Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[The Belief Doctor]

If Wikipedia bothers you a quick Google turns up a plethora of links disputing the validity of the PEAR experiments.

The 30 years over which the PEAR results were obtained is irrelevant if they are flawed.

Nobody is suggesting that Standard Newtonian physics is sufficient to explain quantum mechanics. However, quantum weirdness does not justify belief in telekinesis or any other supernatural phenomenon.

Pseudonym? My name is Terry Findlay. My username is Tfindlay. I am hardly sneaking around under the cloak of a pseudonym.

Excellent. Terry it is, and if you're the same Terry Findlay who authored "The Alchemy of Awareness" which includes a fractal graphic, then you are headed in the right direction. Fractals, while having a mathematical base, don't have a physical base (as part of a fractal is reliant on meta-physicality ... approaching the infinite).

In fact, as I wrote in Be and Become, fractals display the interface between the (finite) physical and the (infinite) meta-physical. Isn't it wonderful how the natural world is displaying its interface with the meta-physical.

In any event, you have not countered the thought experiment I provided (don't waste your time, you won't) nor the various proofs which reveal standard objective world-views are simply wrong.

As Richard Feynman explained around 40 years ago, he believed "simple ideas of geometry extended down into infinitely small space is wrong."

btw, what's with the reference to 'supernatural' (ghosts, goblins, witches?)?

We live within radically interconnected, co-creating, holodynamic, superpositioned realities. If there are witches in that lot, you're creating them. I don't see any.

[Tfindlay]

I use the term "supernatural" in the sense that Bruce Hood explains in "The Science of Superstition". That is, ideas that "...are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence" but are believed to be real. Telekinesis is an example of this kind of belief in supernatural forces.

The problem with your thought experiment is that you are talking about atoms while Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applies only to subatomic particles such as electrons. Moreover you are using a conglomeration of atoms (the arrowhead) in your thought experiment. The position and momentum of macro objects like arrowheads are of course simultaneously measurable. This is not the case for single subatomic particles.

[Tfindlay]

I use the term "supernatural" in the sense that Bruce Hood explains in "The Science of Superstition". That is, ideas that "...are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence" but are believed to be real. Telekinesis is an example of this kind of belief in supernatural forces.

The problem with your thought experiment is that you are talking about atoms while Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (and all of quantum mechanics) applies to subatomic particles such as electrons. Moreover you are using a conglomeration of atoms (the arrowhead) in your thought experiment. The position and momentum of macro objects like arrowheads are of course simultaneously measurable. This is not the case for single subatomic particles.

[Meleagar]

I use the term "supernatural" in the sense that Bruce Hood explains in "The Science of Superstition". That is, ideas that "...are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence" but are believed to be real. Telekinesis is an example of this kind of belief in supernatural forces.

Can you support your assertion that Telekinesis is not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence?

Are people who believe in superstrings, alternate universes, extraterrestrials and Bigfoot also exhibiting a belief in the supernatural?

Also, before substantial, reliable evidence for human powered flight existed, would you consider the belief that human-powered flight was possible a belief in the supernatural?

[Tfindlay]

Can you support your assertion that Telekinesis is not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence?

Are people who believe in superstrings, alternate universes, extraterrestrials and Bigfoot also exhibiting a belief in the supernatural?

Also, before substantial, reliable evidence for human powered flight existed, would you consider the belief that human-powered flight was possible a belief in the supernatural?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

Superstrings and alternate universes are theoretical conjectures based on scientific foundations (substantiated by a body of reliable evidence). Extraterrestrials and Bigfoot are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence.

Belief in human powered flight was based on sound physical laws (substantiated by a body of reliable evidence).

[Meleagar]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

You're the one that made the claim that Telekinesis is not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence. Can you support that claim or not?

Superstrings and alternate universes are theoretical conjectures based on scientific foundations (substantiated by a body of reliable evidence). Extraterrestrials and Bigfoot are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence.

Can you please refer me to the body of evidence that supports the existence of superstrings and alternate universes? Also, can you support your assertion that extraterrestrials and bigfoot are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence?

Belief in human powered flight was based on sound physical laws (substantiated by a body of reliable evidence).

Apparently, you didn't understand the question. Let me repeat it here:

"Also, before substantial, reliable evidence for human powered flight existed, would you consider the belief that human-powered flight was possible a belief in the supernatural?"

Notice I said "before" such evidence or science existed.

[Persecrates]

@The Belief Doctor:

Consider the flight of an arrow as it flies through the air on its way to its target.

The arrow moves through physical space in a trajectory in accord with Newton's laws of motion (e.g. in a parabolic curved trajectory). At each point along that trajectory, mathematically we can say at point 'x' along its path, the arrow will be at 'y' height. Moreover, at any point along its path we can mathematically determine its physical characteristics of position, momentum and rate of acceleration (given known initial conditions).

Let’s imagine we fashion ourselves a particularly fine arrow (one so fine that its tip has been honed to just one iron atom). We were particularly diligent and resourceful when crafting our arrow, to the extent that we accurately determined the number and types of atoms it contained (with their respective atomic masses).

Since, according to standard classical (Newtonian) physics, we can accurately determine the arrow's trajectory, we can likewise accurately determine the trajectory of the lead atom.

Let's also imagine we fire the arrow in a complete vacuum, so as to not to confuse the issue with friction losses, cross winds and other physical influences.

When geometric series (calculus) is used to calculate an arrows path the assumption is made of perfect continuity – that is, there are infinite points along its path.

Accordingly, at any and every point in time (assuming known initial firing velocity) we can precisely determine the position of the arrow’s lead atom, and its momentum. In effect, we can disprove the validity of the Uncertainty Principle which requires that we cannot simultaneously determine both the position and momentum of an atom.

Either the Uncertainty Principle of quantum theory is incorrect (or at best incomplete), or we cannot assume perfect continuity of movement of any physical object (and thus, on some level, of space-time itself).

