Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 304 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  Seraphim: i assure you penrose accept things are described by wave functions.

  • I have to be honest that I have an issue with something existing as a probability.

  A wave function. At any rate, that is what all experiments to this date indicate.
• 

  bohm

  I may be wrong of course but do other experts in this field share this concern?

  The brief answer is no, not for about 80 years. all alternatives to qm has turned out to be unsuccessfull.
• 

  Seraphim23

  Thanks for your patience bohm with answering my questions. I appreciate you know more than me on these matters. Bohm is a new character for me as it were.

  I wasn’t suggesting that Penrose didn’t accept the wave function description, only that he thinks it collapses, or some other term in large scales stuff. Perhaps he doesn’t think this now, I’ll have to check. Bohm, He certainly seems like a genius. I need to look more into what he taught, said and did. Some of what I read so far sounds almost Buddhist, which is interesting as I have a big sympathy with Buddhist belief.Thanks for introducing me to another avenue of thought.

  Out of interest and don’t take this the wrong way, as I am assuming you’re an atheist, but is their a framework in Bohms work that could explain so called psychic phenomena? I.e premonition’s of future states of information? I have often thought that such phenomenon, at least in my case, doesn’t exactly behave as one would expect if the source for such knowledge was a sentient being. It’s often like there is no game plan behind such insights although on occasion it is almost like there is, but more of a random spread of glimpses often guided by what I am interested in or focused on in a general level at the time. I hope this doesn’t sound bizarre, even though I’m sure it probably does.
• 

  friendaroonie

  Sigh... I was avoiding looking at this thread cuz I knew the kind of ignorance that was likely to bube expressed here. And sure enough the very first post just recycled memorized lines from theist one liners etc. No way im going to read any more. But ill just address one of the most common lies told about atheists. Atheists just believe in chemicals and cells and matter and nothing else and thats aall there is ...

  Now I am not an atheist anymore but I believe like one still. Just because we cant see or measure something does not mean we have no imagination as to what else mkght be out there including what you might call god or spirits. We just dont have evidence of those things yet. So they remain as musings unti we have personal evidence of them. And this is how everyone should be. Its not that we say no evidence no existence. Rather ee say no evidence - we dont know then. We dont believe there is no god. We just dont belive there is one based on zero registered readings on any kind of sense. We as a race litrrally have no knowledge of god. Jjust stories and imagination. Ill sdd that I ude entheogens that give me experiences of a spiritual sort but that is no reason for anyone else to believe. Ayauasca. Daime. D m t. L s d. And markjuana and svia divinorum have given me wonderful experiences and I recommend them to all god. Searchers.

  Another thing is that since things dont have intrinsic meankng (things read nouns) no life does not have any meaning but what yiu give it. Therefore if you say life is meaningless just because there is no god and no afterlife well. Thats on jyou buddy. Meaning comes from people not things. Meaning is ascribed to and apied to it isnt sitting I side of things like words and pictures and snow globes saying *hey my name is meaning. Look at me!"
• 

  Seraphim23

  Well I’m not totally sure what you mean completely as there does seem to be some atheists who definitely seem to insist that there is no God. Anyhow I’m sure your view is as valid as any other.
• 

  rawe

  Hi Seraphim23,

  "They understand how to use equations to get the desired results in predicting quantum systems, which are accurate, but it is to do with probabilities and where probabilities exist complete understating is lacking. Probabilities would not have to be taken into account if it was known exactly what was going on."

  On the other hand what would be the implications of knowing exactly? It would make the universe, at least in principal, completely predictable. In reality there is an essential randomness at the heart of the universe, yet no matter how hard I personally throw a stone it will follow a predicable arc that relates to the forces involved.

  For a long while, after reading a Scientific American article on quantum loop gravity I thought perhaps the correct understanding of the universe was one wherein very small integers reigned supreme. The idea that if you get small enough, there literally was nothing there between the discrete quantum bits -- either expressed as ticks of time or distance across the smallest possible object. I now look back on that as rather naive on my part.

  I struggle enough in the area where I do have some expertise (programming in C in my case), so while this is all fun and all, I must simply admit I probably cannot personally gain enough information and expertise to know any of this on a deep level. All I can do is make educated guesses at what seems most plausible then defer to the experts.

  Now I have moved away, in thought from the digital/integer under-pining of the universe. One of the motivations was another article in SA that posed the question: Is the universe digital and analog? The author was surprised that most responses went over to the analog, despite how cool ideas about the "Matrix" might sound. One of the lines of argument I found very convincing was the difficulty scientists have creating computer models suitable for the study of QP. If the universe were itself digital, it should not have problems being modelled within a computer, that itself is digital.

  Since then I've run into pi (3.14) in QP equations. Page 175 of my For Dummies book shows the wave function laid out like this...

  w(x,y,z,t) = 1/((2 x pi)^(3/2)...

  The problem of course is pi, as far as we can see, goes on for ever -- it seems to resist boiling down to a number that can be represented as any form of an integer. Thus if you solved for this equation, you could always get more "exact" by adding more digits to your value for pi.

  In terms of philosophy, I do think science asks us to embrace the unknown and perhaps permanently so. We may never know the exact pathway form the non-living to the first living thing. We may never know exactly how a star like our sun is formed. Such events simple may resist all our attempts to probe them for knowledge.

  But as I said earlier on this thread -- be careful asking God to fill in these knowledge gap. Because in doing so, one may create a knowledge gap that is impossible to fill, even in principal.

