Friday, January 22, 2016

Hawking and the Probability Wave Creation of the Universe

[Hat tip to Phoenix for bringing this up]

The procedure to evaluate anything Hawking et al say is to list all of the serial assumptions which are made and which have to be “the case” in order for his theories to be valid, and then to see at which of the assumptions empirical validation automatically cease, leaving the theory to be a bed time story for physicist speculators.

This theory is no different.

OK, first off it is not the Wave Theory of the Universe, it is Wave Theory Within an Infinite Multiverse which both is external to our universe, and contains our universe.

The theory, according to Wikipedia and a couple of other sites, goes like this:

There exists an infinite number of universes, within which our universe exists and has a waveform which exists such as to predict a high probability of the existence of our universe with regard to other universes.

From Wikipedia:
”The Hartle–Hawking state is the wave function of the Universe—a notion meant to figure out how the Universe started—that is calculated from Feynman's path integral.

More precisely, it is a hypothetical vector in the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity that describes this wave function.

It is a functional of the metric tensor defined at a (D − 1)-dimensional compact surface, the Universe, where D is the spacetime dimension. The precise form of the Hartle–Hawking state is the path integral over all D-dimensional geometries that have the required induced metric on their boundary. According to the theory time diverged from three state dimension—as we know the time now[clarification needed]—after the universe was at the age of the Planck time.

Such a wave function of the Universe can be shown to satisfy the Wheeler–DeWitt equation." [1]

Wave Theory works for particles within our universe, which is a physical Hilbert space. It is an ungrounded (wild) assumption to premise that a) there is an exo-universe, or infinite possible universes, b) that the Set [all possible universes] is a physical Hilbert space, and c) that our universe has an external vector in the Set [all possible universes] Hilbert space. (Three ungrounded assumptions).

Further, how was the three dimensional space able to “age” before there was time? This could happen only if the infinite multiverse also had time in which the space coordinates could “age”. This would mean that the infinite universe has a common environment in which space and time exist even between universes. That common environment would indicate a superset, Set [all possible universes], which is infinitely large (in order to contain an infinite number of universes), AND which is both physical and temporal in nature. (Fourth ungrounded assumption).

The grounding of this necessary attribute is problematic. Did this superset, Set [all possible universes] always exist? Did it exist in the distant past? And if our universe only recently came into being, then the superset, Set [all possible universes], could not have contained “all possible” universes since it did not contain our universe. This is a logical contradiction.

Next is the issue of why our particular universe would have the dominant probability wave. The answer is that it just does, because it works as a physical universe (all the constants are in harmony). This is just a Tautology: It has to work because it does work (it works because it works). Thus, because it obviously is here, it has to have a probability of 1.0 of existing as it is.

And, if the probability wave indicates the necessity of a universe existing like ours does, why did it not always exist, within the Set [all possible universes]? Because our universe did not always exist, then the set was not complete until our universe finally existed. And if our universe has a probability of 1.0 of existing, then why did it NOT always exist? This is a logical lock-out. [2]

Finally, if the Set [all possible universes] is physical in the sense of being composed of space/time in order to act as a Hilbert space, then changes in space/time require causes. A unique effect requires a unique cause, and the effect cannot be greater than the cause. This leads to the age old conundrum: can a universe containing life, consciousness, intellect and agency be created from a causeless environment, and if a cause is required, then what must the characteristics of the cause be? Well the cause must be very complex.

This is especially the case, given that First Life cannot be explained by deterministic properties of minerals, and neither can independent life, consciousness and self-awareness, intellect and the ability to know and analyze, and the agency to perform non-deterministic, self-determined actions.

Notes:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state
2. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00670817

24 comments:

Steven Satak said...

Where did the multiverse come from? And why do we assume that the creation rule is the same throughout it? And where is the physical evidence for it?

Phoenix said...

I was offline whole weekend, thanks for the response Stan. I haven't been reading up on physics for months and I completely failed to recognize the multiverse being invoked by Atheists.

Phoenix said...

This leads to the age old conundrum: can a universe containing life, consciousness, intellect and agency be created from a causeless environment, and if a cause is required, then what must the characteristics of the cause be? Well the cause must be very complex.