1 - Where is your proof?
Because claiming "Newton physics is wrong because quantum physics is right" is no proof.
So, nothing to be bothered with, indeed.

2 - More, does an arrow, a bullet... whatever projectile or vehicle you can think of (beside quanta. Not that they don‘t have a trajectory but you believe they haven‘t so…) have a trajectory, yes or no?
If yes, Newton mechanics is valid. Regardless of space-time-continuum.

3 - Also, I really find it odd that:
At a ‘tetra-tetra’ level (universe) causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a tetra level (galaxies), causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a mega level (solar system), causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a macro level (our level), causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a micro (bacteria, viruses, cells) level causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a nano (molecular) level causality rules over the laws of physics.

But at a quantum level, somehow and suddenly randomness would rule over the laws of physics? (if this even mean something cognitively and ontologically)...

I would like you to give an explanation to the why of this 'supposed' reality change into a-causality (randomness), please. Do you have a rational explanation other than it's what we observe to be happening?

Because this is a false statement. As quanta have no empirical reality (if one accepts quantum mechanics to best describe reality), you interpret data, facts with the belief in the theory you use to interpret the data. Isn't it, at best, a biased interpretation and, at worst, circular thinking?

It's nothing more than the tautology-like proposition: "Quantum mechanics (and its ontological consequences) is true because we use it (to prove its own validity)."
The theory supposedly being tested is used to do the testing... And the interpretations of the results...
That’s why it seems to exist a different (random) ‘reality’ at a quantum level. Because the quantum mechanics is dominating this field of science (the study of quanta -behavior-) and thus dictating the interpretation of ’reality’ at a (sub-)atomic level. Not because reality is actually random at this (any) level.

4 - You use a false dichotomy fallacy:

Either science's "most successful physical theory"2 is incorrect (in regards to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), or the underlying assumption of "perfect continuity" of physical movement and of physical reality (space-time) is incorrect.

To proclaim quantum mechanics as the most successful physical theory doesn't make it so. It's not even a theory... What is a theory that gives only a probability of numerous events to occur, not the actual occurrence of individual phenomenon?

Space-time-continuum may well exists only as an arbitrary concept of a simplified version of reality, it doesn't mean that the only alternative is quantum mechanics.

It doesn’t justify to get rid of causal (classical Newtonian) physics altogether.
This is a fallacy by generalization. And it doesn't take into account future improvements in motion detector devices.

I already addressed the inherently a-causal nature of 'reality' quantum mechanics asserts here (and following posts) in a discussion with Marabod: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... &start=90#

No, quantum mechanics is no science, it's mysticism.
Your use of rhetoric and semantics (and your phraseology) in previous posts as well as in the text describing your thought experiment (the 'pitch' below the title says it all: An article revealing how creativity and emergent phenomena literally come from nowhere -- through the gaps in space-time.) proves it. Your posts are full of 'dualistic'/antinomic (meaningless) statements.

5 -

It is widely accepted that the solutions to the dilemma of explaining physical movement (commonly known as Zeno's Paradoxes), lies in assuming that all physical movement is comprised of a continuous, and contiguous series of 'infinitesimal' little movements, which together provide "perfectly continuous" and seamless movement.

Well, we agree. It is false.
But it is not false at a 'physics level' but at a mathematical one.
Objects do indeed have trajectories, but their trajectories cannot be divided ad infinitum as it is mathematically done today.

Also, the known mathematical solution given to the Zeno's paradox(es) is false. It tries to create an equality out of an equivalence.
It simply is a subterfuge. I think you know what I'm talking about.

I have the solution (like ancient Greeks did) to these (Zeno's) paradoxes (contrary to you) and it's very simple.
Quantum physics is not required at all.

Anyway, continuum-space-time is NOT the corner-stone of Newtonian/classical physics. Causality is.

[Tfindlay]

Harness the power of Google! You can find evidence to support anything you want. The question is what counts as evidence. For me the evidence needs to pass Michael Shermer's Baloney Detection test.

1. How reliable is the source of the claim? 
Pseudoscientists often appear quite reliable, but when examined closely, the facts and figures they cite are distorted, taken out of context or occasionally even fabricated. Of course, everyone makes some mistakes. And as historian of science Daniel Kevles showed so effectively in his book The Baltimore Affair, it can be hard to detect a fraudulent signal within the background noise of sloppiness that is a normal part of the scientific process. The question is, Do the data and interpretations show signs of intentional distortion? When an independent committee established to investigate potential fraud scrutinized a set of research notes in Nobel laureate David Baltimore's laboratory, it revealed a surprising number of mistakes. Baltimore was exonerated because his lab's mistakes were random and nondirectional.

2. Does this source often make similar claims? 
Pseudoscientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts. Flood geologists (creationists who believe that Noah's flood can account for many of the earth's geologic formations) consistently make outrageous claims that bear no relation to geological science. Of course, some great thinkers do frequently go beyond the data in their creative speculations. Thomas Gold of Cornell University is notorious for his radical ideas, but he has been right often enough that other scientists listen to what he has to say. Gold proposes, for example, that oil is not a fossil fuel at all but the by-product of a deep, hot biosphere (microorganisms living at unexpected depths within the crust). Hardly any earth scientists with whom I have spoken think Gold is right, yet they do not consider him a crank. Watch out for a pattern of fringe thinking that consistently ignores or distorts data.

3. Have the claims been verified by another source? 
Typically pseudoscientists make statements that are unverified or verified only by a source within their own belief circle. We must ask, Who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers? The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their  spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science.

4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? 
An extraordinary claim must be placed into a larger context to see how it fits. When people claim that the Egyptian pyramids and the Sphinx were built more than 10,000 years ago by an unknown, advanced race, they are not presenting any context for that earlier civilization. Where are the rest of the artifacts of those people? Where are their works of art, their weapons, their clothing, their tools, their trash? Archaeology simply does not operate this way.

