How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[Astrid]

And how do we do that?


Yes, but HOW? Every form of communication that we know of requires a physical medium by which to be manifested. But you allow for no such medium, so how do these minds communicate with each other?

Mindum entanglement? Whatever one
mind thinks, another one somewhere
thinks the opposite?

 

[SelfSim]

And how do we do that?

By using the scientific method.

Yes, but HOW? Every form of communication that we know of requires a physical medium by which to be manifested. But you allow for no such medium, so how do these minds communicate with each other?

We are communicating now via wires, fibers, routers, bits, switching gates, photons, electrons, computers, etc. If we were close to each other we'd probably be doing it using our vocal chords, eardrums, air molecules, brains, gestures, etc, etc.

They're all models .. you'd probably call them 'physical media' and associate that with what you mean by your term 'physical reality'. That meaning however is dependent on your mind .. If we look across a broader population of different minds, that phrase could easily convey very different meanings however. So how do we choose which one is right?

Science uses definitions it can specifically, objectively test via its method .. like those lists of media I just provided you with .. they are examples of science's operational (objective) models.

It all depends on minds observably behaving in ways we can then characterise as a testable model of what a mind is.

 

[Halbhh]

Where in earth did you get that silly idea?
The quote is fake as is the concept.
You don't have a clue how an atheist thinks,
you'd have to try, to get it more wrong.

To avoid such reactions, just notice context, read the post you respond to more carefully. I was pointing out the quoted idea makes no sense. Too much forum posts and arguing can make that kind of misperception more likely. Maybe take a walk get fresh air., etc.

 

[SelfSim]

All this boils down to the fact that it is natural, given how human minds work and their limitations, to come to a general model of reality that says all that is "mind" emerges from all that is "reality." This is more or less how we are taught to think, and we would probably come to that model on our own even if we weren't constantly taught that.

We are trained by example to look for language about reality that removes us from it, and then looks for us to spring from it, without leaving any mark on it, intentionally ignoring the easily demonstrable fact that even the successful use of language, itself, relies on a lifetime of interaction between how we think and perceive. We simply choose to forget that if our minds were very different, the way we would make sense of our reality would also be very different, despite the mountain of evidence of people with very different minds describing the nature of reality very differently.

So the common model is, it's all the same reality, it's completely objective, everything relating to our minds emerges from that reality without any interaction with it, and then in some kind of final step to the process our minds enter and introduce variations from person to person in how they think about that pre-existing reality. The model is, mind dependent models spring from a mind independent (or 'physical') reality, but only that mind independent, (or 'physical'), reality actually exists.

And where it all falls apart is when one asks the simple question: "So when you personally talk about reality, including what is going on in your life, or what matter is made of, or the laws of physics, or how did humans evolve, or what is the difference between right and wrong, or what gets you out of bed in the morning, are you talking about that mind independent, 'physical' thing you believe in, or your mind dependent model that you say sprung from it?"

Just answer that, and then revisit what you mean by "what actually exists". While you're at it, I can ask, do you exist, and if so, does that require that you be some kind of mind independent 'physical' reality?

 

[SelfSim]

To avoid such reactions, just notice context, read the post you respond to more carefully. I was pointing out the quoted idea makes no sense. Too much forum posts and arguing can make that kind of misperception more likely. Maybe take a walk get fresh air., etc.

Great advice! I need a break too .. especially when a deliberately ambiguous poster (not yourself), who deliberately uses insufficient explanations, begins to attack (for unclear reasons).

 

[Astrid]

To avoid such reactions, just notice context, read the post you respond to more carefully. I was pointing out the quoted idea makes no sense. Too much forum posts and arguing can make that kind of misperception more likely. Maybe take a walk get fresh air., etc.

It can be a terrif help to just say what you mean.
And avoid ambiguity.

 

[Astrid]

Great advice! I need a break too .. especially when a deliberately ambiguous poster (not yourself), who deliberately uses insufficient explanations, begins to attack (for unclear reasons).

Next time just say you need to be spoon fed.
Twenty seconds search with something as simple
as " why can't you really touch anything" would
have told you. Mentioning Pauli, I was trying to show a little respect
for your initiative and grasp of basic science. Sorry-ah, won't do that again

 

[partinobodycular]

By using the scientific method.

Could you be more specific?

They're all models .. you'd probably call them 'physical media' and associate that with what you mean by your term 'physical reality'.

But to you aren't these just models? Mental constructs? So how does your mental construct communicate with my mental construct?

Mental telepathy?

What's the mechanism by which our minds communicate? There has to be one that isn't simply an illusion.

