-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Does Quantum Theory disprove the idea of God?
- Thread starter vordhosbn
- Start date
- Status
HeadlessRoland
Banned
MuseManMike said:
What part of those two sentences do you not understand? I cant respond to incoherent ramblings that have absolutely fucking nothing to do with anything I have said. To say nothing of the fact iapetus answers that question in the post DIRECTLY above yours.
HeadlessRoland
Banned
markot said:
Because its a claim. The natural state is ignorance or neutrality. Saying something does not exist is a position and science cant prove nonexistence, haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#Hume
My reference to Hume was a joke, but that one guy didn't understand it.
David Hume.markot said:
HeadlessRoland
Banned
Pre said:
You cant disprove the existence of anything. The closest you can get is "there is no evidence indicating such a thing exists."
The problem is that you cannot empirically verify metaphysical concepts...whether they exist or not. So this statement is ultimately and fundamentally incorrect. But as I knew this conversation would follow this path and I dont want to have to explain all this shit again, I am taking my leave!
There is no super natural, all Gods are by definition super natural, God cannot exist.
>_>
Again, you cant disprove something that people keep moving the goal posts on. Every advance of science is met by a retreat and restating of the religous position.
You cant disprove the spaghetti god theory. You cant disprove the Norse Gods. Again, in a land of extremes, you cant disprove anything. Prove that you are not a figment of my imagination. Does this now warrant serious discussion or belief? Does this mean that its a valid statement?
>_>
Again, you cant disprove something that people keep moving the goal posts on. Every advance of science is met by a retreat and restating of the religous position.
You cant disprove the spaghetti god theory. You cant disprove the Norse Gods. Again, in a land of extremes, you cant disprove anything. Prove that you are not a figment of my imagination. Does this now warrant serious discussion or belief? Does this mean that its a valid statement?
In the most purest sense, yes, this is true. But, there are an infinite number of things that may or may not exist. I look at it from a pragmatic point of view. If you assume there is no God, not much changes in our daily existence. Our society and those who inhabit it can carry on. Claiming that we are the result of a sentient being brings all kinds problems to the surface. And no one who makes this claim has evidence of it. Therefore, if you can assert it without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence.iapetus said:
HeadlessRoland
Banned
You dont understand why metaphysical concepts cant be subjected to empirical verification. It has nothing to do with the intellectually dishonest tricks of the non-believers. But your demand for proof that is simply impossible to provide IS intellectually dishonest.
Did you miss my first response? But you should probably take note of the distinction between something being "false" within the structure of a logical framework and the process of induction in the meat world. For they are two entirely different things with entirely different rules.
iapetus said:It's those bollocks again.This time your claim to consider is "There is no positive prime number greater than two."
Did you miss my first response? But you should probably take note of the distinction between something being "false" within the structure of a logical framework and the process of induction in the meat world. For they are two entirely different things with entirely different rules.
HeadlessRoland
Banned
MuseManMike said:
mind bottling!
Everything, EVERYTHING, about the gods we have heard of, imply that proof would be plentiful. There is none.
What does one conclude? That the evidence is missing? That there is a huge galactic trick?
All the gods I have heard of are false. Based on their own writings, doings, and history. You cant have your cake and pretend it isnt there too.
Metaphysics is a sham.
What does one conclude? That the evidence is missing? That there is a huge galactic trick?
All the gods I have heard of are false. Based on their own writings, doings, and history. You cant have your cake and pretend it isnt there too.
Metaphysics is a sham.
iapetus said:
As a broad overall concept, it's pretty difficult to disprove.
But I'd say that it's certainly easy enough to disprove specific conceptions (and even ranges of conceptions) of god(s).
e.g. God that is human is disproved on the basis of contradiction (i.e. the concepts of god and human are not compatible - unless you want to start redefining the concepts of those terms).
To take it further - conceptions of gods with contradictions inherent to their conception, or with contradictions in natural evidence are also disprovable.
e.g. God that created man from dust and woman from man's rib is false* given that contradiction we have for it in the natural evidence we have for in evolution.
*or at least a certain of its falseness as we are certain of the truth of evolution.
HeadlessRoland
Banned
Zaptruder said:
Its not difficult its impossible by simple deffinition.
Do you know what metaphysics is?
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. - There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
Douglas Adams
Douglas Adams
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
Zaptruder said:
Do you know what an infinite regress is? Yes, it's that arbitrary.
When you stare deep enough into the shit, there's no boundary between the concept of "you" and the concepts of "the universe" and "reality." It's just how the story goes, man. You're drawing lines in the sand where there is no sand. We recognize all of this deep down but shrug it off because it's "hippy bullshit" or whatever and carry on like our cultures have told us we're "supposed to," whatever that even means.
One of my favorite videos on the matter is here, a talk given by Terence McKenna. He advocates cultural cleansing via high-powered "pharmacological agents."
NEOPARADIGM said:Do you know what an infinite regress is? Yes, it's that arbitrary.