5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought? 
This is the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and to reject or ignore disconfirmatory evidence. The confirmation bias is powerful, pervasive and almost impossible for any of us to avoid. It is why the methods of science that emphasize checking and rechecking, verification and replication, and especially attempts to falsify a claim, are so critical. 
 
When exploring the borderlands of science, we often face a ``boundary problem'' of where to draw the line between science and pseudoscience. The boundary is the line of demarcation between geographies of knowledge, the border defining countries of claims. Knowledge sets are fuzzier entities than countries, however, and their edges are blurry. It is not always clear where to draw the line. Last month I suggested five questions to ask about a claim to determine whether it is legitimate or baloney. Continuing with the baloney-detection questions, we see that in the process we are also helping to solve the boundary problem of where to place a claim. 
 
6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant's conclusion or to a different one? 
The theory of evolution, for example, is ``proved'' through a convergence of evidence from a number of independent lines of inquiry. No one fossil, no one piece of biological or paleontological evidence has ``evolution'' written on it; instead tens of thousands of evidentiary bits add up to a story of the evolution of life. Creationists conveniently ignore this confluence, focusing instead on trivial anomalies or currently unexplained phenomena in the history of life.

7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion? 
A clear distinction can be made between SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scientists and UFOlogists. SETI scientists begin with the null hypothesis that ETIs do not exist and that they must provide concrete evidence before making the extraordinary claim that we are not alone in the universe. UFOlogists begin with the positive hypothesis that ETIs exist and have visited us, then employ questionable research techniques to support that belief, such as hypnotic regression (revelations of abduction experiences), anecdotal reasoning (countless stories of UFO sightings), conspiratorial thinking (governmental cover-ups of alien encounters), low-quality visual evidence (blurry photographs and grainy videos), and anomalistic thinking (atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions by eyewitnesses).

8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation? 
This is a classic debate strategy--criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism. It is next to impossible to get creationists to offer an explanation for life (other than ``God did it''). Intelligent Design (ID) creationists have done no better, picking away at weaknesses in scientific explanations for difficult problems and offering in their stead. ``ID did it.'' This stratagem is unacceptable in science.

9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did? 
Many HIV/AIDS skeptics argue that lifestyle causes AIDS. Yet their alternative theory does not explain nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory does. To make their argument, they must ignore the diverse evidence in support of HIV as the causal vector in AIDS while ignoring the significant correlation between the rise in AIDS among hemophiliacs shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood supply.

10. Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa? 
All scientists hold social, political and ideological beliefs that could potentially slant their interpretations of the data, but how do those biases and beliefs affect their research in practice? Usually during the peer-review system, such biases and beliefs are rooted out, or the paper or book is rejected.

[Meleagar]

It's nothing more than the tautology-like proposition: "Quantum mechanics (and its ontological consequences) is true because we use it (to prove its own validity)."
The theory supposedly being tested is used to do the testing... And the interpretations of the results...

So, what non-causal methodology do scientists employ to validate the causality of the macro world? Or do they employ causal theory to test their causality model?

What is a theory that gives only a probability of numerous events to occur, not the actual occurrence of individual phenomenon?

One can equally ask the inverse, what is a theory that gives only an actual occurrence of individual phenomena, and not a probability of numerous events? Your implication is that one assumed theory - causality - is somehow more legitimate than the other by fiat.

Also, causality cannot be "the rule" at the highest level, or else you'd be invoking infinite regress. At some point, one must have an acausal cause, or else reason itself crumbles.

[The Belief Doctor]

@The Belief Doctor:

Consider the flight of an arrow as it flies through the air on its way to its target.

The arrow moves through physical space in a trajectory ...<<truncated>>... Accordingly, at any and every point in time (assuming known initial firing velocity) we can precisely determine the position of the arrow’s lead atom, and its momentum. In effect, we can disprove the validity of the Uncertainty Principle which requires that we cannot simultaneously determine both the position and momentum of an atom.

Either the Uncertainty Principle of quantum theory is incorrect (or at best incomplete), or we cannot assume perfect continuity of movement of any physical object (and thus, on some level, of space-time itself).

1 - Where is your proof?
Because claiming "Newton physics is wrong because quantum physics is right" is no proof.
So, nothing to be bothered with, indeed.

2 - More, does an arrow, a bullet... whatever projectile or vehicle you can think of (beside quanta. Not that they don‘t have a trajectory but you believe they haven‘t so…) have a trajectory, yes or no?
If yes, Newton mechanics is valid. Regardless of space-time-continuum.

3 - Also, I really find it odd that:
At a ‘tetra-tetra’ level (universe) causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a tetra level (galaxies), causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a mega level (solar system), causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a macro level (our level), causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a micro (bacteria, viruses, cells) level causality rules over the laws of physics.
At a nano (molecular) level causality rules over the laws of physics.

But at a quantum level, somehow and suddenly randomness would rule over the laws of physics? (if this even mean something cognitively and ontologically)...

I would like you to give an explanation to the why of this 'supposed' reality change into a-causality (randomness), please. Do you have a rational explanation other than it's what we observe to be happening?

Because this is a false statement. As quanta have no empirical reality (if one accepts quantum mechanics to best describe reality), you interpret data, facts with the belief in the theory you use to interpret the data. Isn't it, at best, a biased interpretation and, at worst, circular thinking?

It's nothing more than the tautology-like proposition: "Quantum mechanics (and its ontological consequences) is true because we use it (to prove its own validity)."
The theory supposedly being tested is used to do the testing... And the interpretations of the results...
That’s why it seems to exist a different (random) ‘reality’ at a quantum level. Because the quantum mechanics is dominating this field of science (the study of quanta -behavior-) and thus dictating the interpretation of ’reality’ at a (sub-)atomic level. Not because reality is actually random at this (any) level.