Ok, after re-reading the article, I get this now.The cause must be greater than its effect and yet in Evolution its works ass backwards. Simpler matter (minerals) is the cause of greater complexity (First Life).

Robert Coble said...

There is considerable philosophical support for the deduction that the First Cause MUST be utterly SIMPLE, not complex. For an outstanding example, refer to Dr. Robert J. Spitzer's book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.

New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy

Specifically, chapter 3, A Metaphysical Argument for God's Existence lays out the most meticulous, detailed step-by-step argument that I have ever seen for (in Dr. Spitzer's words) "a Pure Unconditioned Reality."

Quoting the chapter conclusion:

"In view of the above five steps, the "unique, ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE [my emphasis], unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself which is the continuous Creator of all else that is" must exist. This Reality corresponds to what is generally thought to be "God." God, as defined, must exist."

Stan said...

OK,then. Book ordered.

However, I am dubious that there is any scientific case which can be made that is not subject to the Induction Fallacy; the lack of empirical validation; the violation of the Popper demarcation criterion, etc.

Science does not produce truth, it produces challengable temporary factoids which can be overturned, given more advanced technology and understanding. So the case to be made is necessarily philosophical, I suspect, rather than deterministically empirical.

My book arrives in two days.

Robert Coble said...

I think you will enjoy the book!

Nastika said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nastika said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nastika said...

My objection is the assertion, often made by theists, that god somehow exists outside of time.If god existed prior to the big bang then by that language she must have acted in a time sequence of events, falsifying the notion of somehow existing outside of time and merely pushing the problems of first cause and infinite time back a step, solving nothing logically.

Our senses are not necessarily comprehensive. One may invent an unlimited number of proposed fantasmagorical existences beyond our detection and by definition, I cannot absolutely disprove them. But since, by definition, these speculations cannot be positively evidenced I consider the likelihood of such speculations being truly existent to be infinitesimal.

Hawking has no clue about the conditions or causes at t=0, much less t=-1. He has applied theories known to fail under those very conditions, an act of gross irrationality. Why anybody can stand to listen to such nonsense is beyond me, maybe they are starstruck or something, I don’t know.

Stan said...

Interesting. Let's look a little deeper.

First: There is nothing inherent in the concept of existing outside of time that makes the existence exclusive of also being able to exist inside time. So that issue is not a relevant falsification.

Second: The idea that non-material existence cannot be experienced materially is not a rational reason to conclude that it cannot and does not exist. What you assert here is merely Radical Skepticism based in Philosophical Materialism, both of which are anti-rational:

Radical Skepticism devolves to the inability to know anything, based on the reductive inability to know even rational existences. Philosophical Materialism cannot even prove its own premises when constrained to its own conclusion, which is a blatant Category Error.

So you may certainly have an opinion on non-material existence; however, you cannot judge the probability of non-material existence based on material observations.

However, there are instances of non-material existence which are observable due to their material effects. These include life, intellect, agency, all of which have no correlate in the non-living world, and all of which cannot be explained by the four physical forces, nor determinism, which they violate. These must be (and frequently are) denied to even exist, by those whose worldview demands either or both Radical Skepticism or Philosophical Materialism.

Mere denial without presenting contrary evidence is just empty denialism, and is not a rational argument until evidence or logic is presented which proves the denial is a valid argument, grounded, and passes logical testing.

Nastika said...

"First: There is nothing inherent in the concept of existing outside of time that makes the existence exclusive of also being able to exist inside time. So that issue is not a relevant falsification."

Of course there is. Cause and effect are a time sequence of events. If you can cite an observed case of a cause and effect that is not a time sequence of events please send me the link to the paper or video or whatever documentation is available.


"Second: The idea that non-material existence cannot be experienced materially is not a rational reason to conclude that it cannot and does not exist. What you assert here is merely Radical Skepticism based in Philosophical Materialism, both of which are anti-rational:"

As opposed to some kind of ethereal cloud of soul stuff in a dualist imagination? Unproven indeed. Pot, meet kettle.

