Philosophy and Physics agree about God?

[_DrW]

Finally, there is one issue that I saw as a weakness in the documentary. That was the implication that, since entanglement and other quantum phenomenon have been demonstrated with multi-atomic "particles" or particle ensembles, that these phenomenon might not be limited to the domain of small dimensions, low temperatures, etc.

The documentary did not address thermal de-coherence, which severely limits the observation of QM behavior in systems at the human dimensional scale and in human environments.

Your quibble is a common one between the quantum mechanical universe being separated from the macro universe and decoherence is the way it is appropriately stated. But, this is yet to completely play out all the evidence seems to moving in the direction that this is not a weakness at all and supportive of idealism. It just doesn't seem the quantum world can be separated from the macro world and we just don't have the precision of measurement. Brukner and Koffner have shown that marco-realism does emerge from quantum physics http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609079v3.pdf This has been shown by the double slit experiement being performed with larger bodies like atoms, and molecules http://ipg.epfl.ch/lib/exe/fetch.php?me ... ithc60.pdf and experiments are being done to do this on midsize proteins and viruses http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.1469.pdf and it is really not doubted those experiments will turn out the same. Entanglement has also been seen in macro objectives like two computer chips where it can be seen by the naked eye and putting a small metal paddle into a quantum superposition http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/ ... 1.210.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/ ... 0.130.html
The bottom line is physicalism doesn't seem to be able to escape idealism even in the marco world.

mikwut

If you read my post again, you will see that I readily acknowledged the observation of QM phenomena with larger, multi - atomic objects.

(by the way, in spite of my inclusion of low temperature as requirement for observation of QM in atomic or molecular ensembles, you failed to acknowledge that the small metal paddle you described had to be cooled to the ground state of its constituent materials - near absolute zero - in order to see the super positioning.)

In any case, should I take your response as a denial that thermal de-coherence does, in fact, impress strict limits on QM phenomena / behavior?

[_DrW]

Hi Steelhead,

I'm not meaning to and should have been clearer. We are talking ultimate metaphysical ontologies no one escapes a burden. We both have one. But no one is entitled to a default either.

Mikwut

Agreed.

by the way - I wish to make it clear that I do not reject the idea of a universal consciousness as you describe. I have, in fact, made first mention of data that support the associated idea of a holographic universe, as mentioned briefly in the documentary.

My main question, again as posed upthread is, what practical difference does it make?

The idea of a universal consciousness has been around for a long time, especially in the non-Abrahamic eastern religions. Yet the real (and I would say insurmountable) problems with the theory of God remain as intractable as ever. And as Mikwut readily acknowledges (to his credit) the laws of physics still seem to be doing quite well.

[_Franktalk]

Let me propose an alternate look at brain research.

Just for a moment let us say that we are examining a radio without understanding its complete function. If we examine the radio as scientist have examined the brain we would stimulate one section and maybe pick up a station broadcast. Then by stimulating another section we may pick up a different station with different music or information. Without knowing the big picture about how a radio works we may conclude that each section of the radio has music memorized or some other data stream. The scientist may take the leap to assume that small sections of the radio are actually memory devices.

Now we can see how assumptions have been made about the physical mind. Without knowing for sure how it works we define what we find inside of our paradigm. Because we don't know any better. If the mind is more than the sum of its parts then when we examine a physical brain we observe but a shadow of the complete system.

[_Chap]

Let me propose an alternate look at brain research.

No .....



You don't know anything about brain research. You seem to know hardly anything about the way science works in general. So all you will do is to dump a lot of misconceptions and sheer fantasy on this board and then ...



Someone will have to clear up after you.

Just for a moment let us say that we are examining a radio without understanding its complete function. If we examine the radio as scientist have examined the brain we would stimulate one section and maybe pick up a station broadcast. Then by stimulating another section we may pick up a different station with different music or information. Without knowing the big picture about how a radio works we may conclude that each section of the radio has music memorized or some other data stream. The scientist may take the leap to assume that small sections of the radio are actually memory devices.

You clearly don't have any idea how a radio works. And your idea that 'a scientist' examining such a device would fail to work out that it is a system made up of a series of discrete electronic modules intended to pick up weak electromagnetic waves of chosen frequencies, amplify them, and convert the encoded information into sound is just a bunch of self-serving assumptions on your part.

Since your 'thought experiment' is nonsensical, its relevance to brain research is zero.