4 - You use a false dichotomy fallacy:

Either science's "most successful physical theory"2 is incorrect (in regards to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), or the underlying assumption of "perfect continuity" of physical movement and of physical reality (space-time) is incorrect.

To proclaim quantum mechanics as the most successful physical theory doesn't make it so. It's not even a theory... What is a theory that gives only a probability of numerous events to occur, not the actual occurrence of individual phenomenon?

Space-time-continuum may well exists only as an arbitrary concept of a simplified version of reality, it doesn't mean that the only alternative is quantum mechanics.

It doesn’t justify to get rid of causal (classical Newtonian) physics altogether.
This is a fallacy by generalization. And it doesn't take into account future improvements in motion detector devices.

I already addressed the inherently a-causal nature of 'reality' quantum mechanics asserts here (and following posts) in a discussion with Marabod: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... &start=90#

No, quantum mechanics is no science, it's mysticism.
Your use of rhetoric and semantics (and your phraseology) in previous posts as well as in the text describing your thought experiment (the 'pitch' below the title says it all: An article revealing how creativity and emergent phenomena literally come from nowhere -- through the gaps in space-time.) proves it. Your posts are full of 'dualistic'/antinomic (meaningless) statements.

5 -

It is widely accepted that the solutions to the dilemma of explaining physical movement (commonly known as Zeno's Paradoxes), lies in assuming that all physical movement is comprised of a continuous, and contiguous series of 'infinitesimal' little movements, which together provide "perfectly continuous" and seamless movement.

Well, we agree. It is false.
But it is not false at a 'physics level' but at a mathematical one.
Objects do indeed have trajectories, but their trajectories cannot be divided ad infinitum as it is mathematically done today.

Also, the known mathematical solution given to the Zeno's paradox(es) is false. It tries to create an equality out of an equivalence.
It simply is a subterfuge. I think you know what I'm talking about.

I have the solution (like ancient Greeks did) to these (Zeno's) paradoxes (contrary to you) and it's very simple.
Quantum physics is not required at all.

Anyway, continuum-space-time is NOT the corner-stone of Newtonian/classical physics. Causality is.

Dear me,

dear Persecrates,

You sound like a professional philosopher who's not sufficiently confident to expose their real identity. Not much substance or credibility in that.

So much of your reply carries little weight, being largely, from what I understand, empty (... don't know quite the right description), but not much of anything.

To wit:

"Where is your proof?
Because claiming "Newton physics is wrong because quantum physics is right" is no proof. "

It is a thought experiment, as titled. Besides I didn't say Newton mechanics was entirely wrong, only a crude (some might say, rather rude) approximation to how reality really functions.

As for your

"don‘t have a trajectory but you believe they haven‘t so…) have a trajectory, yes or no? If yes, Newton mechanics is valid. Regardless of space-time-continuum.

Okay, I either must start taking drugs, or if I already have but forgotten, I should stop. A car chase in a motion picture film appears to have a continuous trajectory, or continuous motion, but is in actuality composed of individual discontinuous frames of movement. Simple. Both, yet neither either entirely.

All of reality operates on the same basis. This has been sooo done and dusted.

Now this one really had me reaching for the drug cabinet (only problem is forgot I don't do drugs, or have a cabinet full of them ... damn!).

Because this is a false statement. As quanta have no empirical reality

No empirical reality? Really.

Uhm, listen up you lot. All perception (and thus facts) can only be verified via time-delayed (speed-of-light) perception, I.e. after-the-fact. There are no verifiable facts. None.

Really, this is sooo tiring.

From the Belief Institute website

# That which is Known (fact, finite, discrete and measured) is observed or verified via time-delayed perception (physical senses). Thus, all that is Known (fact, finite, physical and real) is embedded in the Past.
# We can never quite get to see, hear, smell, touch or taste the immediate now moment. In literal terms, it is immeasurable. The immediate now-moment, by being immeasurable is thus Unknowable. ..
# The Known physical world of things and facts is, and will remain, an after-effect of some Unknowable (Immeasurable and Unprovable) Cause. Ipso facto, science will not find the root Cause for (or be able to fully control) physical phenomena, facts or events.

as for your

To proclaim quantum mechanics as the most successful physical theory

Nope, sorry, I wasn't proclaiming, merely quoting David Deutsch from Oxford, et al.

You do realise that quantum physics (according to one eminent physicist) is actual philosophy, not the verbose, tiresome stuff professional philosophers bang on about.

as for your

Anyway, continuum-space-time is NOT the corner-stone of Newtonian/classical physics.

... uhm, err, golly, right, so if Newtonian mechanics is entirely based on the assumption of perfection continuity, but such continuity doesn't physically exist, then, so, uhm err what are you actually suggesting? Smoke and mirrors is good enough. We don't really need to know what's going on? The earth looks flat, so, well, heck, that's close enough?

Right-oh.

Not.

As for Monsieur Findlay's

Pseudoscientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts.

Really? There's a delicious irony in that statement. "Pseudoscientists" ... is that an oxymoronic statement sans the oxygen?

Seriously,

but wait, there's more ...

The theory of evolution, for example, is ``proved'' through a convergence of evidence

"proved"? ... jolly good. Not.

then we get

"Is the claimant providing ...," and "If the claimant proffers ..." and "Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions ..."

No, well, maybe on Sundays, and maybe the odd Tuesday ... Tuesdays always seem a little odd to me.

But you know, what I really want to know is who let the lawyers in? And was it them that let the dogs out?

[Persecrates]

It's nothing more than the tautology-like proposition: "Quantum mechanics (and its ontological consequences) is true because we use it (to prove its own validity)."
The theory supposedly being tested is used to do the testing... And the interpretations of the results...

So, what non-causal methodology do scientists employ to validate the causality of the macro world? Or do they employ causal theory to test their causality model?

