriously?

Not buddhist. That was hindu.
And who says it's a downgrade?
I'd call it a learning experience...:-)
And I just saw Eikka explained it quite eloquently...
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
Lets evoke kant, who also wrote an unfathomable book that can be interpreted in any number of ways,


Only by those who have not read Kant first hand, or were not prepared to do so. You have not but yet presume knowledge in any case to make such dogmatic statements. Religion does this also.

And as youve also been told many times, philosophy is a pseudoreligion.


You've been told as well that Noumenon does not have interest in most philosophy, .... only that pertaining to knowledge (epistemology) and therefore that related to science and its methodology.

What does religion do, but avoid substantive objective discussion, of which you concur.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
For some reason you seem unable to cope with reasons beyond the scientific way
Philosophy is not science. Like religion it is an antithesis of science.

Monks sit in prayer to gain enlightenment. Philos sit in deep thought to gain enlightenment. Both ignore evidence and the scientific method.
You ignore human nature
No, it is unfortunately human nature to be susceptible to shamans and snake oil salesmen who promise cheap and easy ways to gain knowledge and live forever.

Like religion, philo 'discoveries' about human nature and the nature of the universe have fallen one by one to systematic scientific exploration and revelation. Which is why people like hawking and krauss categorically reject it.

So much so that both are now embracing science as if they were integral to it all along. For instance the philosophy of science/physics depts in universities, offering degrees for science groupies desperately trying to stay relevant.

It's embarrassing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
Only by those who have not read Kant first hand
See? This is where the endless discussion starts, hours and days wasted. And in the end - actually, there is no end.

I have taken pains in the past to cite many scientists and even philos like the goddess Rand for you, who HAVE read it and declare it rubbish.

Why then would I want to debate it with an amateur like yourself?

"Kant differs from his rationalist predecessors by claiming that pure reason can discern the form, but not the content, of reality. Rationalists, such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, speculated about the nature of time, space, causation, God, and the universe, and they believed at least on some level that they could come up with relatively confident answers through the exercise of pure reason."

-Ie by sitting, and thinking, about it. Like they could actually do science without experimention and analysis.

But that's all they had and like religionists they had to supply answers.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
As I've said to you before, I have less than zero interest in debating the validity of philosophy in such sweeping and vacuous terms, as I find that childish. You make subjective characterizations and yet avoid any actual substance.

Of course, I will not debate Kant third person, nor debate the internet through an intermediary who has not studied Kant. Either you have read Kant yourself and can articulate a specific counter point to one I actually made, or you can keep tossing vague aspersions against the wall to hope something will stick.

Besides any use of Kant ideas that I may post about concerns quantum mechanics interpretation, and so you would have to be familiar with that subject as well. But I did post a few debatable points above,.... do you have any specific substantive objections?

I have cited entire books written by prominent physicists that mention Kant, and/or on philosophy of physics. It is pointless. Make a point.
Gigel
not rated yet Jan 09, 2018
Philosophy is not science. Like religion it is an antithesis of science.

Philosophy, religion, science are all part of knowledge. Art is part too there.

That antithesis point sounds like "what is not science is against science" - which is a fundamentalist point. Yet science derives from philosophy. It even intermixes with philosophy. Mathematics is full of concepts for which there is no direct evidence, yet they are analysed in a rigorous way and live only in reason.

One day people may claim that only technology is worth of studying. That pure, theoretical science is unpractical and useless. Then today's science would be seen like philosophy is seen nowadays.

These things happen. Civilizations grow old, decline and die out. Old knowledge is cast aside. It has happened before.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
As I've said to you before, I have less than zero interest in debating the validity of philosophy in such sweeping and vacuous terms, as I find that childish. You make subjective characterizations and yet avoid any actual substance
Check with all the learned and respected refs Ive supplied in the past for all the substance you need.
an intermediary who has not studied Kant
Rand and her clones have studied kant. Maybe youd want to argue with them?

Hawking and Krauss are no doubt familiar with the 'philosophy' of science. How about debating with them?

Your discipline is a sham.
Kant ideas that I may post about concerns quantum mechanics interpretation
ow about I post Nostradamus concerns re quantum mechanics? He had about as much chance of relevance to the subject as kant.

Because, you see, both were long dead before QM was conceived.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
Philosophy, religion, science are all part of knowledge. Art is part too there
Jackson Pollack was such a diseased drunk that he became unable to wield a brush. So he started dribbling and flinging paint onto his canvases.