"However, there are instances of non-material existence which are observable due to their material effects. These include life, intellect, agency, all of which have no correlate in the non-living world, and all of which cannot be explained by the four physical forces, nor determinism, which they violate. These must be (and frequently are) denied to even exist, by those whose worldview demands either or both Radical Skepticism or Philosophical Materialism"

How could those “causal conditions” come in to place ex nihlio? As in all theistic speculations, you have merely moved the problem back a step and made it even worse in doing so by introducing unevidenced dualist notions that solve nothing.


"Mere denial without presenting contrary evidence is just empty denialism, and is not a rational argument until evidence or logic is presented which proves the denial is a valid argument, grounded, and passes logical testing."

There most certainly is no reason to presuppose existence began at t=0.

"Radical Skepticism devolves to the inability to know anything, based on the reductive inability to know even rational existences. Philosophical Materialism cannot even prove its own premises when constrained to its own conclusion, which is a blatant Category Error."

That would only reinforce skepticism, since you are not trusting my assertion, you are being a skeptic yourself :-)
My only absolute certainty is that I exist in some form, and corollaries based on self awareness. To proceed in my apparent life with apparent function I provisionally postulate the basic reliability of my senses, while remaining a skeptic.

Stan said...

Nastika says,
”Of course there is. Cause and effect are a time sequence of events. If you can cite an observed case of a cause and effect that is not a time sequence of events please send me the link to the paper or video or whatever documentation is available.”

Well, from current quantum physics, look up particle entanglement.

From metaphysics look up the Lourdes miracle which is always available to be debunked.

And if you are to exclude effects that have no time sequenced cause, then the universe must always have existed, because time and space pre-existed the universe (contrary to current cosmology).

From physiology, there is always the brain state which causes a person to force a limb to move according to a desire, the desire being the cause.

From physics and empiricism, every hypothesis is not, itself, a physical entity, yet it is required as a precursor to the experiment.

Finally, your request is based in materialism, demanding material evidence for non-material causation. That is a Category Error.

”"Second: The idea that non-material existence cannot be experienced materially is not a rational reason to conclude that it cannot and does not exist. What you assert here is merely Radical Skepticism based in Philosophical Materialism, both of which are anti-rational:"

As opposed to some kind of ethereal cloud of soul stuff in a dualist imagination? Unproven indeed. Pot, meet kettle.”


Tu Quoque; not a valid approach to refutation. And again, the term “unproven” appears to relate to the demand for material proof for a non-material existence, the ever present and underlying Category Error.

”How could those “causal conditions” come in to place ex nihlio? As in all theistic speculations, you have merely moved the problem back a step and made it even worse in doing so by introducing unevidenced dualist notions that solve nothing.”

Not ex nihilo. The term, ex nihilo, refers to the material object coming from no material precursor, as happened in the Big Bang (which condition doesn’t seem to bother Atheists at t = 0). But the term ex nihilo does not refer to entities which are never manifested in material existence. So a non-material cause which does not materialize in order to create the effect is not an ex nihilo event. So the attempt to classify the cause as ex nihilo in order to require a demonstration, fails logically. Further, that attempt is another artifact of the truncation of logic space by the fallacy of Category Error due to the internal non-coherence of Philosophical Materialism.

Stan said...

”There most certainly is no reason to presuppose existence began at t=0.”

Either it started or it did not. Cosmology seriously closed in on the point at which it started, especially with the discovery of the background radiation, and the accelerated expansion at the outer limits. Present your evidence which refutes current cosmology.

”"Radical Skepticism devolves to the inability to know anything, based on the reductive inability to know even rational existences. Philosophical Materialism cannot even prove its own premises when constrained to its own conclusion, which is a blatant Category Error."

That would only reinforce skepticism, since you are not trusting my assertion, you are being a skeptic yourself :-)”


Quite to the contrary.

First, I do not assert skepticism of any disciplined, Aristotelian deductive argument which is valid, based in true and valid premises which are grounded in First Principles, and which pass Aristotelian logic testing including Reductio Ad Absurdum. And note that, although empiricism and physics are based in that also, none of that is materially provable in the sense of the testing of physical objects.

Second, being skeptical of radical skepticism does not produce even more skepticism; showing that radical skepticism is irrational produces less skepticism. It does so by placing rational limits on skepticism by defining knowability in a rational fashion.