That's an attempt to reductio ad absurdum but it's really a false analogy fallacy.
The difference is that at a macro level we have a direct/empirical acces to the phenomena we experiment upon.
See, for example, quantum microscope.
The algorithms used to program these computers are directly issued from the QM 'theories'.
The data, is not only interpreted through QM but collected and even created by the 'theory'.

Also, what is a non-causal methodology, please?

What is a theory that gives only a probability of numerous events to occur, not the actual occurrence of individual phenomenon?

One can equally ask the inverse, what is a theory that gives only an actual occurrence of individual phenomena, and not a probability of numerous events? Your implication is that one assumed theory - causality - is somehow more legitimate than the other by fiat.

You use the same method.
A theory should not only describe but explain phenomena and predict accurately the actual occurrence(s) of actual events (individually and by set).

QM doesn't explain anything, doesn't give causes to events to happen as its stance is randomness.
How to get rid of the difficult and complex (scientific) work of finding the causes? Easy, simply states there are none... Fantastic...
That's scientific method(ology)... right.

More, QM doesn't predict actual events. How could it since it proclaims an absence of cause??

That's why the use of probability and statistics is required in QM and that's no prediction at all.

Therefore QM is NOT a theory.

Also, an a-causal world is an a-scientific/illogical/irrational world.

I understand why you desire to use QM to disprove materialism... Since you believe in God and in a spiritual level of existence (the soul and all...).

But isn't it totally dishonest to use QM to disprove materialism and at the same time believe and defend a (meta-)determinism of 'reality'?

Also, causality cannot be "the rule" at the highest level, or else you'd be invoking infinite regress. At some point, one must have an acausal cause, or else reason itself crumbles.

You know the problem with this assertion.
How could (why would) God have no cause for Its existence?
We reach the limit of our understanding of reality here.
We also can say that if God can have no cause for Its existence, why can't the universe? Threfore render the necessity of a God null.
The universe could have always existed.
Because the Big Bang theory seems to be false.

That's why I'm agnostic. I have no shame in saying I don't know and I have no need for a reson/truth we obviously know nothing about.
You choose to believe to compensate this lack of knowledge. I don't. My belief would be irrelevant to the 'true' nature of reality. I don't childishly or delusionnally desire to know something we don't possess the intellectual capacity to know... yet.

@The belief doctor:

You sound like a professional philosopher who's not sufficiently confident to expose their real identity. Not much substance or credibility in that.

You don't need to know my name to debate on the ideas I develop.
I don't care about your name. Does narcissistic exhibitionism need to be the rule for you to be satisfied?

So much of your reply carries little weight, being largely, from what I understand, empty (... don't know quite the right description), but not much of anything.

And yet 90% of the problems I develop aren't addressed at all. Everything seems empty when you dismiss 90% of un inconvenient 'reality'.

"Where is your proof?
Because claiming "Newton physics is wrong because quantum physics is right" is no proof. "

A thought experiment is free of demonstration (premises, inference and conclusion) now?
Well, it's a useless 'thought expirement', then.
I still don't see (even a logically argued) proof here.

Okay, I either must start taking drugs, or if I already have but forgotten, I should stop. A car chase in a motion picture film appears to have a continuous trajectory, or continuous motion, but is in actuality composed of individual discontinuous frames of movement. Simple.

In case you didn't notice I agree with this assertion/metaphor.
Ah drugs...

Both, yet neither either entirely.

Yep, you're definitely using...

Now this one really had me reaching for the drug cabinet (only problem is forgot I don't do drugs, or have a cabinet full of them ... damn!).

Because this is a false statement. As quanta have no empirical reality

When you quote, please try to be honest and present accurately my words as I wrote:

As quanta have no empirical reality (if one accepts quantum mechanics to best describe reality),

And I don't accept QM to best describe reality.

# That which is Known (fact, finite, discrete and measured) is observed or verified via time-delayed perception (physical senses). Thus, all that is Known (fact, finite, physical and real) is embedded in the Past.

Agreed

# We can never quite get to see, hear, smell, touch or taste the immediate now moment. In literal terms, it is immeasurable. The immediate now-moment, by being immeasurable is thus Unknowable.

No. You just proved (as I did in another thread on 'time') that Present is non-existing. Not unknowable.

# The Known physical world of things and facts is, and will remain, an after-effect of some Unknowable (Immeasurable and Unprovable) Cause. Ipso facto, science will not find the root Cause for (or be able to fully control) physical phenomena, facts or events.

This is a non sequitur. Your premises (the 2nd being partly invalid) don't imply this conclusion.
It's not because the Cause is a past event (it has amways been the case by definition) that it doesn't exist.
On the contrary that's what makes it a provable and knowable fact!
You say it yourself in your first 'premise': all that is Known (fact, finite, physical and real) is embedded in the Past
Must be the drugs...

There is no ontological argumentaton here just false assertion, self-contradiction and (bad) rhetoric again...

You do realise that quantum physics (according to one eminent physicist) is actual philosophy

I do, that's why I speak of the ontological consequences of such 'theory' and counter-argue it at a philosophical level using logic.

Anyway, continuum-space-time is NOT the corner-stone of Newtonian/classical physics.

... uhm, err, golly, right, so if Newtonian mechanics is entirely based on the assumption of perfection continuity, but such continuity doesn't physically exist, then, so, uhm err what are you actually suggesting?

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[1] and can be summarised as follows:

1.First Law: Every body remains in a state of rest or uniform motion (constant velocity) unless it is acted upon by an external unbalanced force. [2][3][4] This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant speed in a straight line.
2.Second Law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body.
3.Third Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction".
[/quote]

[Meleagar]

That's an attempt to reductio ad absurdum but it's really a false analogy fallacy.

It's the exact same argument you used to undermine quantum physics.

The difference is that at a macro level we have a direct/empirical acces to the phenomena we experiment upon.

So? What non-causal methodology do you use to validate causality? Or, do you just happily accept the self-referential product?

Also, what is a non-causal methodology, please?