Some people value this kind of knowledge. It might provide some insights into human neurology and the source of value in art, but it doesnt much help us understand the nature of the universe now does it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
I have cited entire books written by prominent physicists that mention Kant, and/or on philosophy of physics
Name one who has included a philo in his design of a physics experiment, or relied on one to interpret the results, or who cited a philosophers work in a paper.

Many of them mention god as well. Do they cite the bible in their papers and reports?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018


It might surprise you that quantum physics refutes causality, and many other such intuitive concepts
Hmmm let's find out what actual educated people have to say...

"Any philosophically-informed physicist would say Quantum Mechanics (QM) doesn't do away with causality:
"In fact, QFT[Quantum Field Theory] is constructed in such a way to explicitly preserve causality. Any QFT textbook devotes 10 pages of chapter 1 to explain why the square root of the Klein gordon equation does not make a good wave equation for a QFT – it cannot preserve causality."

-Lots more where that came from (google).

How come you're not elsewhere debating people like this? Is it because they typically shut you down in a post or 2?

Physorg - The only place where nou can still pretend he knows what he is talking about.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
What's the point, we've been over this. If you're willing to call Roger Penrose and E. Wigner, a "mystic", then it's pointless to trade quotes. You would need to be familiar with physics, it's history, it's conceptual and mathematical foundation, in addition to epistemology (basis of scientific method).

"[Kant's objection to Realism that...]... all knowledge must go through the mold of our a-priori synthetic judgements , the constraints of our mind, so to speak [...] This is not very far from Bohr's point of view, formulated much lator" - Roland Omnes , physicist.

Abraham Pais [a nuclear physicist and renowned biographer and physics historian],.... regarded Neils Bohr on account of his interpretational contributions to quantum theory,.. "as one of the most important twentieth century philosophers. As such he must be considered the successor to [Immanuel] Kant, who had considered causality as a "synthetic judgement a-priori" and not derivable from experience."
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2018
What's the point, we've been over this. If you're willing to call Roger Penrose and E. Wigner, a "mystic", then it's pointless to trade quotes
And again that's not my designation. Quantum mysticism has its own wiki page and it lists all your favs.

Address the quote I posted above and also give examples of philos participating in actual physics experiments. And physicists waxing philosophical every once in awhile over a glass of sherry down at the club don't count.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018

Lots more where that came from (google).


Which is the problem in debating one without an independent knowledge of the subject,..... the bulk of my effort would involve correcting your personal misapprehensions, out of context quotes, and fending off your "pronouncements" of the state of my knowledge.

For example,....

"In quantum field theory, causality is closely related to the principle of locality. However, the principle of locality is disputed: whether it strictly holds depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics chosen, especially for experiments involving quantum entanglement that satisfy Bell's Theorem."

My original post above was that a component of Realism is violated as established by empirical evidence. I gave a specific example.

The entire history of QM is replete with Philosophy-of-physics.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
Re pais, he was ensconced in the university system most of his life and no doubt felt obligated to support other departments and disciplines including the philo dens.

But as a committed religionist "Pais was perhaps best known for his biography of Albert Einstein, "Subtle is the Lord—": The science and the life of Albert Einstein"

- So I suppose from this we can surmise that he acknowledges god as well as kant as serious contributors to modern physics?

Or perhaps it's just more empty lip service-
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
And there you go,... casting aspersions onto another well known Nuclear Physicist. You have zero credibility, my boy.

It was Einstein who said "subtle is the lord" which is why Pais used that as the book title. Einstein said it because he was making the point that "god" was not malicious regarding the non-intuitive nature of QM. Einstein's was really say "nature" is not malicious, as he followed Spinoza's philosophy.

Again, my efforts are sunk into correcting you rather than having a substantive discussion about an actual topic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
Which is the problem in debating one without an independent knowledge of the subject
I provided a direct quote from someone with independent knowledge superior to yours, who says that

"Any philosophically-informed physicist would say Quantum Mechanics (QM) doesn't do away with causality:
"In fact, QFT[Quantum Field Theory] is constructed in such a way to explicitly preserve causality."
effort would involve correcting your personal misapprehensions
No, you you need to refute HIS 'personal misapprehensions' that you don't know basic physics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2018
And there you go,... casting aspersions onto another well known Nuclear Physicist
He wrote a book about a fellow Jew with god in the title. He references god like he does kant. Poetically. With a dutiful nod to both religion and it's intellectual counterpart, academic philosophy.