And that does, of course, presupposed that there are people who consider themselves rational yet cannot believe certain concepts which are rationally and logically valid. But it is possible that such a presupposition is not warranted, and that such people are not, in fact, rational enough to believe themselves to be rational.

”My only absolute certainty is that I exist in some form, and corollaries based on self awareness. To proceed in my apparent life with apparent function I provisionally postulate the basic reliability of my senses, while remaining a skeptic.”

Then you appear to be a skeptic of the pyrrhonian school, which devolves to the “brain in a vat”; you cannot prove that you exist in any form of reality because you might be the brain in the vat which is fed false reality through connections which are managed by hordes of scientists. Your reality cannot be known to be real, and you might be deceived by every managed “sensory” input.

Your skepticism is complete, down to your actual essence, which you cannot know for certain. Thus no argument you make has any bearing on objective reality, because you cannot know if there even is an external objective reality.

I admit that I am a holographic input to your captive mind, and that I exist solely to cause you to question the existence of everything which is not :: you. In other words, I do not exist except in your mind.

Phoenix said...

Stan,

The sources I've checked (mostly forums) for quantum entanglement states the particles are simultaneously correlated not caused. Do you have any primary sources for simultaneous causation, classic or quantum?

Phoenix said...

Stan,

On second thought and after re-reading a wiki article.

if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise, as to be expected due to their entanglement. However, this behavior gives rise to paradoxical effects: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g., by collapsing a number of superposed states) and will change the original quantum property by some unknown amount; and in the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole.

It seems Quantum entanglement does qualify as simultaneous causation. The measurement of one particle causes the other to collapse.

Stan said...

Yep. Instant communication, faster than the speed of light. It'll wind up in quantum computers some day. It's not the particle which collapses, tho, it is the indeterminate states of the particle which collapse to a determinate state, which is caused by the state of the first particle being measured. When the first is measured, the second is determined so the measurement is a "system measurement" because the state of both particles is known. This has recently been done over extended distances between particles, measured in yards (but I don't recall how many yards, although I think it was in the hundreds).

Nastika said...

Well, from current quantum physics, look up particle entanglement. "
Studying the sources. Will revisit this topic later.

"Tu Quoque; not a valid approach to refutation. And again, the term “unproven” appears to relate to the demand for material proof for a non-material existence, the ever present and underlying Category Error."
Well, no, I am not claiming you are acting inconsistent with your conclusions and therefore your conclusions are wrong. My claim is that whatever logical conundrum you seek to solve with dualistic speculations is in fact merely pushed back a step to even worse conundrums in your attempt.You are asserting a plane of existence not palpably in evidence, thus the burden of proof is on you.

I claim magic unicorns romping about the far side of the moon telepathically control our fates (they hide in moon caves whenever they magically sense the presence of a spacecraft overhead). You may reasonably reject my claim of magic unicorns on the far side of the moon until such time as I provide some evidence for them. Your god speculation is no better than my unicorn assertion.

"Not ex nihilo. The term, ex nihilo, refers to the material object coming from no material precursor, as happened in the Big Bang (which condition doesn’t seem to bother Atheists at t = 0). But the term ex nihilo does not refer to entities which are never manifested in material existence. So a non-material cause which does not materialize in order to create the effect is not an ex nihilo event. So the attempt to classify the cause as ex nihilo in order to require a demonstration, fails logically. Further, that attempt is another artifact of the truncation of logic space by the fallacy of Category Error due to the internal non-coherence of Philosophical Materialism."

More oxymoronic imagination. If your god is not made of something then she is absolutely nothing at all, and absolutely nothing at all has a real hard time poofing a universe into existence. Sorry, Aristotelian physics is entirely unimpressive to a modern thinker. The efficient cause being the non-material cause is hardly validated by modern physics.

"(which condition doesn’t seem to bother Atheists at t = 0)"
Ok, but that does not give us any science at t=0, only a very general notion at that time, and a great deal of science thereafter.

"Either it started or it did not. Cosmology seriously closed in on the point at which it started, especially with the discovery of the background radiation, and the accelerated expansion at the outer limits. Present your evidence which refutes current cosmology."

Nobody knows. There are no scientific theories, much less experimental observations to answer that question.The operative phrase being “best we have”. We don’t have it right yet. So, the best we have is wrong. By “wrong” if mean it in the sense the Newton was “wrong”. Newton was correct to a high degree of accuracy, but he was fundamentally wrong as a true description of the ultimate underlying reality.