I don't know. You're the one claiming that one cannot use the theory of quantum physics to validate its findings or else it is self-referential; what is your non-causal methodology for validating the findings of causal theory?

A theory should not only describe but explain phenomena and predict accurately the actual occurrence(s) of actual events (individually and by set).

Why is that? Because you decree it?

QM doesn't explain anything, doesn't give causes to events to happen as its stance is randomness.

QM certainly gives a cause for why specific events occur; consciousness interacting with the probability vectors generated by the causal events; IOW, for a sufficient explanation of why electron appears at location A instead of B, or act as a wave instead of a particle, one must include the observing consciousness as part of the sufficient explanation.

Obviously, such locations cannot be "random", or else there wouldn't be anything coherent in existence; what John Wheeler and others conclude is that such positions are determined by consciousness, which must be acausal in fundamental nature.

Therefore QM is NOT a theory.

Sure it is; it's a theory that involves probabilistic outcomes.

Also, an a-causal world is an a-scientific/illogical/irrational world.

No, acausal entities and causal effects are both required for the world to be discernable in a rational, scientific way, and for that discernment to have any meaning. Without acausal entity(ies), one is left with infinite regress, or a thing causing itself, or a thing being caused by nothing, none of which are rational premises or conclusions.

I understand why you desire to use QM to disprove materialism... Since you believe in God and in a spiritual level of existence (the soul and all...).

Appealing to motivations is not a significant rebuttal of the content of any argument.

But isn't it totally dishonest to use QM to disprove materialism and at the same time believe and defend a (meta-)determinism of 'reality'?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I don't believe in determinism, if by determinism you mean that all events are determined by prior and contextual sufficient cause.

How could (why would) God have no cause for Its existence?

You're asking for me to explain the existence of an acausal entity; it is acausal. It has no "explanation". Can you explain to me the origin of cause and effect?

We reach the limit of our understanding of reality here.
We also can say that if God can have no cause for Its existence, why can't the universe? Threfore render the necessity of a God null.

The universe isn't considered an infinite entity; the evidence indicates it had an origin point some 15 billion years ago, which means that since it began, it must have had a cause.

Once again: an acausal cause must be posited to exist, or else reason breaks down. It is the nature of any fundamental principle, and "first thing", that it cannot be explained; they are assumed to exist because their existence is either experienced an/or rationally necessary.

The universe could have always existed.

Even if that is true, one runs into the problem of sufficient cause and infinite regress, and so a prime mover, or an acausal cause, is still necessary - as Aristotle pointed out, since he made his case for the unmoved mover in a context of believing that the universe was indeed infinitely old.

You choose to believe to compensate this lack of knowledge. I don't. My belief would be irrelevant to the 'true' nature of reality. I don't childishly or delusionnally desire to know something we don't possess the intellectual capacity to know... yet.

Negatively characterizing the beliefs of others and their motivations for believing in what they do is hardly within the bounds of polite and rational debate. How about we keep the invective to a minimum?

[Persecrates]

That's an attempt to reductio ad absurdum but it's really a false analogy fallacy.

It's the exact same argument you used to undermine quantum physics.

No, I explained why it's not.

I don't know. You're the one claiming that one cannot use the theory of quantum physics to validate its findings or else it is self-referential; what is your non-causal methodology for validating the findings of causal theory?

So, you're asking me to use a 'method' you don't even know to exist? Don't worry I don't either.
I wanted to point out: "How on earth can a validation process be based on some other methodology than a causal one?"
So, you're using a "meaningless/rhetorical question fallacy".

It's not the issue. The issue is scientific method should be validated empirically and logically.
QM doesn't allow either.

A theory should not only describe but explain phenomena and predict accurately the actual occurrence(s) of actual events (individually and by set).

Why is that? Because you decree it?

Theory definition: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

QM doesn't explain anything, doesn't give causes to events to happen as its stance is randomness.

QM certainly gives a cause for why specific events occur; consciousness interacting with the probability vectors generated by the causal events

And that's not mysticism... The power of the mind over matter: Telekinesis... Great.
That's your 'cause'?

IOW, for a sufficient explanation of why electron appears at location A instead of B, or act as a wave instead of a particle, one must include the observing consciousness as part of the sufficient explanation.

... If one believes in QM. And not all QM scientists agree with that assertion, far from it.
The belief doctor seems to... But he doesn't seem much credible now, does he?
If not, there are causes (yet to be identified but NOT inherently unknowable) to events to happen. Consciousness is only needed in the study of behavior of living-complex organisms like humans (psychology and/or psychoanalysis).

Obviously, such locations cannot be "random", or else there wouldn't be anything coherent in existence.

Finally... But consciousness didn't create the universe...
Or at least there is absolutely no empirical proof of it... It's faith not science!
Oh I forgot you beleve in God... This may explain it...

what John Wheeler and others conclude is that such positions are determined by consciousness, which must be acausal in fundamental nature.

Better and better.
So, before (in 'QM's ontology') there was no cause for events to happen. Now, there is one: It's consciousness... But it's a-causal by nature...
What sophistry is this?

Therefore QM is NOT a theory.

Sure it is; it's a theory that involves probabilistic outcomes.

That's rhetoric. The fact that physicists allow for such antonimic proposition to be used and considered as true doesn't make it so.
I already proved that one had to twist the definition of "theory" to allow this rather loose and meaningless interpretation.
But I guess QM doesn't bother to count how many concepts have been perverted, rendered meaningless to fit the doctrine...

Also, an a-causal world is an a-scientific/illogical/irrational world.

No, acausal entities and causal effects are both required for the world to be discernable in a rational, scientific way, and for that discernment to have any meaning. Without acausal entity(ies), one is left with infinite regress, or a thing causing itself, or a thing being caused by nothing, none of which are rational premises or conclusions.

You're confusing human intellectual cognitive capacity with a supposed necessary reality of "a-causal entities"...
Your lack of knowledge/understanding magically transforms into the knowledge/necessity of the existence of such "entities"/concepts.