  On this score I must credit the TV series the Twilight Zone. In one episode aliens arrive and announce that their plans for earth and humanity have failed and they have decided to end the experiment. The leaders of earth beg for one week to demonstrate the promise of humanity. After sweating it out for one week, they make an incredible breakthrough -- a true ironclad peace treaty for the entire earth, presented in several hundred pages. The alien ambassador returns and is given the treaty. Upon reading just a few pages, he begins to laugh hysterically. "Silly humans! We breed warriors! Your puny weapons have amounted to nothing and what is more you long for peace! Experiment over!"

  And that is the problem. An almighty God who interacts with the material universe in violation of the laws of nature, means, that any knowledge gained by trusting the laws of nature is suspect. That is why I said, if such a God exists, then nothing can be known.

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  rawe

  Hi Bohm,

  "But yes, in reality, it is possible for the cat to be DEAD, ALIVE and in an infinite number of states that are composed of both DEAD and ALIVE AT THE SAME TIME. This does *NOT* refer to a probability we believe it is dead or alive. It is the STATE of the cat. It is very strange, i know.

  It took me a long time to grasp this is not just an abstraction (like you, i kept thinking to myself it is just a fancy way of saying something else). But yes, it is in both states."

  Please bear with me... I have yet to fully understand this issue, let alone form a solid opinion.

  In my QP for Dummies book there is only a one paragraph mention of Schrödinger's Cat. So far in my reading about this again this evening, I'm left with the impression that in terms of real cats it is an abstraction.

  The thought experiment was crafted to show a possible macro-world implication of quantum superposition. To quote the Wikipedia article on this...

  Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.[2]

  Thus the conclusion I have reached for the moment is while Schrödinger's cat idea is in the cat-size world absurd, it has not removed in reality the conclusions of QM in regards to superposition and entanglement. The reality of superposition and entanglement at the quantum level has been demonstrated. Yet, I don't understand why it does not scale up, or if it does, why we can't readily detect such.

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  Seraphim23

  Interesting comments again rawe.

  I guess I am wondering about the true nature of randomness because it seems like a paradox in logic. Digital verses randomness type of thing. Trying to think how to articulate it! For instance if the universe is built on laws then everything is subject to those laws, which wouldn’t seem to allow for randomness, but if that’s the case, how is mentality and consciousness accounted for? because a digital predetermined universe should mean we are more like computers that simply carry out instructions, albeit complex ones, without awareness or control. Some might argue that computers have a low level of consciousness but I don’t buy that idea plus it seems to ignore the particularly of what being conscious feels like. Roger Penrose seemed to express a related idea in terms of mathematics, in that some mathematics is non-computable, which reminds me of your point about Pi.

  I agree with you that the universe is not digital in this sense of non-computability but the nature of what is really going with randomness seems as far away as understanding what infinity is as with Pi. The measurement problem seems to have relevance here as well.

  I agree as well with you point about caution regarding being careful in asking God to fill in these knowledge gaps. The God of the gaps argument is a valid one, but in a way my position is that God may lie in infinity. Why does mathematics or some mathematics correspond to physical reality? It could be said that the only way to understand the workings of the physical world is in terms of precise mathematics and the evidence for that is demonstrated by science. However philosophically speaking, mathematics is not physical reality. It is as if there are two worlds that both exist in different ways but relate to one another though mentality, which might be yet another world. Apparently there are mathematical problems that a digital deterministic computer cannot solve but we can, which lends support for the idea of such worlds being real, as opposed to abstractions. If true the question is why all this anyway? In the unknown gap that isn’t about how things work but why anyway? I insert God! Here he doesn’t interfere with knowledge because it is the why not how domain as it were.

  The why anything anyway question seems to end up with an infinity when one walks through the steps of logic in various ways, and then another paradox becomes evident because one wants to ask when did infinity begin. Of course the answer is best answered as another question. The answer question is how can infinity begin when it is infinite? Logic then runs out at this point but logic does seem to be akin to digital computers and their limitations. Mathematics is infinite also and relates to what is seen to exist, which is not. So it seems to me that there will always be a place to put God in that box called infinity. It’s a way of avoiding the God of the gaps argument on the grounds that this gap is infinite, and therefore not a finite problem at all, as the other gaps people place God tend to be.

  I liked your point:

  “An almighty God who interacts with the material universe in violation of the laws of nature, means, that any knowledge gained by trusting the laws of nature is suspect.”

  I guess that makes sense, but one can remove God and replace it by infinity itself, which logically has to exist. Infinity includes the laws of nature in some sense but in another are finite instances of infinity, which is a mystery of course because how does the finite and infinite relate. Anyhow it could be said that the natural laws are part of God and so avoid the problem of trusting nature to trusting God. If God is trustworthy then so in nature, as they are parts of the same thing, kind of.

  I can see why some think I take drugs after reading this back to myself; I almost do myself after deep chats like this. The bottom line is that I respect your view a lot because you’re not closed minded, even though you are an atheist or I am assuming you are. We are in this boat called the universe together. I think the idea of a God makes sense to me and I might be wrong and perhaps God can be replaced with infinity without mentality, I don’t know. I am open-minded but if we all thought the same life would be boring. What an excellent discussion this turned out to be. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, that some theists and atheists have more in common and to talk about than some atheists and atheists, and theists and theists have. It helps that you write in a down to earth and clear way.
• 

  snare&racket

  These posts have totally gone off topic from the original thread title that long ago died. Can you gutys debate quantum physics under a different thread so as to not confuse the issues for new readers please?

  i ask politely and with respect, just because the various types of atheists and the largely unknowm and unquantifiable quantum physics are so different in topic yet may be perceived as 'on topic' to someone who doesn't realise the ins and outs of atheism. It has gone off track by some light years, so its probably best hey.

  cheers x

  ps hope you all having a good day x
• 

  Seraphim23

  Its fine for now because good communication is happening between atheist and theist, which is a point in itself I think.