Is Intelligibility of the Quantum Universe an evidence of God's Existence?

[SelfSim]

...
Someday you humans have to get over yourselves.

Q Who?!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm ..

The way I see it, the key problem with the anthropic principle (and the fine-tuning argument), is not whether or not they are true, it is mistaking a simple truth for something explanatory. Of course the Anthropic principle is true, (or science is badly internally inconsistent but then it could hardly work as well as it does) .. but its also true that if I observe the mass of the Sun, then that is the mass of the Sun. What's the difference between saying 'the mass is M because I observe it so', versus: 'the mass is M because it would have to be, for me to observe it so?'
I don't see explanatory character in either of those true statements, so I don't see the point in imagining they are saying something different(?)

The controversial part of both the anthropic principle and fine tuning, is whether they count as an explanation of physics parameters, or merely an attribute they possess. If its merely an attribute, it's hardly any different from simply observing what the parameters are .. it isn't explanatory.

And the problem with the 'Gestalt', or landscape idea, (eg: as in the universe is a 'landscape'), is that we only see the part that is consistent with our own survival. Unfortunately, since we don't see any other parts, it's very hard to say if this mode of reflection means anything at all.

So all Carlson would be apparently doing, (if she said what you say she did), is filling in those gaps with her own ideas about whatever she means by 'emergence'.

Right. A Gestalt doesn't provide a proof by mere perception, and in this thread, my passing mention of it is simply to allude to the tendency of many people to project a conclusion through the mind's attempts to reach closure. We might say she's filling in a gap or drawing closure where there is no definitive conclusion. And this is where I'm implying that the AP and FTP end up being a sort of Rorschach "blot" of selective data whereby some people will see an inference and others, depending on their mental models, won't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of your recent video threads, it was the least time wasting, but here is your dime for tollerating us non-belivers hanging out in your science space:
View attachment 361653

I see I'm on the road to wealth, which is great for me since I'm currently seeking employment.

Which is just an argument from incredulity filtered through a pre-existing philosophical commitment. I should note that her work in theoretical physics is in condensed matter physics, not the fundamental underpinnings of QM or the laws of physics.

Yes, I understand that.

Someday you humans have to get over yourselves.

Yes, Q.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, I understand that.

Yes, Q.

Do you? You seem to think I was trying to be funny. You got the only dime your "demand" deserves, but I am completely serious when I say that those humans that look at the Universe and think it was created for them do really need to let go of their egos. The Universe isn't "for us".

 

[SelfSim]

.. I am completely serious when I say that those humans that look at the Universe and think it was created for them do really need to let go of their egos. The Universe isn't "for us".

A very interesting statement, that (underlined) one. I think there's good evidence to support it also, what's more(?)

Thinking out aloud here; (comments welcome), I'm tempted to say that I don't think there is any observational evidence in support of, say, the idea that the Universe is finite but unbounded(?) Its more an example of assuming what best fits in our head, which is much more a statement about us and how we like to do science, than it would be a statement about the Universe, per se(?)
So we cannot conceive a physical infinity, and we cannot understand how the Universe could have a boundary, so I think there's the evidence in support of the statement that the Universe isn't "for us"(?)

If we marry what we can conceive with what we can understand, we end up with finite and unbounded, however.

But the history of science is littered with the foolishness of telling the Universe how to fit into our head, rather than the other way around.
My take on this would be that it, perhaps, seems appropriate to just talk about our own models of the Universe and why we use them.
A finite but unbounded model is consistent with the data, as is a finite and bounded, as is an infinite Universe. That's really about all we can say, (I think?) So far our accomplishment has been to pretty well rule out the possibility that we will ever be able to tell which of those the Universe 'really is', which leaves us free to design models that we can understand?

Very interesting! (Thanks!)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you? You seem to think I was trying to be funny. You got the only dime your "demand" deserves, but I am completely serious when I say that those humans that look at the Universe and think it was created for them do really need to let go of their egos. The Universe isn't "for us".

Then I leave you with Pascal's A.A.S.S. and all of the connotations and contexts he meant to go with it. And I'm dead serious about that.