Nobody has a true description of the ultimate underlying reality. That remains hidden from all human beings. I applaud and deeply respect the work of those who get us a bit closer to this goal at each step.

Nastika said...

"Then you appear to be a skeptic of the pyrrhonian school, which devolves to the “brain in a vat”; you cannot prove that you exist in any form of reality because you might be the brain in the vat which is fed false reality through connections which are managed by hordes of scientists. Your reality cannot be known to be real, and you might be deceived by every managed “sensory” input.

Your skepticism is complete, down to your actual essence, which you cannot know for certain. Thus no argument you make has any bearing on objective reality, because you cannot know if there even is an external objective reality.

I admit that I am a holographic input to your captive mind, and that I exist solely to cause you to question the existence of everything which is not :: you. In other words, I do not exist except in your mind."

Indeed, I might be god and you might be a figment of my divine imagination. I cannot prove that is not the case, and neither can you. But, I have no positive evidence for that speculation, so I consider it to be infinitesimally likely.

Stan said...

First off, I am going to move this conversation over to the Atheism Conversation Zone at the top of the Left hand column for easier access.

Your first argument is this:
” You are asserting a plane of existence not palpably in evidence, thus the burden of proof is on you.”

The term “palpable” means to physically feel a material “thing”. Thus you have again asserted your demand for a physical proof of a non-physical entity. That, again, is the logic fallacy of Category Error.

You make this claim:
” I claim magic unicorns romping about the far side of the moon telepathically control our fates (they hide in moon caves whenever they magically sense the presence of a spacecraft overhead). You may reasonably reject my claim of magic unicorns on the far side of the moon until such time as I provide some evidence for them. Your god speculation is no better than my unicorn assertion.”

What you provide here is not dialectic, it is pure rhetorical fallacy: False Analogy. It is of this form:
“BECAUSE the argument X which I create is a stupid argument, THEN the argument Y which I compare X to is also a stupid argument”.

This false use of analogy always fails because there is no actual analysis of either X or Y. So the declaration of the falseness of Y is an empty assertion, made with no evidence, no analysis, but made with the intent to insert bias rather than carefully considered deductive logic.

Assuming that you think this to be a rational position: You have provided no deductive path by which you arrived at your assertion. If you were to do so, then we could discuss it. As it stands, it is an empty assertion with no attempt made to justify it either logically or empirically.

That is not the case with basic theism, because there is a deductive path which can be discussed. But first, the Atheist must be open to a discussion which actually does present evidence for analysis, using disciplined deductive logic using Aristotelian principles.

Stan said...

” More oxymoronic imagination. If your god is not made of something then she is absolutely nothing at all, and absolutely nothing at all has a real hard time poofing a universe into existence. Sorry, Aristotelian physics is entirely unimpressive to a modern thinker. The efficient cause being the non-material cause is hardly validated by modern physics.”

This places you directly into the perpetual negation (full denialism) of reality mode. Absence of material existence is not the same as absence of existence. The “meaning” you impute to your statements (regardless of their truth or falseness) has reality, yet has no physical existence. There are many other examples, but I think that it is apparent that you will deny that anything which is not tactile can exist. Of course, if that were the actual case, then there would be no need for Popper’s demarcation, would there?

And no one here is claiming Aristotelian physics; Aristotelian deduction is the logic which supports modern empirical physics, and that is an established material process. So if you deny the validity of Aristotelian deductive logic, then you are perforce a science denier, too.

” "(which condition doesn’t seem to bother Atheists at t = 0)"
Ok, but that does not give us any science at t=0, only a very general notion at that time, and a great deal of science thereafter.”


This comment cements your Philosophical Materialism/Scientism, both of which are anti-rational. Would you care to discuss that?

” Nobody knows. There are no scientific theories, much less experimental observations to answer that question.The operative phrase being “best we have”. We don’t have it right yet. So, the best we have is wrong. By “wrong” if mean it in the sense the Newton was “wrong”. Newton was correct to a high degree of accuracy, but he was fundamentally wrong as a true description of the ultimate underlying reality.”