Doesn't mean that he seriously believed that either had anything to do with the physics. Because they obviously did not.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
I did with another quote. This is pointless. You can't have an objective discussion trading quotes without an independent understanding.

You're like the Man in the Chinese Room

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2018
I'm not discussing with you, Im exposing you. Big difference.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
He wrote a book about a fellow Jew with god in the title


And I explained the genesis of that quote,.... nothing to do with god. I'm done as you're not going to read my posts, nor learn from them.

I'm not discussing with you, Im exposing you. Big difference.


The only thing you're exposing is your lack of knowledge of the subject and that you have a deep interest in metaphilosophy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
And I explained the genesis of that quote,.... nothing to do with god
- And in the same vein, nothing to do with kant either.
I'm done
- Because you can't refute

"why the square root of the Klein gordon equation does not make a good wave equation for a QFT – it cannot preserve causality."

Because... you don't know what it is.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
why the square root of the Klein gordon equation does not make a good wave equation for a QFT – it cannot preserve causality."

Because... you don't know what it is.


I don't think anyone that has a knowledge of physics here would so easily caste that aspersion upon me,.... so it can only be that your own ignorance gives you confidence to do so.

I have studied that equation, as has anyone who has studied the Dirac equation. What did Dirac do differently? If you can't answer this in your own words or math without searching the internet , then you shouldn't be quoting equations and claiming others don't know about it.

QFT's, such as QED, are relativistic extensions of QM, so it must account for causality as specifically defined in SR and for use in ordering quantum descriptions in space-time,.... this does not mean that individual processes, like the release of a photon in an atom, is an effect from a known cause. QM is manifestly indeterminate.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2018
What did Dirac do differently? IOW, 1) What was wrong with the mathematical form of the Schroedinger equation that had to be changed to make it compatible with SR. (you can look at the equation if you don't have it memorized). 2) What change in its form did Dirac seek to make, and 3) how did he achieve this?

If you need to web-crawl any of this, then you're not in a position to debate physics with me.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2018
I have studied that equation, as has anyone who has studied the Dirac equation. What did Dirac do differently? If you can't answer this in your own words or math without searching the internet , then you shouldn't be quoting equations and claiming others don't know about it
Horseshit. I don't need to know how to fix my car in order to have a mechanic fix it. I rely on his expertise. SCIENTISTS rely on the work of previous scientists without having to repeat their experiments and get similar results.

When I find experts to refute you or confirm my understandings, I don't need to understand how they reached their conclusions. I just need to do a little work to be reasonably confident they know what they're talking about.

Similarly I don't need to know incantations or decapitate a chicken to know that voodoo is nonsense. And I certainly don't have to be fluent in philobabble to counter your nonsense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2018
"If you mean the Dirac equation and Klein-Gordon equation as classical field equations then it is hard to see why they should violate causality. Simply put them on a finite difference lattice and observe how some movement here and now causes some movement over there some time later. Analytically, if you look at the dispersion relation

[many equations and positions here] Because the commutator [ ϕ ( x ) , ϕ ( y ) ] [ϕ(x),ϕ(y)] vanishes in this case, the field can be measured independently in both (spacelike separated) points and so there is no way for the first measurement to affect the second. Thus causality is indeed preserved, although it does not seem to at first sight."
Reference https://www.physi....186177/

- The only thing I need to see is this: "Thus causality is indeed preserved". YOU'RE the guy who has to refute the specifics of his argument.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2018
See nou, its the same thing as if we were in a room and you asserted something and i brought in an expert witness to refute it. You couldn't be able to turn to me and claim that because his argument didnt come directly from me, it's not valid.

And I don't even have to understand it; I only have to trust his acumen.

The question is, why aren't you debating people like this directly? Is it because
I don't think anyone that has a knowledge of physics here would so easily caste that aspersion upon me
Because they ARE qualified to cast aspersions on you?

If you really wanted to find out if your theories were valid or not you would be discussing them with THEM.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2018
Well, no it doesn't work that way. You ignored my response because you failed to note it as one. Where is your proxy to read and interpret my posts properly?

