Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 12:08pm PT
|
just look at how much science has progressed compared to religion.
Hasn't progressed at all instead gone backward, actually devolved due to massive ignorance .....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 03:29pm PT
|
A lot of things you can't tell modern scientists because they've moved back into the deep regions of the caves of their own making where no light shines anymore ....
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 06:02pm PT
|
Acres of bullsh#t from auntie-christ:
Are you claiming alchemy didn't originate around 300 BCE?
Science is born out of medieval alchemy.
And as far as I know, you are the only idiot who calls quantum entanglement magic.
Ha! Talk to Einstein. But then he was an idiot too no doubt. What's it like to have that higher intelligence that makes Einstein look like an idiot?
So, if "religion has always adjusted" how can it be the inerrant word of god?
The question doesn't make sense. What do you think the Talmud is? Do you think any two Rabbis agree on anything? Do you think Martin Luther remained a Catholic? Henry the Eighth? Have you got any idea how many Christian sects there are? Do you think they agree with one another or have they each adjusted Christianity in their own way? Your understanding of religion is so limited, so myopic, so pathetic as to be just plain exhausting.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 07:10pm PT
|
What then is the difference between as you describe it "super-naturalism" and quantum mechanics?
I think the difference has been discussed many times here and, no doubt, in other forums.
Quantum mechanics, as part of science, presumes that all phenomena can be explained by physical processes, "natural" processes. And as an explanation, quantum mechanics has done a very good job over the last 100+ years. The transistors in the computer you connect up to the internet, for instance, are all a result of understanding the quantum mechanical nature of the assembly of materials. There is a huge body of empirical results which are described by (some predicted by) quantum mechanics.
Certainly, as I understand the "supernatural," there is no requirement that phenomena be explained solely by physical processes, admitting the possibility that some "supernatural" intervention is possible. In many cases it is stated that such "supernatural" agents exist, and that much of the universe is due to those agents. However, it is impossible to demonstrate that such agents actually exist, and in addition are not bound by "physical" limitations, so it is not, in principle, possible to investigate their agency.
It is naive to read Einstein's criticisms of quantum mechanics in the EPR paper as his belief that "magic" occurs, in fact, this paper establishes an apparent paradox in the thought experiment he and his co-authors proposed.
Einstein didn't call it entanglement, that term was coined much later, but we now understand that work in terms of quantum entanglement. John Bell rigorously worked out the implications of the EPR paper, and came up with a number of tests to see if the world works according to quantum mechanics, or more like what Einstein had in mind.
The world works like quantum mechanics, as established by experiments Bell's work inspired. So quantum mechanics is not magic, but it seems like it perhaps... like some clever modern magician whose skills in illusions leaves you with the perception of magic. Once you know the illusion you understand why you perceived what you did, same with quantum mechanics.
Now that is not to say there aren't some very interesting and profound consequences to a quantum mechanical world. And that too has been discussed in many posts, but in the end, it illustrates how science works, and it is not by the authority of individuals no matter how smart they are, it is by the authority of nature (as I.I. Rabi would tell us graduate students around tea in Pupin Hall). We do experiments to explore nature, to test our ideas, and to extend our knowledge.
That process can radically change science.
MikeL will have an opinion about this, but I see it as a distinctly different process then those employed by the systems of "supernatural" beliefs.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 07:19pm PT
|
I did talk to Einstein. He redacts his comments about quantum entanglement. He attributes his indiscretion to the lack of data available at the time.
Well that's nice Auntie. Now we have proof that there's an after life. You need to present that as a paper for your Nobel Prize. You and Bob Dylan who would have thought?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 07:23pm PT
|
Nature is NOT authority ever.
Nature is subordinate to the absolute truth (Parusha) which is not material.
Nature is female always Apara Prakrti,.... gross and subtle matter.
The absolute truth is always Purusha.
The gross materialists are always in ultimate poor fund of knowledge .....
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 07:43pm PT
|
It is naive to read Einstein's criticisms of quantum mechanics in the EPR paper as his belief that "magic" occurs, in fact, this paper establishes an apparent paradox in the thought experiment he and his co-authors proposed.
I think what's naive is to refer to religious ideas as simply magical thinking while ignoring the wisdom of their metaphorical interpretation, while at the same time declaring the remarkably radical notion of time/space as an illusion, for the sake of any explanation of entanglement. And that entanglement is simply a "natural process" within the framework of other natural processes only waiting for our understanding as physical reality. What prevents a similar validation of miracles as part and partial of the same kind of "natural explanation?" That entanglement has been validated by measurement doesn't address what it is, only that it is. In what sense does the collapse of time/space differ from what is colloquially described as a miracle?
Jesus fish, so eager to take the easy bait and avoid addressing their own lies. Swim on brother.
The wisdom of the Auntie. It sticks to the soles of your shoes.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 08:32pm PT
|
Honest question.
Now that's damn funny. You might want to look those words up especially "honest."
