Incorrect.
Logically, one is forced to take into account evidence in support of any given position.
Again, no.
An inductive process requires no faith.
Non sequitor.
Again, non sequitor.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The atheist's dilemma and the state of Physics
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
Incorrect.
Logically, one is forced to take into account evidence in support of any given position.
Again, no.
An inductive process requires no faith.
Non sequitor.
Again, non sequitor.
Its not ad verecundiam.....I was simply defining the soul based on religion....ad verecundiam
Also ad verecundiam applies to everything...including all those interpretations, the many-worlds, copanhagen, consistent histories, etc....since they all are essentially just opinions because there's no evidence showing which interpretation is actually true
Its not ad verecundiam.....I was simply defining the soul based on religion....
Also ad verecundiam applies to everything...including all those interpretations, the many-worlds, copanhagen, consistent histories, etc....since they all are essentially just opinions because there's no evidence showing which interpretation is actually true
Wrong.
The fallacy only applies to purported sources that claim to be correct.
Like your scripture quote.
Varying theoretic position make no claim to being correct; they only claim to be the explanatory approach with the greatest possibility of being correct.
Very different things.
But there's no evidence available....so what do you logically then do? Keep an open-mind or insist that its impossible for there to be a soul, God, afterlife, etc....Incorrect.
Logically, one is forced to take into account evidence in support of any given position.
Stop lying to yourself, if you really followed the inductive process then you wouldn't say there's no possiblity of a soul, God, afterlife, etc...glaucon said:Again, no.
An inductive process requires no faith.
Whats non-sequitur about it? If the observer causes the electron to come into a particular state, then the observer is independant of the electron itself...whats non-sequitur about it????glaucon said:Non sequitor.
Again, non sequitor.
No, you're wrong. All the varying theories are claimed to be correct...there's virtually no difference between someone claiming to be correct and another claiming the greatest possibility of being correct....Wrong.
The fallacy only applies to purported sources that claim to be correct.
Like your scripture quote.
Varying theoretic position make no claim to being correct; they only claim to be the explanatory approach with the greatest possibility of being correct.
Very different things.
But there's no evidence available....so what do you logically then do? Keep an open-mind or insist that its impossible for there to be a soul, God, afterlife, etc....
As I've already pointed out: given equal probability, you do not 'keep an open mind' and make things up.... you follow the logical process.
Stop lying to yourself, if you really followed the inductive process then you wouldn't say there's no possiblity of a soul, God, afterlife, etc...
Correct, I wouldn't exclude the possibility logically.
Nevertheless, there's no good reason for me to support the position.
Whats non-sequitur about it? If the observer causes the electron to come into a particular state, then the observer is independant of the electron itself...whats non-sequitur about it????
No, that would mean that the relation is dependent, not independent.
No, you're wrong. All the varying theories are claimed to be correct...there's virtually no difference between someone claiming to be correct and another claiming the greatest possibility of being correct....
Incorrect; the difference is immense.
To claim to be correct is to exclude possibility.
Thats your personal interpretation. The Copaghen interpretation says something else as does the many-worlds-interpretation. The only thing the interpretations all agree on is the objective results of the double-slit experiment, they all attempt to explain what happened differently
I didn't provide an interpretation of the how/why. It was a description of the result and isn't in the least incompatible with the interpretations you listed.
Well there's the many-minds interpretation, quantum immortality, consciousness causes collapse, etc....none of these theories are more verifiable then the other because there's no experimental evidence showing which one is actually true
Just for kicks I looked up quantum immportality. It's far from a theory and is a really silly thought experiment.
If the observer is independant of matter doesn't that mean there's a "soul" or "mind" that exists independantly of matter? Wouldn't that mean the observer can continue on existing even after the death of the body made of matter?
Oh lordy, you would have to find real empirical evidence that sentience persists in some nebulous place independent of matter.
Actually you did. You said that it "shows that small particles (anything from photons to carbon atoms) can be temporarily cloned long enough measure". This just another interpretation....the many-worlds-interpretation would tell you that it shows that the outcome of every event exists in its own history, and other interpretations would tell you it shows something else....I didn't provide an interpretation of the how/why. It was a description of the result and isn't in the least incompatible with the interpretations you listed.
Saying that its a "silly thought experiment" stems from blind faith alone, since there is no evidence validating or invalidating it, and if the MWI is correct it may very well be the truthCrunchy Cat said:Just for kicks I looked up quantum immportality. It's far from a theory and is a really silly thought experiment.
But it already implies so...if the observer causes the collapse then the observer exists independantly of the electron itself....Crunchy Cat said:Oh lordy, you would have to find real empirical evidence that sentience persists in some nebulous place independent of matter.
So what logical process do you follow if there's no evidence validating or invalidating something?As I've already pointed out: given equal probability, you do not 'keep an open mind' and make things up.... you follow the logical process.
The relationship would be dependant, the observer's existence would be independant since the observer causes the electron to be in a particular state, not the electron causes the observer to be in particular stateglaucon said:No, that would mean that the relation is dependent, not independent.
The difference is small..."I'm correct", "I have the greatest possiblity of being correct" , "I'm not wrong", "There's an infinitismal possibility that I'm wrong"glaucon said:Incorrect; the difference is immense.
To claim to be correct is to exclude possibility.
Its almost like saying the samething
VitalOne, quantum immortality is literal immortality - the continuing existence of the conscious entity with its physical corporeality. It has no connection, as far as I can see, with an immortal soul after the death of the corporeal body. Also, it only applies specifically to those physicists who undergo the immortality experiment. The rest of us are screwed.
VitalOne, quantum immortality is literal immortality - the continuing existence of the conscious entity with its physical corporeality. It has no connection, as far as I can see, with an immortal soul after the death of the corporeal body. Also, it only applies specifically to those physicists who undergo the immortality experiment. The rest of us are screwed.
No, it implies that everyone lives in their own personal reality. In other words, in his reality everyone will be screwed, but in our reality he will be screwed, and so on...also it doesn't take much to see that it can be possible that after death you enter into a new universe or reality
Also if the consciousness causes collapse theory is correct the observer is immortal and continues observing after death...in other words the observer can indeed enter into a hellish or heavenly reality after death or an entirely new existence (rebirth)
What evidence is there that the observer isn't immortal? None.
Actually you did. You said that it "shows that small particles (anything from photons to carbon atoms) can be temporarily cloned long enough measure". This just another interpretation....the many-worlds-interpretation would tell you that it shows that the outcome of every event exists in its own history, and other interpretations would tell you it shows something else....
It doesn't really matter if what's being witnessed is multiple probabilities or not. What is detectable are multiple copies existing of the same particle and that state of 'multiple-ness' is temporary.
Saying that its a "silly thought experiment" stems from blind faith alone, since there is no evidence validating or invalidating it, and if the MWI is correct it may very well be the truth
It stems from experience, existing knowledge, and a bit of 'faith' in reality. There is no evidence supporting it (you are correct) and there is evidence contradicting it however. In the thought experiment, someone is standing next to a nuclear bomb that detonates. There is no miraculous anything... that person dies in every additional universe state from that point on. To declare that in a few states the person actually survives is to declare that someone else in a few states never does of old age. This would create a paradox / contradiction in reality and the one thing that reality has proven over and over again is that it does not support paradox / contradiction; hence, it's rather silly to even entertain a thought that it somehow could.
But it already implies so...if the observer causes the collapse then the observer exists independantly of the electron itself....
It doesn't imply so. An observer can be a person, a camera, a block of wood. While they are spatially distinct from a small particle such as an electron they are not made of something other than matter/energy and they therefore have a relationship.