Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2015, 12:20 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 11:00 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 08:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If something "happens", then it is *natural* for that to happen. Nothing "unnatural" ever happens. Improbable, or unusual...maybe.

Bucky, if you are going to take the position that if something happens it is natural....including acts of God, you cannot now then claim there is no evidence for God because all observations indicate everything is natural. The position that acts of God are natural/supernatural is contradictory.

Be honest and don't just presuppose God does not exist when you think about the next question. What kind of natural events would indicate God's existence?

Nice straw man you've got there, BlowJob.
Are you willfully misrepresenting BB, or are you just too stupid to understand what he said?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2015, 12:28 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2015 12:32 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 02:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The critical word which you seem to be missing in my answer is "direct". You keep attempting to argue for indirect evidence in favor of a god's existence, such as unexplained phenomena and quantum entanglement. This doesn't indicate that a god is present. It only indicates that something strange is going on.

If I asked you for direct evidence of a murder, a recently-fired gun would not suffice. Anyone could have fired that gun for any reason. Direct evidence of a murder would be a body. Direct evidence of a god would be divine manifestation of some kind.

Evidence comes in direct and indirect forms. Indirect evidence is often the basis for very strong beliefs. We believe the universe contains a shit load of dark matter. However, dark matter has never been observed. There is no direct evidence of it. We believe dark matter exist because of indirect evidence. Namely the observation of gravity in excess of the amount that could be generated by the mass observed. It seems to me that you are claiming indirect evidence, by its nature, cannot indicate anything....that it cannot be considered evidence for anything. This isn't a tenable position. We rely on indirect evidence to make judgments about the world all the time.

As far a definition of God? Lets go with this one: God is a non local causal agent which is responsible for stuff happening in this reality on a fundamental level.

Would you say there is evidence, either indirect or direct, which suggests the God I have defined above exists? If your answer is no, my next question is why doesn't observations of effects without local causes qualify as indirect evidence for God as I have defined Him above?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2015, 12:36 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 11:23 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm still curious what the significance was of asking for peer-review of the Bell's Theorem loophole-free experiment.

Simple answer: Because that's the way science is done.

The review is of the content of the publication, the design of the experiment, the controls, the conclusions reached. Everything is subject to passing through the gate of peer-review before it is credible.

Quote:My only reason for it is to simply confirm what is already inevitable.
They've been doing these experiments for decades.

This paper and its content are new.

Quote:At first, EPR Paradox was shown to be falsified with Bell's Theorem, and then they showed that we needed to close "loopholes" in order to confirm, for sure, what was happening.

It was peer review that identified those loopholes.

Quote:They've been closing them all successfully and are now saying they've finished closing the loopholes and we really have no reason to believe otherwise, yet people still are being hyper-skeptical and saying "but it's not peer-reviewed".

They made a claim that they closed a loophole. This new claim is not accepted until it is subjected to peer review.

This is not hyper-skeptical, it is normal procedure. Why do you not see that? Consider

Quote:On that note, I wouldn't mind if some of you provided some sites that you say post peer reviewed papers. Nature claims they post peer-reviewed papers. So I'm challenging this until we get to the bottom of this.

What you referenced was not a paper published in Nature, it was an article that referenced a paper that was not yet peer-reviewed.

Quote:So yeah, I'm going to find out the real status of this experiment and see if what you guys are saying is holding up about it not being peer-reviewed.
If it's not, and you're right, then I'll come back here and update.
If it is, then why do you guys give a shit (which I am confident you really don't in this case)?

The status is they have published their paper prior to peer-review.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2015, 05:57 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2015 06:03 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(01-09-2015 12:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 11:23 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm still curious what the significance was of asking for peer-review of the Bell's Theorem loophole-free experiment.

Simple answer: Because that's the way science is done.

The review is of the content of the publication, the design of the experiment, the controls, the conclusions reached. Everything is subject to passing through the gate of peer-review before it is credible.

You don't seem to understand me.
I'm specifically referring to the person that said they are not going to "consider this" until this experiment successfully closes all the loopholes. Now I'm just wondering what he meant by "consider this" and what it's significance was to the conversation.
I'm curious because they seem to be making progress in exactly that direction. So if and when they do confirm through peer-review that this experiment has successfully closed the final loopholes, I want to know what that means for him in this conversation and in this thread. I'm also curious of the response as that is something I take note of on a regular basis.
When someone says "I don't care unless I see 'A', 'B' and 'C' happen", I take not of what they say next when 'A', 'B' and 'C' do happen.
(01-09-2015 12:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:My only reason for it is to simply confirm what is already inevitable.
They've been doing these experiments for decades.

This paper and its content are new.

Again, you seem to not understand what I'm saying.
They have been confirming this non-local phenomena for decades. Mathematically, experimentally and now we are getting word that we have possibly closed the final loopholes in the experiment. All you have to say about it is "Don't really care until it's been peer-reviewed". I think it's fine to hold any assumptions until peer-review, which is why I don't claim that my OP is conclusive in any way.
But to simply say that the whole set of experimental data that we've gathered so far contradicting Einsteins predictions doesn't matter until this one last thing is peer-reviewed is a bit of an undertone of perhaps some other sort of disagreement.
This makes me curious, which is why I am here inquiring.
I don't have a lot invested in this forum because it's usually just a belly of bickering folks that reminds me of working in a nursing home with several elderly women.
That job was stressful for that reason which is why I have avoided this place.
I'm still curious because I'm seeing something pan out against the philosophical interest on some on this thread and all I want to see is the response and reaction. I have a pretty good idea of what the reaction will be, but I simply want confirmation.