The most important thing in trolling is honesty. If you can fake that, you've got it made.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 09:43pm PT
|
That entanglement has been validated by measurement doesn't address what it is, only that it is. In what sense does the collapse of time/space differ from what is colloquially described as a miracle?
you seem to not have followed any previous discussions on threads you post to. Einstein's critique was that the thought experiment proposed in the EPR paper violated "local realism." I think that your reference to "the collapse of time/space" is the comment that two distant photons somehow communicate to each other once one is measured, "spooky action at a distance," this communication would have to be faster than light.
The usual quantum mechanical explanation is that while we think about the two photons as being individual objects, they are a part of a quantum mechanical state, and they are entangled with respect to some measurable quantity, say the state is represented by the pair of numbers (+1,-1) or (-1,+1) which are set once the photons are created. What we are measuring is not the single photon, but the state made up by the pair of photons. Quantum mechanics says that these two states are equally probable, so we don't know which one we are looking at until we measure, then we know, say we measure +1 for the one photon, the other one is -1, because that is the state they're in.
This wave function of two photons can span a large physical space, and that is an odd thing indeed, but not magic. If nothing interacts with either photon then that state can grow in size and we'll still get the same result.
The size of stars is measured using this sort of "interference" of photons emitted from the distant limbs of the star, and interact in this quantum mechanical way to give an interference pattern, this was developed by Hanburry-Brown & Twiss who made radioastronomy observations of the star sizes.
The more sophisticated understanding of Einstein's criticism has developed since Einstein (the paper was published in 1935) and the concept of "local realism" has been greatly expanded on as it was developed. You can read more '...classical physics must give up its claim to one of three assumptions: locality (no "spooky action at a distance"), counterfactual definiteness (or "non-contextuality"), and no conspiracy (called also "asymmetry of time").[4][5]'
But mostly this demonstrates that science invites the sort of questioning about really fundamental issues, and resolves them through careful experimental and theoretical activity. Which one of the three things classical physics has to give up is not resolved, and the implications of giving one up is not entirely known, but we don't consider that magic, just more work to do.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 10:27pm PT
|
you seem to not have followed any previous discussions on threads you post to. Einstein's critique was that the thought experiment proposed in the EPR paper violated "local realism." I think that your reference to "the collapse of time/space" is the comment that two distant photons somehow communicate to each other once one is measured, "spooky action at a distance," this communication would have to be faster than light.
This is a surprising sort of analysis. I've followed both of these threads with some interest. I understand the EPR paper but what remains is exactly that "spooky action." It remains a mystery that in spite of distance entanglement remains. If I told you that God exists and the proof of that is nestled in the realization that space and time are simply illusions and that space does not exist and the center of the universe is simply conscious mind you'd call that "magic" of magical thinking and rightfully so. On the face of it entanglement falls into a similar category. You may not want to call it magic but it has that taint.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 10:32pm PT
|
I don't agree with you, but obviously I'm not convincing. All I can say is that you have the ability to learn about it yourself, without taking my word for it. Science does not have priests leading their flocks, it is an open book for all to learn and understand.
If you don't want to, that's your choice. But certainly without that knowledge your sense of "taint" doesn't really have much behind it, except it what you're feelings are.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2019 - 09:08am PT
|
HFCS: rest assured there is a kind of freedom that comes from ignorance also
+1
Paul: there is a distinct and observable tendency to exaggerate the plague of identity politics that has currently found favor in some quarters of the academic world.
+1
Gentle Readers,
I think the word or term of “magic” used here is a cartoonish characterization, much like the one that sees God is as an old guy with a beard and flowing robes.
In studies of ritual and religion, “magic” presents a black-box transformation that appears to change situations in the real world. “Magic” is not religion according to those academics. Here’s one simple example: ancient hunters would make models / tokens and manipulate them in dramas to influence what would happen when they went out to hunt dangerous animals. If the hunt went well, then they performed the magic properly. If it didn’t go well, then they missed something in the ritual.
So, can you think of any physical or material explanations for how that magic might have “worked?” (You know, Skinner described the mind’s operations as a black box.)
I suppose Ed could say that might be fine and dandy for personal or social behaviors and outcomes, but he might admonish us for applying that kind of understanding to events that are disconnected to any human participation. But it is exactly there that a conundrum arises: What could be said to occur, and shown, without observation? Furthermore, some physicists have told us that observation changes observations.
Things might be a little more complicated than cartoonish / simplistic characterizations might suggest about anything—religion, science, humanities notwithstanding.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2019 - 09:37am PT
|
+1 lol
Per usual, you're all over the place, MikeL. Here...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
https://youtu.be/xWhuQOVTFGw
Specifically, it is AS IF at 18:16, Helen Pluckrose for a couple of sentences is speaking DIRECTLY to you...
"If there was a word for the extremes of marxism, it's totalitarianism; if there is a word for the extremes of postmodernism, it's disintegration, it's fragmentation. So we're looking now at something very different, something very intangible that is coming in and saying we cannot access an objective truth." -Pluckrose
Disintegration. Fragmentation. (Hm, sounds familiar. Who here most reflects this? I think we know.)