When you stare deep enough into the shit, there's no boundary between the concept of "you" and the concepts of "the universe" and "reality." It's just how the story goes, man. You're drawing lines in the sand where there is no sand. We recognize all of this deep down but shrug it off because it's "hippy bullshit" or whatever and carry on like our cultures have told us we're "supposed to," whatever that even means.
One of my favorite videos on the matter is here, a talk given by Terence McKenna. He advocates cultural cleansing via high-powered "pharmacological agents."
Can you provide specific examples in the context of what's already been said of what infinite regress is and how it's a bad thing?
I'm really not following. I mean... is it a case where if I make the distinction between man and universe, I should also make the distinction between this man and that man - between the body of man, and the mind of man, etc?
I really don't follow how any of that relates back to the original point - where I believe 'man is a part of the universe' is a more useful and accurate distinction from 'man is the universe'.
Monocle
Member
What supernatural world? Anything that exists is in nature, hence natural, by definition. The idea of the supernatural is a philosophical parlor trick, a way to carve out a logical space for the illogical so people don't have to discard irrational beliefs they hold dear. There is no evidence for the "supernatural." There is not even a way to test for its existence. Like all other unfalsifiable notions, then, there is no good reason to assume the supernatural exists.TL4E said:
As for the god question, it most certainly is in the purview of science if you wish to posit a deity that can interact with reality. Real things have effects that can be observed and measured. A deistic entity (a non-intervening creator) is the most one can rationally assume without demolishing vast wings of science and philosophy. And even if you run with that assumption, you've only said something about what made the universe, not how it was made, so you leave the scientific endeavor exactly as you found it: with a hell of a lot of work yet to do.
Anyone who claims philosophy is dead is almost certainly unaware of philosophy's most useful functions, which are to explore the realm of the possible (as opposed to the actual), challenge our assumptions, and generate new ways of thinking about important problems and issues, untrammeled by the scientific picture of reality, which is restricted by our senses and prone to human error and constantly under revision. Every so often we need a good kick in the throat by someone like Paul Feyerabend to jolt us out of our complacency.MuseManMike said:
If philosophy is dead, so is humanity's collective imagination.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Zaptruder said:
They're the same thing.
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
Zaptruder said:
The idea is that "the universe" is conceptually indiscernible from one's own consciousness of it, and indeed beliefs about it. If I were to say I am only "part" of this "universe" (the totality of my perception and beliefs) then I'd have to ask what is this "me" that I'm talking about, what is the nature of consciousness, what is "self"?, etc., and I'd never really run into that wall where "I" stops and "the universe" begins.
And that's just philosophically speaking. When you factor in science the picture doesn't get any clearer - because what do we have? Quantum theory insanity, theoretical physics talking about time-travel and parallel multiverses, and big bang cosmology is just another useless mindfuck that looks strikingly similar to a metaphor for the dawn of one's own consciousness: "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then, everything." Yeah, that's just how I remember it, actually. I was about 3 when it happened.
VisanidethDM
Banned
The Frankman said:
But it's God who sends him around!
Napoleonthechimp
Member
The idea of a separate self distinct from the Universe is the false egotistical illusion. As they say in Buddhism (and quantum physics): There is no distinction between the observer and the observed.Zaptruder said:
Thinking about God as being a separate thing divorced from the Universe/existence is a dualistic way of thinking. To meet God is to split yourself in half and hold a conversation with yourself.
NEOPARADIGM said:
None of what you say makes any sense to me. It appears as though you're leaping down an unjustified slippery slope.
I kinda get what you're saying (although not completely) - this is not the first time I've encountered variations of the idea broadly catergorized as 'perception is reality', but I don't agree with it.
The wall between I and the universe is pretty concrete from a definitional stand point, even a philosophical one.
Where I can be considered the pattern of collection of particles that form the body and brain in which my mind is localized, and the universe can be considered the the complete set of particles and energy and the laws that govern their motion and action.
I am a subset of the complete set of particles and energy and the laws that govern their motion and action (the universe), but I am not the complete set of particles... etc.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
The particles and energy that make up your body are constantly shifting and changing. The only thing that remains is the idea of ourselves that we hold in our heads, but even that had to develop from nothing to something so it could be said that it is also impermanent and constantly changing.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
The exact nature of Occam's razor is always open for debate, but one could argue that in this case it applies to the god explanation and not the naturalistic explanation. Whereas a naturalist explanation for all phenomena is much more complex, the god explanation adds a massive new assumption that can be better explained by grounding the discussion within a naturalistic framework.iapetus said:
I do agree that science is generally uninterested in the god question if by science we mean the scientific method. However, we can use the facts we acquire from the scientific method and apply philosophy and rationalism to explore the existence and nature of god (although in this case I'm a little skeptical that quantum physics will tell us anything about god).
Napoleonthechimp said:
I still don't agree with the points this camp of man is universe is god is insisting on.
But to give it some charity and to express it in a perspective that I can more readily accept - man is to the universe as cells in the body are to man.