So, you can take your "scorched-earth" political pyrotechnics someplace else because at the end of the existential question your interpretations have NOTHING to offer me ....................

 

[Hans Blaster]

A very interesting statement, that (underlined) one. I think there's good evidence to support it also, what's more(?)

I don't think there is "evidence" for it. It is a matter of philosophical hubris to think the Universe exists for humans.

Thinking out aloud here; (comments welcome), I'm tempted to say that I don't think there is any observational evidence in support of, say, the idea that the Universe is finite but unbounded(?) Its more an example of assuming what best fits in our head, which is much more a statement about us and how we like to do science, than it would be a statement about the Universe, per se(?)

I'm not sure what "finite and unbounded" would even be.

So we cannot conceive a physical infinity, and we cannot understand how the Universe could have a boundary, so I think there's the evidence in support of the statement that the Universe isn't "for us"(?)

If we marry what we can conceive with what we can understand, we end up with finite and unbounded, however.

We can conceive and understand either of them or both.

But the history of science is littered with the foolishness of telling the Universe how to fit into our head, rather than the other way around.
My take on this would be that it, perhaps, seems appropriate to just talk about our own models of the Universe and why we use them.

Sure talk about models particularly for the part we can't see, but we can see pretty far... just not to infinity (or beyond).

A finite but unbounded model is consistent with the data, as is a finite and bounded, as is an infinite Universe. That's really about all we can say, (I think?) So far our accomplishment has been to pretty well rule out the possibility that we will ever be able to tell which of those the Universe 'really is', which leaves us free to design models that we can understand?

Very interesting! (Thanks!)

It is the nature of the scale of the Universe and the finite speed of light that limit our ability to determine how big the Universe is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then I leave you with Pascal's A.A.S.S. and all of the connotations and contexts he meant to go with it. And I'm dead serious about that.

So, you can take your "scorched-earth" pyrotechnics someplace else because at the end of the existential question your interpretations have NOTHING to offer me ....................

This "new argument" of yours (or is it actually Pascal's, who can tell) against serious scientists doesn't seem to be an argument (at least not one I've ever seen articulated). Nothing about the properties of the Universe indicate that it's "purpose" is to make humans. Injecting that supposition is nothing more than human self-centered arrogance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This "new argument" of yours (or is it actually Pascal's, who can tell) against serious scientists doesn't seem to be an argument (at least not one I've ever seen articulated). Nothing about the properties of the Universe indicate that it's "purpose" is to make humans. Injecting that supposition is nothing more than human self-centered arrogance.

"Serious scientists"? What, pray tell, is a "serious" scientist in your estimation?

Here's the thing, Mr. Union General: you don't know which scientists, mathematicians or philosophers I've ever studied and drawn from, and since you don't care to know that, then I don't have to care about your androgogical assertions for "setting me right" in my thinking about science.

Moreover, it'd behoove you if you began to learn to apply a bit of firmer exegesis, because if you had been able to do so, you'd have understood better my more neutral epistemic stance in regard to the issues of this thread. Instead of insinuating that people like myself have egos to assuage, you'd have understood that some of us are merely plagued by indefatigable questioning of everything in existence rather than having an ego to inflate.

But as it is, here you are, grandstanding like a Union General, attempting to tear me a new hole and put me into my place. I get enough of that crap from fellow Christians, and I sure as hell don't need it from atheists too.

And as it stands, Pascal's A.A.S.S. ............. stands.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Serious scientists"? What, pray tell, is a "serious" scientist in your estimation?

Here's the thing, Mr. Union General: you don't know which scientists, mathematicians or philosophers I've ever studied and drawn from, and since you don't care to know that, then I don't have to care about your androgogical assertions for "setting me right" in my thinking about science.

And you don't know why I picked my avatar. Union (actually US) generals are for fighting confederates.

Moreover, it'd behoove you if you began to learn to apply a bit of firmer exegesis, because if you had been able to do so, you'd have understood better my more neutral epistemic stance in regard to the issues of this thread. Instead of insinuating that people like myself have egos to assuage, you'd have understood that some of us are merely plagued by indefatigable questioning of everything in existence rather than having an ego to inflate.

exa what's it?