For example, vanishing commutators are a condition for the Lagrangian approach of path integrals in QFT, and doesn't render invalid the uncertainty relation, which can be derived from non-commuting operators. However this is mute as I have already explained, ... QM (QFT which is based on QM) is indeterminate, and gave an example of an atom emitting a photon. There is no known causality. QFT treats such processes as 'virtual' but necessary in calculations, as a condition.

You troll around trying to "expose" frauds, all the while using proxys and web-crawling to substitute for your own incompetence. What is this, if not fraudulent?

Seems that when I respond to you I get troll rated at the same time. Is caliban your mom? Corruption and fraudulent.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2018
I take it you give up.

1. It didn't treat the Laplacian on an equal footing with the time derivative, as SR treats space and time.
2. To make both space & time derivatives linear, as opposed to Klein-Gordon's attempt with derivatives to 2nd order.
3. By ingeniously squaring the Klein-Gordon equation by use of non-commuting 4x4 matrices (with Pauli spin matrices as sub-components)... as coefficients to the energy and momentum terms. These matrix form coefficients would cancel out all cross terms. This made the wavefunction one of four components, which solved a few problems at once and predicted anti-matter.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2018
I just wonder why you aren't peddling your pap over on physicsforums.com

-where your thrill might just be from corroboration instead of superciliousness.

Lessee, no guts? Prior humiliation? You already know your theories are crap?

Perhaps you've realized that unlike philosophy, physics actually reaches conclusions. Discussions actually end. Dialectics are actually successful.

Perhaps they just ignore you over there.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2018
Scientists actually gets somewhere while philos just want to keep talking in circles forever. This is how you can discern between the 2.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2018
How do you know that I don't post there and at other sites? Answer; you don't. You just made that up, because you're a perpetual liar, and a fraud.

Another fraudulent premise of yours is that I have my own theories. In fact I do not. I follow only mainstream science. You, on the other hand don't seem interested in science at all, but only trolling and bickering,

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018
How do you know that I don't post there and at other sites?
Well i did a site search and nothing came up. Do you post under another name?

Why don't you share your other discussions here so we can see how others respond to you?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018
How do you know that I don't post there and at other sites?
Well i did a site search and nothing came up. Do you post under another name?

Why don't you share your other discussions here so we can see how others respond to you?


Lol, like I would allow that information, given the premise that it exists, in the hands of a combative and dishonest troll.

More to the point, the question was, ...."how do you know that I don't post there and at other sites?" Rhetorical. IOW, this is a fundamental defect in the way you conduct yourself here,... making presumptions about posters you can't possibly have personal knowledge of.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018
Why would you want access to my personal information? Why not simply render substantive counter points to my posts as they are written here,..... which you have yet to do.

You seem to be full of presumptions and aspersions, ....like don't know what Klein-Gordon equation is, that I'm a philosopher, that I have my own theories, and on and on.

Just make a counter point, Otto,.... stop the personal insults and wild speculations, stop the proxy debates, stop the troll rating,... stop the hatefulness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018
Lol, like I would allow that information, given the premise that it exists, in the hands of a combative and dishonest troll... Why would you want access to my personal information?
It's not personal. You would have posted it on the internet, in a public forum. Are you saying that the presumed discussions with bona fide scientists about your ideas such as
quantum physics refutes causality
-werent meant to be viewed by people who might post here? Why not?

I'm just assuming that, like zephyr, you ended up here because real experts on serious sites would consistently shut you down and banhammer you.

But perhaps I'm wrong.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018
Of course you're wrong, as you pulled that contention straight out of the air. You literally made that up and then spoke as if it were true. Again, you push the insinuation that I have my own theories. Zephry is a crank. Most everything I post can be referenced to other prominent physicists. You're just a troll and entirely unqualified to be thought police here.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2018
Nou says
How do you know that I don't post there and at other sites?
- and then wonders where i got the notion.
Zephry is a crank
Youre a crank.
Most everything I post can be referenced to other prominent physicists
Same with zephyr. Although it's pretty clear he knows more physics than you.

Why are you afraid to show the people here what people on other sites have said about your stuff?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018
Maybe these guys would want to hear about kant intuiting QM. Maybe they could also channel the future.

"Allen et al. realized that by replacing "deterministic" with "unitary" in Reichenbach's principle they could obtain a new version of quantum causal models. In particular, their quantum version of the Reichenbach principle allowed them to relate conditional independence to quantum causal relationships like those described in Costa and Shrapnel's model. What's more, these conditional independence relations could then be used to perform Bayesian inference. Allen et al.'s result combines both causal interventions and Bayesian inference into a single model, succeeding where others had failed.