Still, cells in the body/mind doesn't make the man, even if they're a necessary part of the makeup of the man.
And it's also pretty arrogant to think/suggest that man is the only form of sentience that will emerge from the vastness of the universe.
Monocle
Member
Well, unless there's some way to uncouple ourselves from our own subjective perspective, there's at least one good reason to subdivide the world into categories, which is that one's own consciousness forces one to remain on the inside looking out, as it were. Even if there's no "real" distinction between in here and out there, as observers we're stuck thinking in those terms.Napoleonthechimp said:
Monocle said:
Kinda relating to the topic at hand...
I believe the only real objective truth in the universe is the universe itself - it is the pure description of all things - and it does so in terms of particles, and their motion.
All other knowledge, belief, etc arises from a constrained view of reality. Some constraints are tighter than others - but meaning is something that can only be had when there's a perspective.
Otherwise, what more meaning is there for the particles and the actions they have in my brain then the particles and actions that occur in the middle of the sun, or out in a blackhole. They are only particles that follow the rules of motion that constrain the universe.
Or what more meaning is there for masses of particles that comprise the entire sun, or solar, then some particles in some cell somewhere?
To provide additional charity for the opposing point of view - when one looks at the 'objective truth', then I suppose you could fudge the understanding that humans are the universe (or as the universe).
Still, from the perspective that matters... from the human perspective and all that it entails, it's certainly far more useful to disambiguate between self and man and man and universe then not.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
In the end, the gods will die if things keep going on like this. Currently, gods are little more than a politicum, and that'll become absurd at some point. Science will thrive regardless of such developments. We'll travel to distant stars, find some phenomenon that lets us see further through time than light allows, we'll flip over to other universes, fuckin make our own universes in glass bowls or whatever. Eventually, all will die, and what we'll leave behind will be a huge pile of science and no gods.
That's our current vector, at least.
That's our current vector, at least.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Who is assuming that?Zaptruder said:
That's what meditation and different forms of eastern philosophy are all about. There are two videos that I would suggest you take a look at about this very subject: Shunryu Suzuki Roshi - Sandokai - Sound and Noise and Zen Mind, Beginner's MindMonocle said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShoshinShoshin (初心is a concept in Zen Buddhism meaning Beginner's Mind. It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, even when studying at an advanced level, just as a beginner in that subject would. The term is especially used in the study of Zen Buddhism and Japanese martial arts.
The phrase was also used as the title of Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki's book: Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, which reflects a saying of his regarding the way to approach Zen practice: In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
db
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
iapetus said:
Err, I should have thought this blatantly obvious. Because you are not multiplying entities beyond necessity if your complications add predictive power and provide a better, more complete explanation.
If proposition X is significantly more complicated than proposition Y, but explains things better than Y by even a small margin, then you cannot say that Ockham's razor dictates that proposition Y is the superior explanation. Because that's not what the razor is about. It's about deciding between things that are both as good as the other, but where one is simpler than the other. It is necessary to multiply entities if multiplying entities aides in the model's completeness.
Monocle
Member
Science can't "prove" anything, but specific claims about an intervening god such as those you find in holy books can be tested. It's close to a certainty that a theistic god like Jehovah, one who speaks to people and alters nature in ways we can notice, doesn't exist.Raist said:
The problem is that ultimately all meditative techniques amount to placing yourself in a different mental state. You're still subject to all your brain's delusions and limitations, and if someone pops a cap in your noggin, you'd better believe you're going bye-bye. There's no way to look outside your own consciousness. Abstract thinking necessarily takes place from the same perspective one seeks to escape, even when you train yourself to temporarily feel like that's not the case.Napoleonthechimp said:
Monocle said:
Huh?
Anyway, yeah of course I was talking about "god" as a general concept, not specific gods described in various holy books, since claims made there about natural phenomenons are flat out wrong in most cases. Quite unlikely that if it is assumed that holy books are gods' words, such mistakes would be in there.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Inexperienced people can give in to the brain's delusions and hallucinate that they're something amazing and special but that is exactly what you said it is... a limitation of the brain. You have to move past hallucinations.Monocle said:
Raist said:
Even though it'd be more of a mouthful, I think it's more informative to rephrase the meme as
Science doesn't examine information that proves or disproves the broad concept of god as creator that doesn't make a measurable difference in our universe.
Because science can certainly elucidate on information that is able to rule out broad categories of gods; including the most common worshipped gods whose conception, doctrine and dogma readily makes claims that are contrary to observed evidence and reason consistent with that evidence.
Napoleonthechimp said:
While I'll admit that I don't quite understand the stances you're taking (their specifics, their reasons and implications), I'd suggest that it's at least in large part due to those stances not making a whole lot of sense in the first place.
It's almost as though you're suggesting that the brain can meditate past its physical limitations.
Of course that's not what you're saying - but what you're saying needs more straight forward clarification and elucidation, and less (what amounts to) mysticsm hogwash.
- Status