Who thinks if science and engineering and business and industry operated off of postmodernism or today's far left academic ideologies anything would get done?
...
Paul, just as this new-age academic crap (e.g., feminist glaciology) is tainting the humanities, it's also tainting science and the science community. Just look over the commentaries. ("F*#k the science community", etc.) Coming from fans of Jordan Peterson, scientist, no less. How naive, mixed up and ironic is that?
Lay people, naive people, otherwise the public... conflating extremes and agendas in the social sciences, political science - and largely from far left liberal arts schools - with "science" and the "science community" in general. What a mess.
Folks who care about academia, the humanities and science need to pay attention to these latest new-age generational developments.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2019 - 09:44am PT
|
I suppose Ed could say that might be fine and dandy for personal or social behaviors and outcomes, but he might admonish us for applying that kind of understanding to events that are disconnected to any human participation.
I think you know that I wouldn't say that, fully acknowledging the role human perception has in our understanding. I have stated many times that I think that "science works in spite of humans" as a comment on how individual and societal bias can be so strong and persistent.
Another point that I have made is that we should abandon talk about "truth" in science when what we mean is "understanding" and explicitly acknowledge the provisional nature of that understanding.
While these sentiments are used by science protagonists to excoriate me, they are used by science antagonists to demonstrate that science is just like any other human belief system. I do not think that it is like any other belief system, especially since one of its primary creeds is to rid science practice of "beliefs" of any kind, a miracle does not appear.
Interestingly, the existence of the AlphaZero code introduces the idea that this intelligence can understand a "simple" game like chess at a level that cannot be comprehended by humans. Many in the chess community look forward to the time when such machines are available to coach human players in the game. Many critics seek to diminish the skill of AlphaZero by saying it plays surprising chess because its learning was free from human bias. But the point for the future is that we may build a generation of such machines capable of understanding very complex problems, and finding solutions, that humans may not be able to comprehend, solutions free from human bias.
How interesting that these sorts of ideas emerge from science.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2019 - 10:16am PT
|
I am very thankful...
that I am grounded in the evidence-based hard sciences.
They are my rock.
In these crazy, topsy-turvy, confused times...
they are my rock.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2019 - 11:22am PT
|
Most people have not had the extreme experiences with religion that its critics here seem to have had and thus not the extreme reaction. If science stands for calm reason and objectivity then the highly emotional response of some here against all religion is the furthest thing from a scientific world view.
Has it ever occurred to some of you that family members of those bombed in Dresden or Hiroshima, or the loved ones of people tortured to death in eugenics experiments, or those burned by napalm or delivered of mutated children after being sprayed with Agent Orange might have an equally strong reaction against science?
It is my observation that those injured by science have the wisdom to not blame all of science for their suffering but rather misguided humans misusing science for their own purposes. Would it not be logical to do the same for people suffering the ill effects of religion?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2019 - 11:38am PT
|
I think I've said this before but it bears repeating here: Science and the scientific method is one of the great achievements of the human mind. Science has done much to improve the lot of humanity and it continues to amaze us and do good. Of course science can serve any master and since those masters are human with all the foibles of humanity, science can be used, and has been used for, very bad things. But the great gift of the scientific method properly, is its perfect neutrality.
Unfortunately how and for what that method is employed is not a function of perfect neutrality but one of our own very human, very tendentious nature. And what is the ameliorating, mediating antidote to that nature but the humanities. And by humanities I'm referring to the wisdom literature of the world from the Bible to Ovid to the Bhagavad Gita, to Shakespeare, to Kant, to Schopenhauer, to Joyce, and everything in between. Dismissing that literature, dismissing theology, religion and even faith does not benefit science or scientific progress. Faith must submit to the nature knowledge of any given society nor should it be be a roadblock to that knowledge, nevertheless, faith remains both a comfort and a discipline for billions of human beings and that by and large is more of a benefit than otherwise. But the parochial view of faith as simply a product of irrelevant fairy tales that should be squashed for the benefit of modernist progress is a scientism, a belief system that ignores the humanity within us all.
With regard to the terms "magic" and "entanglement," I used those terms only in my "brief history of science." up thread. A "joke" played against the "brief history of religion" previous to it. Didn't mean to bring that subject up again but for so much reaction.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2019 - 12:40pm PT
|
There is no possibility for life nor for science to ever exist without God period for everything is part parcel of him.
The gross materialists are always ultimately in very poor fund of knowledge ...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2019 - 01:42pm PT
|
You are a clueless brainwashed nutcase with no clue to prayer itself.
Meditation in its various forms is prayer.
You should stop running your st00pid mouth and actually get a life which you don't have and stop your clueless brainwashed interpretations ....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2019 - 02:10pm PT
|
AntiChrist, it seems some here, like Paul and Jan, don't really get what we're saying - that times are changing, that some of us are not supernaturalists and therefore (a) religion doesn't work for us, it's a problem and (b) that we're moving on.
I remain confident: As soon as a new and better description comes along (in language, in our case, in English) to express our holdings (incl beliefs) people of all stripes will understand, they will get it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!