[_Franktalk]

You clearly don't have any idea how a radio works. And your idea that 'a scientist' examining such a device would fail to work out that it is a system made up of a series of discrete electronic modules intended to pick up weak electromagnetic waves of chosen frequencies, amplify them, and convert the encoded information into sound is just a bunch of self-serving assumptions on your part.

Since your 'thought experiment' is nonsensical, its relevance to brain research is zero.

I hold an FCC second class radiotelephone license. I have worked in electrical and electronic engineering most of my life. I have designed many things more complex than a radio. You are exactly as I pictured a scientist. You leap to conclusions.

A scientist in 1750 would not even have been able to examine the radio as much as I indicated in my post. Please leave your attitude off these boards.

[Guest]

You clearly don't have any idea how a radio works. And your idea that 'a scientist' examining such a device would fail to work out that it is a system made up of a series of discrete electronic modules intended to pick up weak electromagnetic waves of chosen frequencies, amplify them, and convert the encoded information into sound is just a bunch of self-serving assumptions on your part.

Since your 'thought experiment' is nonsensical, its relevance to brain research is zero.

I hold an FCC second class radiotelephone license. I have worked in electrical and electronic engineering most of my life. I have designed many things more complex than a radio.

Then you know as well as I do that no scientist with the equipment and training to conduct electronic tests on a radio could possibly fall into the silly misunderstanding that you portray.

A scientist in 1750 would not even have been able to examine the radio as much as I indicated in my post.

The word 'scientist' was not even used in its modern sense in 1750. It is a 19th century invention, as the Oxford English Dictionary records:

1840 W. Whewell Philos. Inductive Sci. I. Introd. p. cxiii, We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a Scientist. Thus we might say, that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.

What is more, your analogy assumes that the 'scientist' investigating the radio is at the same time

(a) in possession of enough test equipment to be able to 'stimulate' parts of it.

(b) Is however incapable of ascertaining its real mode of function by testing the functions of the modules .

(c) despite that is fully familiar with the idea of an electronic memory device, so that he mistakenly determines that the radio contains several such devices.

Your analogy is simply a tissue of confusions.

[_Franktalk]

The word 'scientist' was not even used in its modern sense in 1750.

Since it is not 1750 I can use the word if I wish. Nice derail Chap.

Isaac Newton died before 1750 so using your logic we can't call him a scientist? Your an idiot Chap.

[_Chap]

A scientist in 1750 would not even have been able to examine the radio as much as I indicated in my post.

The word 'scientist' was not even used in its modern sense in 1750.

Since it is not 1750 I can use the word if I wish. Nice derail Chap.

So what kind of person were you imagining in 1750, who can 'stimulate' different parts of a radio to test it, so as to get it to produce sounds from different stations (how does he do that without electronic equipment?), and who is nevertheless aware of the existence of electronic memory modules, so that he can mistakenly assume the radio contains them?

[_DrW]

The word 'scientist' was not even used in its modern sense in 1750.

Since it is not 1750 I can use the word if I wish. Nice derail Chap.

Franktalk,

I happen to have held a couple of FCC licenses as well, including a radiotelephone station license (K7IZN) and one to operate a high powered Motorola Iridium (Sat Phone) transmitter.

And I would have to agree with Chap here. The only thing that a 1750 "scientist" would need to do to conduct the "investigation" you describe (assuming that there were transmitters out there) would be to adjust the tuner (literally turn the dial).

Furthermore, unless he was employing the antenna, RF amplifier, mixer, local oscillator, IF amplifier, detector, audio amplifier, power amplifier, and speaker "modules" (pretty much the entire classical superhet radio) together, and in the proper sequence, he wouldn't be able to hear anything. Investigating by stimulating (whatever that means) one module at a time, as you describe, would not produce the results you indicated.

When I first saw your silly analogy, I wrote a response similar to the one above, but then deleted it because I felt it would be piling on. Now I am back - because you just keep on digging.

[_Franktalk]

Furthermore, unless he was employing the antenna, RF amplifier, mixer, local oscillator, IF amplifier, detector, audio amplifier, power amplifier, and speaker "modules" (pretty much the entire classical superhet radio) together, and in the proper sequence, he wouldn't be able to hear anything. Investigating by stimulating (whatever that means) one module at a time, as you describe, would not produce the results you indicated.

Because you have no answer to the analogy I described you run off on a tangent. Nice try at redirection. The analogy is true. Your failure to see it comes from being blinded by the paradigm you find yourself in. Any high tech device sent back a hundred years would be examined and the conclusions as to what it was would be incorrect. The analogy stands. The brain is assumed by scientist to be one way when it could easily be another.