"Several research groups, including mine, are still exploring a range of alternative quantum causal theories. But the new model by Allen and colleagues is the first to meet all requirements of a quantum causal model, providing a uniquely quantum definition of causality."
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018
Maybe you could convince them that the better way to research quantum causality would be to just talk about it, and post on amateur websites safe from the chance that genuine physicists would show up and pop their comfy little bubble, which after all would save them lots of time and money and lab space.

I mean hey, your method convinced you to conclude that 'QM violates causality', while they are continuing to look using that boring old scientific method. So it must be superior, right?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018
Nou says
You troll around trying to "expose" frauds, all the while using proxys and web-crawling to substitute for your own incompetence. What is this, if not fraudulent?
-and then says
Just make a counter point, Otto,.... stop the personal insults and wild speculations, stop the proxy debates, stop the troll rating,... stop the hatefulness
Sorry superciliousness is veiled disdain. It makes me want to respond in kind. Like trump.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2018
Most everything I post can be referenced to other prominent physicists

Same with zephyr. Although it's pretty clear he knows more physics than you.


I'm don't doubt that he knows things that I don't, and have never claimed to know everything. More to the point,.... "pretty clear " to whom? You? Not possible, as you've never demonstrated independent knowledge of physics. Perhaps you can show me in Here where he corrects me.

Why are you afraid to show the people here what people on other sites have said about your stuff?


Your premise here is entirely made up. I don't recall ever mentioning Kant at physicsforums for example. It's possible, but I don't think I have ever done so. However, the failure of Realism has been mentioned many times in general, as it is an intrinsic nature of QM/QFT as opposed to classical physics.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2018
You're on Ignore, because all you do is cast aspersions, outright lie, ignore posts, post out of context drive-by quotes, post character assassinations,..... all the while never actually engaging in a discussion of physics. You're the ultimate fraud here, ...web-crawling for proxy debates.

Sorry, you won't convince physicists that physics can be done or discussed by proxy.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2018
Your premise here is entirely made up. I don't recall ever mentioning Kant at physicsforums for example
Why not? Why is it you only try to sell your quantum mysticism here? You include the 'Kant connection' in the majority of your physics posts here... why wouldn't you seek feedback on other sites where you might get constructive criticism from pros?
as it is an intrinsic nature of QM/QFT as opposed to classical physics
Ha not according to the people in the study i linked. Apparently you haven't checked it out? Real physicists doing real science with no mention of kant.

Maybe you need a whiteboard or something.
You're on Ignore, because all you do is cast aspersions, outright lie, ignore posts
That's ok I'll continue to talk to the people who uprate me and downrate you. As well as the general public who should know what scientists think about philosophy.

And yes I do tend to ignore posts full of philobabble - what else?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2018
I quoted Pais, who made contributions to nuclear physics, mentioning Kant in context of QM , as well as other prominent physicists. This is a fact.

the failure of Realism has been mentioned many times in general, as it is an intrinsic nature of QM/QFT as opposed to classical physics.

Ha not according to the people in the study i linked.


Yes according to them as well, but perhaps not to those uprating you while hiding under their desks where they belong.

You're not competent to assess either my post in context or the one you linked to in context. Proof as follows.... 1) When I stated causality is refuted in QM, I was responding in the context of "cause and effect" and gave an example of the indeterminacy of QM wrt the atom releasing a photon. I never in my life suggested that causality of SR is violated and so that imposed condition of QFT, as I mentioned above. 2) You ignorantly claim that what you just quoted of me is false, yet .......

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2018
.... unbeknownst to you as you are oblivious without foundational knowledge of the subject, .... the SR causality condition for QFT argues against violation of locality, and therefore based on the facts established by experiment, must imply violation of a component of realism (as I posted above from wiki).

IOW, you own quotes and misinformed claims of what is true in my posts, contradict each other. Thus, if you're not knowledgeable of the subject, stop pretending you're in a position to assess others posts. That is fraudulent and demonstrably impossible .