 

[SelfSim]

Next time just say you need to be spoon fed.
Twenty seconds search with something as simple
as " why can't you really touch anything" would
have told you. Mentioning Pauli, I was trying to show a little respect
for your initiative and grasp of basic science. Sorry-ah, won't do that again

None of which removes the cryptic nature of what you originally meant.

I should also draw to your attention the general impacts your frequently misspelled, word truncated, poorly formatted posts have for me - (I'm not sure what others might have to say about this).
Also worthwhile mentioning, are your frequently even more cryptic "." posts, which disrupt expectations of any continuity in your specific opinions, amongst the veritable oceans of many other posters' points on the same discussion topics(?)
I'm not at all sure you're aware these missing fundamentals, which is why I'm raising them for your attention. (I mean how would you know otherwise?)

 

[SelfSim]

Could you be more specific?

But to you aren't these just models? Mental constructs? So how does your mental construct communicate with my mental construct?

Mental telepathy?

What's the mechanism by which our minds communicate? There has to be one that isn't simply an illusion.

Language.

Beyond that simple response, I'm happy to clarify what I mean by a model, using a fairly standard 'sciencey' definition:

'A model is a conceptual, mathematical, graphical, or otherwise idealized structure that is capable of generating predictions in hypothetical situations. Ideally, the predictions are quantitative at a useful level, and the hypothetical situation can be closely enough approximated to allow an experiment to check the model'.

OK, so using that fairly standard meaning of the term; is a (mind independent) 'physical reality' a scientific model, or isn't it? Remember that scientific models are what we'd expect to find in science books, being used to make predictions that check with experiments. Could the claim that material 'physical reality' is mind independent, be put in a science book and used to make predictions that satisfy the standard that the predictions must favor the mind independent physical reality model, over the idea that we are simply using our minds to make sense in ways that depend on our minds?

Further, will those predictions also satisfy the standard that they are "risky", meaning that we could have imagined outcomes of the experiment that would have forced us to abandon the model?

 

[partinobodycular]

Language.

It seems that we're talking past each other, but I'll try one more time. How does the language get from your mind to my mind?

 

[SelfSim]

It seems that we're talking past each other, but I'll try one more time. How does the language get from your mind to my mind?

No .. You're ignoring my posts. I already answered that question in post#1782;

We are communicating now via wires, fibers, routers, bits, switching gates, photons, electrons, computers, etc. If we were close to each other we'd probably be doing it using our vocal chords, eardrums, air molecules, brains, gestures, etc, etc.

How is that in any way 'talking past' you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You know why I said it.

I think so...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The 'actually' part of 'actually touch' is the dicey part there, I think(?)

'Observation' and 'touch' are pretty well defined on their own, objectively speaking, I think(?)

Yes; in both cases the additional adjective/adverb ('direct', 'actually') implies a problematic specificity.

 

[Astrid]

I think so...

Something basic about electromagnetism eh

 

[Astrid]

None of which removes the cryptic nature of what you originally meant.

I should also draw to your attention the general impacts your frequently misspelled, word truncated, poorly formatted posts have for me - (I'm not sure what others might have to say about this).
Also worthwhile mentioning, are your frequently even more cryptic "." posts, which disrupt expectations of any continuity in your specific opinions, amongst the veritable oceans of many other posters' points on the same discussion topics(?)
I'm not at all sure you're aware these missing fundamentals, which is why I'm raising them for your attention. (I mean how would you know otherwise?)

You go on so about " science", offering lessons and
insights, I thought you might actually know enough
of the most basic physics to know THAT the fact one
cannot actually touch anything is trivially obvious.

Then I compounded my error by thinking you might
actually have the curiosity and initiative to not need
spoon feeding.

 

[Astrid]

Yes; in both cases the additional adjective/adverb ('direct', 'actually') implies a problematic specificity.

What is problematic?

Search " can you actually touch anything" and what do you
find?

 

[AV1611VET]

Search "can you actually touch anything" and what do you find?

Something stupid, as usual.

2 Samuel 6:6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.
7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.
8 And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah to this day.

I can see a scientist in David's place right now.

"But ... but ... why did You do that? At the atomic level, he didn't touch the Ark!?"

See if that works at the jurisprudence level as well.

Get a scientist to provide "expert testimony" that the defendant, in court for "inappropriate touching of a minor", didn't in fact, touch her.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Something basic about electromagnetism eh

Yes - so when the electrons begin to resist the approach (a result of Pauli exclusion, IIRC) can we say that is, for practical (macro-scale) purposes, 'actually touching'?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is problematic?

Search " can you actually touch anything" and what do you
find?

I find that the definition of 'contact' is contextual, particularly with respect to scale. But it's well-defined in atomic physics, if not at macro-scale.

Incidentally, I browsed for 'direct observation' - it's a term used in the social sciences, where you observe without participating or interfering