(01-09-2015 12:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:At first, EPR Paradox was shown to be falsified with Bell's Theorem, and then they showed that we needed to close "loopholes" in order to confirm, for sure, what was happening.

It was peer review that identified those loopholes.

And? I have nothing against peer-review. I don't know if I've made that clear or not.
I simply don't just dismiss all other progress based on it. I'm taking into account that the other loopholes have been confirmed closed and they made rapid progress into closing those loopholes. I don't see any reason why closing these loopholes would be any different and neither do many of the physicists in this project, including Anton Zeilinger.

Here's a link to the article produced of the loopholes that were closed before this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/46/19708.abstract

This one actually is peer reviewed as is shown here at number 14:
http://www2.mpq.mpg.de/~jkofler/publications.htm

I find this fascinating, and my response to this sort of data is usually more interest in reality. So I suppose it confuses me when people would rather use it to justify a pre-supposed worldview than to adjust their worldview based on the new data itself.
It's one of the major reasons I am not a Christian anymore. It doesn't line up with reality.


(01-09-2015 12:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:They've been closing them all successfully and are now saying they've finished closing the loopholes and we really have no reason to believe otherwise, yet people still are being hyper-skeptical and saying "but it's not peer-reviewed".

They made a claim that they closed a loophole. This new claim is not accepted until it is subjected to peer review.

This is not hyper-skeptical, it is normal procedure. Why do you not see that? Consider

Again, you don't seem to understand what I mean by "hyper-skeptical". If someone is overly skeptical, it means they are seeing the evidence of something, yet requiring more when perhaps the evidence was actually sufficient for either a minor realistic different, or major.
This may not be the case here as this still waits for peer-review, but it appears to be that way because of the fact they have already quickly closed all the others and not many people seem to think closing the others is going to be impossible.



(01-09-2015 12:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:So yeah, I'm going to find out the real status of this experiment and see if what you guys are saying is holding up about it not being peer-reviewed.
If it's not, and you're right, then I'll come back here and update.
If it is, then why do you guys give a shit (which I am confident you really don't in this case)?

The status is they have published their paper prior to peer-review.

Yes, which is confusing to me. I'll get used to it.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2015, 06:13 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(01-09-2015 05:57 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't have a lot invested in this forum because it's usually just a belly of bickering folks that reminds me of working in a nursing home with several elderly women.

Big Grin

We're all kinda ancient in regards to thoroughly debunked theology. And some of us are just assholes. Thumbsup

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
01-09-2015, 06:16 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2015 09:28 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  As far a definition of God? Lets go with this one: God is a non local causal agent which is responsible for stuff happening in this reality on a fundamental level.

Let's not. Your fairy story is nice, but your presuppositions are based on a sample size of one, which does not apply necessarily to anything other than this universe. It's not evidence. Why are you even talking about a 'god" anyway ? What does that mean ?

Edit (additional) : "God" is just a bad meaningless, childish (mental) habit, that needs to be broken, grown out of. God is an explanation meme for those who need one, and can't live with ambiguity, and uncertainty. Religion is where societies embed their evolved values, and "explanation rituals", (myths). That is why those who reject religion are viewed suspiciously. It's why Socrates was executed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-09-2015, 06:27 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(01-09-2015 06:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why are you even talking about a 'god" anyway ?

Because he ain't smart enough to invent a Gwynnies. Big Grin

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
01-09-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Evidence comes in direct and indirect forms.

Yes.

(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Indirect evidence is often the basis for very strong beliefs.

For some very silly people, certainly.

(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  We believe the universe contains a shit load of dark matter. However, dark matter has never been observed. There is no direct evidence of it.

You really don't understand a thing about what you just said.

The whole point of dark matter is that we don't know what it is yet. There are many hypotheses floating about, ranging from scattered concentrations of heavy elements to non-baryonic particles. We have direct evidence that dark matter exists; we have no evidence about what dark matter actually is.

To use your own, earlier example, this is comparable to an amputee's limb suddenly growing back. This is direct evidence that something is happening. It is not evidence of a god.

(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It seems to me that you are claiming indirect evidence, by its nature, cannot indicate anything....that it cannot be considered evidence for anything.

It can't, without an actual theory supported by direct evidence.

Without a body, a claim that someone has been murdered will be discarded, no matter how many gunshots you heard.

(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  We rely on indirect evidence to make judgments about the world all the time.

It is not my concern how irrational you choose to be.

(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  As far a definition of God? Lets go with this one: God is a non local causal agent which is responsible for stuff happening in this reality on a fundamental level.

"On a fundamental level" is a nonsense phrase.

(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Would you say there is evidence, either indirect or direct, which suggests the God I have defined above exists?

No.

(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If your answer is no, my next question is why doesn't observations of effects without local causes qualify as indirect evidence for God as I have defined Him above?

Because your definition is meaningless.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
01-09-2015, 10:35 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(01-09-2015 10:33 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(01-09-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Indirect evidence is often the basis for very strong beliefs.

For some very silly people, certainly.

Big Grin

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Idea, I consider Chas to be a hyper-realist. Wink

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: