I'm not smart enough to be...

[_Ren]

Just a pre-emption for those who will claim that quantum mechanics is somehow different because there is empirical data supporting it, while there is no empirical data supporting the Trinity. That actually makes things worse...

...really...?

...because now you have a theory which does explain empirical data, but which is still incomprehensible.

I'm wondering whether you mean incomprehensible 'in principle', or simply incomprehensible 'right now'.
...but anyway - assuming you meant the second...

OK - not an ideal state of affairs - granted ;) But I'm still not getting how it's in a worse state than a concept like the Trinity...

We may not comprehend the underlying 'reality' that we label 'quantum mechanics'. But there is - at the very least - one thing going for Quantum Mechanics that 'The Trinity' doesn't have...

There is every reason to believe Quantum Mechanics (whatever it is) is 'real'.
Whereas I can't see any good reason to believe that 'The Trinity' is 'real'.

And if you don't understand why that makes things worse, then you really don't have a clue about quantum mechanics.

*shrug* Hasn't the entire history of science been about discovering, quantifying, identifying and measuring things and then only later actually 'understanding' them...?
Why are you expecting Quantum Mechanics to be any different...?

[_Some Schmo]

But if you think about what God must be if there is a God, it seems to me that there also must be some mysteries involved, some limit to our comprehension of God.

The key phrase in there is "if there is a God..."

OK, so let's go with this line of reasoning. Why is it perfectly ok to maintain room for mysteries about god but it's incomprehensible (or at least, uncomfortable) that we feel the same way about the universe itself? There are things about the universe we just don't understand (how on earth did life get started? What makes mass pull other objects toward it? etc.) Why fill those mysteries with god, the mother of all mysteries? Why attempt to explain mysteries with additional mysteries? It seems to me we could save a step and take out the middle man (or middle mystery, as it were).

Any way you slice it, people believe in god essentially because they want to more than any other reason. God is not needed to explain anything.

And the funny farm is not that bad: free drugs, lots of interesting people, no bills to pay.

You make a compelling case here, big guy. Sounds like the good life!

[_Some Schmo]

(my wife is obsessed with the series, it drives me insane)

by the way, I meant to commiserate with you on this. My wife suffers the same affliction. I just love her and try to support her through this trying time in our lives together.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Ren,

I won't try and explain it any further, because if you haven't gotten into the guts of quantum mechanics you really can't grasp what I am getting at. Suffice it to say, Feynman probably understood quantum mechanics better than anyone in the 20th century. He co-invented QED, he was responsible for the path-integral reformulation of QM, and his Feynman diagrams are the standard for communicating and visualizing quantum events. If he says nobody understands it, it's time to think really hard about what he is saying.

This is NOT, I repeat not about lack of empirical verification. QM is the most well tested and precise scientific theory ever devised. Feynman knew that, and he STILL said nobody understands it. This is not a short term issue that more experimental results will clarify. Pretty much every single aspect of QM has been verified, there just isn't much left to verify. And physicists still don't understand QM.

That said, I am just going to clarify right now I am only making a single point: Lack of understanding of a subject does not mean one cannot believe it is true.

[_Some Schmo]

Lack of understanding of a subject does not mean one cannot believe it is true.

True, but it is certainly an indicator that someone should question its truth.

If someone wants to question QM, they have plenty of evidence to investigate, and they can make an informed judgment. If someone wants to question god or the trinity, however...

[_stemelbow]

Hey, some of the dummest people I know are orthodox Christians. I really don't think you have to be smart to accept the trinity explanation. But you do have to suspend some qualified reasoning to accept it as a possibility.

Who am I to talk? I'm LDS afterall. We gots our own problems.

[_Scottie]

It's like with un-explained healings.

There are only 2 options.

1) The Dr can explain it.
2) The Dr can't explain it, there for God did it.

There is no room, AT ALL, for the bodies mysterious ability to self-heal.

[_consiglieri]

I'm not smart enough to be an orthodox Christian.

The question is whether you are dumb enough to be a Mormon.





All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Hoops]

It's like with un-explained healings.

There are only 2 options.

1) The Dr can explain it.
2) The Dr can't explain it, there for God did it.

There is no room, AT ALL, for the bodies mysterious ability to self-heal.

3. We were created that way.
4. we evolved that way.

3.a. why?
4.a. why?

[_Ren]

That said, I am just going to clarify right now I am only making a single point: Lack of understanding of a subject does not mean one cannot believe it is true.

Agreed.
But if a subject has no evidential backing, it doesn't somehow 'help' that it's 'incomprehensible'. As far as believing it's true I mean. Would you agree...?

I won't try and explain it any further, because if you haven't gotten into the guts of quantum mechanics you really can't grasp what I am getting at.

Heh - I'm not going to claim I'm an expert on QM! And I'm happy to conceded you probably know more about the technical details then I do. But I am a reasonably interested amateur - I've read a few books, articles etc.

The last one I've read is: 'In search of Schrodingers Cat'. I guess it's a little old now, but it's one of the best I've read. For me, it really helped to separate what we 'really' know about QM from what we assume / interpret / extrapolate.

...but anyway...

I'm pretty sure I get what you mean when you say it's 'evidenced' without it being 'comprehended'.
But I'm still interested in whether you think the underlying reality of QM is:

* Incomprehensible 'now'
...or...
* Will always be 'incomprehensible'.

I think the question is relavent to this topic / conversation...