This is not explanatory; it is “science of the gaps”. This answer would not suffice for any discussion of evolution with evolutionists. Or if you think it would, then you are an evolution-denier as well.

” Nobody has a true description of the ultimate underlying reality. That remains hidden from all human beings. I applaud and deeply respect the work of those who get us a bit closer to this goal at each step.”

So you applaud the quantum physicists of the Copenhagen Quantum Physics, who have stated categorically that all existence is, at its base, consciousness of a universal, necessary being? Do you wish to discuss this?

” Indeed, I might be god and you might be a figment of my divine imagination. I cannot prove that is not the case, and neither can you. But, I have no positive evidence for that speculation, so I consider it to be infinitesimally likely.”

Given all your lack of proof and inability to prove, then you cannot know much at all, if anything. Except that you know that science produces the only truth, rather than contingent data; you know that you know that; except that you cannot prove that you are not a hologram or a brain in a vat. So you think that you exist, but you don’t know that; you could be a delusion daemon. And that proves that there is no God.

Got it.

Steven Satak said...

It would seem reason is not on Nastika's side. Strong emotion and denial, yes, but they oppose reason.

For example, I understood all of what Stan says. It makes sense.

I did NOT understand Nastika's statements until Stan 'decoded' them; they then made sense, but were seen (by me) to be self-contradicting or just wrong.

I also note that Nastika imported the flippancy and general mocking language commonly found in internet Atheist/Leftist echo chambers. To mock something = to disprove it, at least on the Internet.

Most of what Nastika mentioned has been debunked, if you will, time and time again. Even C. S. Lewis's Screwtape knew the old trick of false analogy; in teaching Wormwood to effectively lead a man ("the patient") to Hell, he offered the following advice:

"My dear Wormwood,
I wonder you should ask me whether it is essential to keep the patient in ignorance of your own existence. That question, at least for the present phase of the struggle, has been answered for us by the High Command. Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so. We are really faced with a cruel dilemma. When the humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and skeptics. At least, not yet. I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy.

The ‘Life Force,’ the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce one perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls ‘Forces’ while denying the existence of ‘spirits’—then the end of the war will be in sight.

But in the meantime we must obey our orders. I do not think you will have much difficulty in keeping the patient in the dark. The fact that ‘devils’ are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you."

Nastika said...

First off, I am going to move this conversation over to the Atheism Conversation Zone at the top of the Left hand column for easier access.

Can't find it, give me the link.

The term “palpable” means to physically feel a material “thing”. Thus you have again asserted your demand for a physical proof of a non-physical entity. That, again, is the logic fallacy of Category Error.
“Non-physical entity” is an oxymoronic term. It is an incoherent notion. If it isn’t made of something, some kind of energy, some kind of spacetime, something other than absolutely nothing at all, then it is absolutely nothing at all and can thus have no properties at all, much less intelligence and the power to create a universe.

This comment cements your Philosophical Materialism/Scientism, both of which are anti-rational. Would you care to discuss that?
We just don’t have any science at t=0. Quite apparently the true nature of the underlying reality is beyond my senses and comprehension at present, as is the case for all human beings that have ever lived. Science is simply the best tool we have for getting closer and closer to that ultimate truth.

So you applaud the quantum physicists of the Copenhagen Quantum Physics, who have stated categorically that all existence is, at its base, consciousness of a universal, necessary being? Do you wish to discuss this?
??? The Copenhagen Interpretation is about specific properties, measurement, and collapse of the wave function. You just tossed in the bit about “universal consciousness” ad hoc.

Given all your lack of proof and inability to prove, then you cannot know much at all, if anything. Except that you know that science produces the only truth, rather than contingent data; you know that you know that; except that you cannot prove that you are not a hologram or a brain in a vat. So you think that you exist, but you don’t know that; you could be a delusion daemon. And that proves that there is no God.

I have evidence and logic based upon certain provisional postulates for my position, and I demand likewise from others. You can believe in magic pixies if you want., which are just as likely as your god or any other “supernatural” claim.
My senses seem to be basically reliable, so I provisionally postulate that they are. Building upon that postulate reality is detectable and assertions about the nature of various aspects of reality are falsifiable, or at least they should be falsifiable at least in principle to be considered more than idle speculation.