I understand why you desire to use QM to disprove materialism... Since you believe in God and in a spiritual level of existence (the soul and all...).

Appealing to motivations is not a significant rebuttal of the content of any argument.

That was not intended to be an argument. Just some background to put your stance into the appropriate psychological context. I discuss the content of your thread. I can also evoke the reasons for you to create such a thread and to believe in the claims you make in it.

But isn't it totally dishonest to use QM to disprove materialism and at the same time believe and defend a (meta-)determinism of 'reality'?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I don't believe in determinism, if by determinism you mean that all events are determined by prior and contextual sufficient cause.

Yes, God.
Your 'reality' cannot be a-causal since you believe in God's (omni)potence and will to act upon creation. God is your first cause. And He would have nothing to do with randomness.
So, again to use randomness (QM) to try to prove materialism to be a fraud but to believe in a deterministic reality governed by God isn't it the ultimate dishonesty, hypocrisy?

We reach the limit of our understanding of reality here.
We also can say that if God can have no cause for Its existence, why can't the universe? Threfore render the necessity of a God null.

The universe isn't considered an infinite entity; the evidence indicates it had an origin point some 15 billion years ago, which means that since it began, it must have had a cause.

(In)finity doesn't preclude the possibility for the universe to have always existed.

Once again: an acausal cause must be posited to exist, or else reason breaks down.

Once again this is a double fallacy.
False dichotomy: You have no idea of what could explain existence. So you say: or it's infinite regress, or it's God.
Fallacy by causal reductionism: There can be other causes/explanations for this apparent paradox.
I gave you one: The universe could have always existed.
No creation at all.

Even if that is true, one runs into the problem of sufficient cause and infinite regress, and so a prime mover, or an acausal cause, is still necessary - as Aristotle pointed out, since he made his case for the unmoved mover in a context of believing that the universe was indeed infinitely old.

What part of 'always' don't you understand?
When there is no creation, there is no need for a cause of a "non-creation"...
I said we arrive to the limit of our intellectual and cognitive capacity also because we don't even know what 'existence' is.

You choose to believe to compensate this lack of knowledge. I don't. My belief would be irrelevant to the 'true' nature of reality. I don't childishly or delusionnally desire to know something we don't possess the intellectual capacity to know... yet.

Negatively characterizing the beliefs of others and their motivations for believing in what they do is hardly within the bounds of polite and rational debate. How about we keep the invective to a minimum?

You're right. But how would you characterize someone who desire to know something that is not possible to know (unknowable at least for our life time due the 'wiring'/structure of our brains)?

[Meleagar]

No, I explained why it's not.

No, you didn't. You claimed it wasn't the same, but it obviously is. If you can't use probability theory to model and predict probabilistic outcomes and thus verify the model or else you are utilizing a self-referencing methodology, then you cannot use causal theory to model and predict causal outcomes to verify the model or else you are also guilty of utilizing a self-referencing methodology.

So, you're asking me to use a 'method' you don't even know to exist? Don't worry I don't either.

Then your argument fails, because you cannot provide anything other than a self-referencing methodology to verify the causal theory.

I wanted to point out: "How on earth can a validation process be based on some other methodology than a causal one?"
So, you're using a "meaningless/rhetorical question fallacy".

No, you are, in your argument against QM theory. I'm just pointing it out by demonstrating that you're making the same assumptions in causal theory.

It's not the issue. The issue is scientific method should be validated empirically and logically.

QM doesn't allow either.

QM is verified by the scientific method every day in research labs around the world empirically and logically. Of course, it cannot do so if you remove probability theory from the realm of science by declaration. That you prefer it not be included in the realm of valid science doesn't mean that it is not, or that it cannot be.

Theory definition:

Nothing in that definition precludes probability theories from being part of scientific explanation, if the facts warrant it - which they do.

And that's not mysticism... The power of the mind over matter: Telekinesis... Great.
That's your 'cause'?

What's mystical about it? If the science indicates that mind collapses wave functions into particular positions and trajectories, so what? Is the mind a mystical phenomena?

... If one believes in QM.

You don't have to believe in QM to admit that this is what the evidence indicates.

And not all QM scientists agree with that assertion, far from it.

Not all scientists agree with virtually any scientific conclusion or theory. So?

Finally... But consciousness didn't create the universe...
Or at least there is absolutely no empirical proof of it... It's faith not science!
Oh I forgot you beleve in God... This may explain it...

It's rather easy to claim there is no proof of something if one dismisses all the evidence for it by fiat. Further, there is a logical component that adds weight to this argument: that phenomena is understandable at all, and that sentient entities exist that can understand that phenomena, suggests a relationship that is not based on chance. If physical law cannot predict or explain why quanta generate the orderly macro phenomena they do, and if the mind appears to be involved in wave collapse, then it is reasonable to suggest that the mind might play a part in how that phenomena is organized.

Better and better.
So, before (in 'QM's ontology') there was no cause for events to happen. Now, there is one: It's consciousness... But it's a-causal by nature...
What sophistry is this?

There are two different kinds of "events"; cause, and effect. I never said that there wasn't a cause for every effect; everything that begins, has a cause. However, logic dictates that at least one acausal cause exists.

That's rhetoric.

It's no more rhetoric than claiming that causality is a valid theory.

I already proved that one had to twist the definition of "theory" to allow this rather loose and meaningless interpretation.

Proved to whom? Not to me. There's nothing in that definition that precludes probabilistic outcomes from being part of science, as far as I can tell.

You're confusing human intellectual cognitive capacity with a supposed necessary reality of "a-causal entities"...
Your lack of knowledge/understanding magically transforms into the knowledge/necessity of the existence of such "entities"/concepts.

No, I'm applying logic and reason and best evidence to arrive at reasonable conclusions about necessary truths; you're appealing to ignorance to wave away a logical necessity. If you're going to dismiss what is logically necessary where it is covenient to your argument, then you have abandoned reason.