You include the 'Kant connection' in the majority of your physics posts here


Another lie and mischaracterization from a corrupt troll. I just linked to a thread where I discuss QM and did not mention Kant. It was appropriate to do so here, especially given that I wasn't the first one to do so in this thread.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2018
EDIT: IOW, your own quotes and misinformed claims of what [isn't] true in my posts, contradict each other.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2018
That's ok I'll continue to talk to the people who uprate me and downrate you


Lets see, you were uprated by Whydyning_Gyr whom I know does not know or discuss QM, and two known troll rating accounts controlled by some dolt hiding under their desk, tooty and one obviously specifically designed to troll rate me, nonoUNme. Yea, you're the tallest midget that's what those ratings are worth.

If you don't demonstrate independent knowledge of a given topic or are unable to articulate an actual counter point, then you are a fraud.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2018
"Pais is to be applauded for his efforts to 'counteract the many cheap attempts at popularizing this subject, such as efforts by the wooly masters at linking quantum physics to mysticism' (p v) and he quite rightly emphasizes that Bohr's philosophy of physics is an attempt to preserve 'objective description' against the common but totally groundless view that he embraced the entry of human consciousness into the description of atomic phenomena."

"As early as 1927 we find Bohr rejecting the hypothesis which claims that quantum theory requires a conscious observer. At least according to Heisenberg's later written recollections,
which Bohr found amusing but not much different from his own, Bohr insisted that year: '[I]t still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus'"

"Einstein accused Bohr of mysticism, igniting a controversy that by the time of the 1936 Copenhagen Congress..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2018
IOW it appears that, according to these 3 gentlemen, consciousness has NOTHING to do with quantum phenomena,
And those who think so are, according to Einstein and many others, mystics.
Another lie and mischaracterization from a corrupt troll. I just linked to a thread where I discuss QM and did not mention Kant
I wasn't saying here as in this thread but here as in physorg. Of course you'll deny it as it gives you another chance to demonstrate your word-juggling skills for the (imaginary) studio audience.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2018
consciousness has NOTHING to do with quantum phenomena,


Otto, the word "phenomena" implies observability, and thus necessitates as a condition of its description, a conscious mind.

I have never implied that consciousness "reaches out" and interacts as a physical entity, nor even that consciousness was anything over and above that emergent from the physical brain.

To acquire knowledge of quantum phenomena and to formulate a description, of course, requires a conscious mind,... and that's what knowledge of phenomena implies.

Maybe you should try to respond to something I actually said?

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2018
Spaghettiman cooks
Otto, the word "phenomena" implies observability, and thus necessitates as a condition of its description, a conscious mind"
-Using undefinable ingredients like emergent and mind, with little taste and no nutrition.

But real chefs create not cook

"Bohr insisted that year: '[I]t still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus'"

-leaving the fry cook to explain how an apparatus can have a mind.

Of course mystics can wave their wands and give them one. Easy as 'mind' has no meaning. Brains are a little tougher mind you, and require something a more complicated than a pot and a colander.

Or like the great and terrible wizard of oz he can just give it a little medal like the cowardly lion.

He gives himself a way when he implies that 'conscious' is the same thing as 'consciousness'.

My god nou how come you haven't got even that straight?
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 19, 2018
My point was that one should accept the notion of 'god' as given, which includes 'omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence',... the point of which is to attempt to convey that no language can encapsulate this metaphysical notion.

For the same reason given by Kant that you pointed out, science cannot refute metaphysics.


Now, the interesting question is, if the notion cannot be communicated, even in your own private language understood by nobody else than yourself, is it a notion at all?

You cannot even think it - the whole idea of God is empty. If the notion doesn't exist, what sense is there to talk about the metaphysical? What argument can you support with it? What conclusions can you derive out of absolutely nothing at all?
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 19, 2018
Otto - you forget that there is nothing -but- philosophy. Even science is a philosophy, so by complaining about the "philobabble" of others, you're being a hypocrit, if not ignorant.

Philosophy is the exploration of what questions can be asked, and what those questions mean. It's like theoretical math - it's an exploration of the space of all problems and all solutions - some of which can be applied and some which can't.

Just because you're dealing with philosophy that doesn't have immediate application in the same sense as how math applies to engineering or science, doesn't invalidate it. You may not like it because it's meaningless to you, but to ignore it is a grave fault because it's like saying "nobody can possiby need calculus".
TrollBane
not rated yet Jan 21, 2018
Noumenon, you can't seriously expect informed people to take your pretensions seriously after you tried to use Natural News as a source for attacking public health care.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.