Stan said...

First off, I am going to move this conversation over to the Atheism Conversation Zone at the top of the Left hand column for easier access.

Can't find it, give me the link.


Seriously?? OK.
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/03/discussion-zone-for-atheism.html

The term “palpable” means to physically feel a material “thing”. Thus you have again asserted your demand for a physical proof of a non-physical entity. That, again, is the logic fallacy of Category Error.

“Non-physical entity” is an oxymoronic term. It is an incoherent notion. If it isn’t made of something, some kind of energy, some kind of spacetime, something other than absolutely nothing at all, then it is absolutely nothing at all and can thus have no properties at all, much less intelligence and the power to create a universe.


You cannot prove that, using material evidence. And under your hypothesis, material evidence in the form of mass/energy would be absolutely required in order to be objective knowledge. So it would have to have been derived from empirical testing, so demonstrate that please.

While you do that, consider that your idea of non-coherence is purely a concept, in other words it is not found in the form of mass/energy, space/time – it is a little bit of “meaning” in your mind.
There are no lumps of “the concept of incoherence” to be found anywhere in the universe. Nor can it be refined from minerals, nor created artificially. The “concept of incoherence” is a non-physical entity. So if that does not exist, then your argument fails due ironically to internal non-coherence.

”This comment cements your Philosophical Materialism/Scientism, both of which are anti-rational. Would you care to discuss that?
We just don’t have any science at t=0. Quite apparently the true nature of the underlying reality is beyond my senses and comprehension at present, as is the case for all human beings that have ever lived. Science is simply the best tool we have for getting closer and closer to that ultimate truth.

So you applaud the quantum physicists of the Copenhagen Quantum Physics, who have stated categorically that all existence is, at its base, consciousness of a universal, necessary being? Do you wish to discuss this?

??? The Copenhagen Interpretation is about specific properties, measurement, and collapse of the wave function. You just tossed in the bit about “universal consciousness” ad hoc.”


Then you are unaware of their positions, I take it. Here are a few:

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
Erwin Schrödinger

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Planck

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Max Planck

Stan said...

Moving on:
Given all your lack of proof and inability to prove, then you cannot know much at all, if anything. Except that you know that science produces the only truth, rather than contingent data; you know that you know that; except that you cannot prove that you are not a hologram or a brain in a vat. So you think that you exist, but you don’t know that; you could be a delusion daemon. And that proves that there is no God.

”I have evidence and logic based upon certain provisional postulates for my position, and I demand likewise from others. You can believe in magic pixies if you want., which are just as likely as your god or any other “supernatural” claim.”

Then you are selectively skeptical, which disproves your prior position. Please choose just one position; it is not possible to have a coherent discussion with someone whose position changes according to whim.

”My senses seem to be basically reliable, so I provisionally postulate that they are. Building upon that postulate reality is detectable and assertions about the nature of various aspects of reality are falsifiable, or at least they should be falsifiable at least in principle to be considered more than idle speculation.”

This position presupposes that your senses (which you believe – presuppose - to be reliable) can sense all that exists, and further presupposes that nothing which your senses detect can exist. Further, the language of “reality” is presupposed to apply only and entirely to whatever your presupposed reliable senses actually detect. This is four presuppositions which you cannot prove. Four presuppositions in the primary premise of your argument indicates a serious bias toward a presupposed conclusion, and a serious lack of ability to support that conclusion.

” Science is simply the best tool we have for getting closer and closer to that ultimate truth.”

You have already asserted that your “reality” can contain only (exclusively) mass/energy in space/time. Therefore, there can be no “ultimate truth” regarding a cause for mass/energy, space/time, which is not composed of mass/energy, space/time. That is non-coherent.

Further the scientific pursuit of something which is NOT mass/energy, space/time is also non-coherent because science cannot detect anything which is not composed of mass/energy, space/time.

So far, this entire concept is based on the blatant fallacy of Category Error.

Further you have ignored the use of deduction in science, and the use of deduction to determine the truth value of disciplined argumentations. And you have not made an actual argument, you have merely referred to the possibility that you have one (apparently based in presuppositions of your own devising, rather than being grounded in first principles).

So go ahead and elaborate your argument in terms of logic.