That was not intended to be an argument. Just some background to put your stance into the appropriate psychological context. I discuss the content of your thread. I can also evoke the reasons for you to create such a thread and to believe in the claims you make in it.

So, shall I also make up stuff about you and why you believe what you believe? Would that promote civil discourse?

Your 'reality' cannot be a-causal since you believe in God's (omni)potence and will to act upon creation. God is your first cause. And He would have nothing to do with randomness.

I don't know what you mean by an "a-causal" reality here. There are three aspects to experience: that which is causal, that which is acausal (intentional), and that which appears to be random, which may only be that which isn't clearly causal (determined) or acausal (intentional). None of the three could exist logically without each other.

So, in my universe, there is indeed randomness; in fact, it is required for an experience where surprising and unexpected things happen.

So, again to use randomness (QM) to try to prove materialism to be a fraud but to believe in a deterministic reality governed by God isn't it the ultimate dishonesty, hypocrisy?

You don't know enough about my cosmology to make such a case. I don't believe that reality is "determined" by god at all.

False dichotomy: You have no idea of what could explain existence. So you say: or it's infinite regress, or it's God.

I'm not trying to explain "existence"; I'm following the logic of the argument of causality and the four necessary options for causality. There is no fifth option, just like there is no alternative to the logical statement "X cannot be both X and not-X at the same time in the same place". It is either X, or not-X; to claim that it is only a lack of knowledge or imagination to say there is no third option is an abandonment of the logical principles that inform every rational argument, including the one you are currently attempting.

If metaphysical determinism is true, then we have infinite regress, because every event must have a cause. If effects can cause themselves, or if nothing can cause effects, then logic breaks down. The only logical alternative is an acausal cause. There is no fifth option, just as there is no third option to statements of identity.

Fallacy by causal reductionism: There can be other causes/explanations for this apparent paradox.

Appeal to ignorance and abandonment of basic logical principles.

I gave you one: The universe could have always existed.

The evidence indicates otherwise, and then you have the problem of infinite regress and sufficient causation.

I said we arrive to the limit of our intellectual and cognitive capacity also because we don't even know what 'existence' is.

Another appeal to ignorance where convenient.

You're right. But how would you characterize someone who desire to know something that is not possible to know (unknowable at least for our life time due the 'wiring'/structure of our brains)?

In order for you to know that it is not possible to know what we are talking about, you'd have to know what what we are talking about - but, you just said that nobody knows what we are talking about. Your position here is self-refuting.

Why would I be attempting to "characterize" my debate opponent at all? What difference does their character or motivation matter to any argument they present?

[The Belief Doctor]

@The belief doctor:

You sound like a professional philosopher who's not sufficiently confident to expose their real identity. Not much substance or credibility in that.

You don't need to know my name to debate on the ideas I develop.
I don't care about your name. Does narcissistic exhibitionism need to be the rule for you to be satisfied?

As I said, those who sneak around hardly qualify as having confidence in their beliefs, otherwise, speak your truth.

Okay, I either must start taking drugs, or if I already have but forgotten, I should stop. A car chase in a motion picture film appears to have a continuous trajectory, or continuous motion, but is in actuality composed of individual discontinuous frames of movement. Simple.

In case you didn't notice I agree with this assertion/metaphor.

Ah drugs...

Quite so, it seems, because I hadn't noticed. Still not sure I've noticed anything substantial in your replies yet, only lots of denials.

And I don't accept QM to best describe reality.

Never said it was. What exactly is your problem?

# We can never quite get to see, hear, smell, touch or taste the immediate now moment. In literal terms, it is immeasurable. The immediate now-moment, by being immeasurable is thus Unknowable.

No. You just proved (as I did in another thread on 'time') that Present is non-existing. Not unknowable.

Misquoting moi? I say, "immeasurable" (due to time-delayed perception), even so it is still existing, you just have to use nonlocal awareness and nonlocal perception. This is not that difficult to get.

# The Known physical world of things and facts is, and will remain, an after-effect of some Unknowable (Immeasurable and Unprovable) Cause. Ipso facto, science will not find the root Cause for (or be able to fully control) physical phenomena, facts or events.

This is a non sequitur. Your premises (the 2nd being partly invalid) don't imply this conclusion.
It's not because the Cause is a past event (it has amways been the case by definition) that it doesn't exist.
On the contrary that's what makes it a provable and knowable fact!
You say it yourself in your first 'premise': all that is Known (fact, finite, physical and real) is embedded in the Past
Must be the drugs...

absolute proof, not wishy-washy maybe proved proof requires absolute 100% no-exceptions determinism (of 1:1 correspondence of cause with effect). At no point can that correspondence be demonstrated, especially at the quantum level.

Besides, there's plenty of evidence that the future causes the present, as much as the past. Please try and keep up with the latest (well, actually, decades old) research, delayed-choice experiments, yadda yadda.

Seriously, you seem stuck in a 400-year old belief-systems that's dying badly, and badly needing to die. Have some dignity and let it go.

The (to me obvious) need to let go of such quaint and crude world-views is quite straight forward:

From my "Proof of the impossibility of physical movement"

"physical movement of our bodies, when based on these Assumptions, is impossible since the neurological activity that causes infinite infinitesimal sub-Planck-scaled physical movements, has yet to occur, and cannot occur."

Now, if you have evidence to show that electrical activity in the brain can be totally correlated with the infinite infinitesimal movements required by standard scientific assumptions of a continuous space-time, then please be so courteous as to provide it.

Courtesy please.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

All of which simply requires us to recognise that

We live within a digital universe, with digital brains (reliant on the 'discontinuous pulsations' (firing) of neurons, reliant on collapsing the wave-fields of possibilities (aka the experience of free-will and choice).

The "carrier-wave" is 'continuous', nonlocal, non-physical, interconnecting everywhere and every when, at once.

Obviously.

Otherwise weird, nonsensical disconnects.