But as it is, here you are, grandstanding like a Union General, attempting to tear me a new hole and put me into my place. I get enough of that crap from fellow Christians, and I sure as hell don't need it from atheists too.

And as it stands, Pascal's A.A.S.S. ............. stands.

And so far you haven't shown your "Argument Against Sarcastic Skeptics" that we can even evaluate its claims.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And you don't know why I picked my avatar. Union (actually US) generals are for fighting confederates.

And who are today's "confederates" in your present view?

exa what's it?

e-x-e-g-e-s-i-s

It's an old academic term with an old etymological lineage. There is no "exa what's it?" here in this.

And so far you haven't shown your "Argument Against Sarcastic Skeptics" that we can even evaluate its claims.

It's not a scientific argument, so need I explain it here? But it is a cogent argument, one with social and psychological implications about the nature of the existential (even anthropic) situation we're all in and for which skeptics and atheistic scientists have nothing positive to offer other than, "...too bad, suck it up!!!!"

 

[SelfSim]

I don't think there is "evidence" for it. It is a matter of philosophical hubris to think the Universe exists for humans.

Yes .. no arguments from me on that front.

I'm not sure what "finite and unbounded" would even be.
...
{My ETA here, only to clarify my, @SelfSim's, understanding, regarding physical vs finite/unbounded options}:
We can conceive and understand either of them or both.

Hmm ...

FWIW, it seems to me that the concept of spatial infinity is often thought about in terms of limits, rather than in terms of a specific distance. That would mean my not talking about "infinite distance between two objects", but rather, imagining a series of pairs of objects whose distances grow without bound. If the set of objects is unbounded, then the distances between them is also unbounded. So in this sense, using the term, "infinite" just means "unbounded maximum distance". What I'm saying is, (for me), "unbounded" means more than just "does not have a bound", it means the distances do not have a bound, i.e., any distance I can name, I could imagine producing two objects that are separated by a larger distance than what anyone else named. If the entire concept of distance breaks down before I can do that, I cannot say the universe is either finite or infinite and therefore I cannot understand that kind of spatially infinite universe (and that conception therefore, also seems meaningless?).

PS: .. (just clarifying the maximum distance part: "unbounded" can also mean finite but without a boundary).

Sure talk about models particularly for the part we can't see, but we can see pretty far... just not to infinity (or beyond).

It is the nature of the scale of the Universe and the finite speed of light that limit our ability to determine how big the Universe is.

Yes .. all good. (I appreciate the sub-conversation here .. I'm still in 'working this through' mode .. and apologies for my ETA in my requote of your post above .. infinity is muddying me up a little here so I had to clarify what I was addressing in my response).

 

[SelfSim]

.. for which skeptics and atheistic scientists have nothing positive to offer other than, "...too bad, suck it up!!!!"

Well that is positive for some of us!

.. I mean if Angus Young (of AC/DC fame) can realise his lead vocalist, (Brian Johnson's), voice as being 'angelic', then I'm evidently justified in holding that position, no(?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think there is "evidence" for it. It is a matter of philosophical hubris to think the Universe exists for humans.

And Pascal would partly agree with you. Although, he probably would have differentiated teleology from ontology in knowing the limits of science and theology,

​

"For, in fact, what is man in nature? A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite, an All in comparison with the Nothing, a mean between nothing and everything. Since he is infinitely removed from comprehending the extremes, the end of things and their beginning are hopelessly hidden from him in an impenetrable secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the Nothing from which he was made, and the Infinite in which he is swallowed up." [Pensees, Section 2, #72]​

I'm not sure what "finite and unbounded" would even be.

We can conceive and understand either of them or both.

Pascal would say that it takes imagination to realize we understand neither of them, nor both.

Sure talk about models particularly for the part we can't see, but we can see pretty far... just not to infinity (or beyond).

Pascal would agree with this as well.

It is the nature of the scale of the Universe and the finite speed of light that limit our ability to determine how big the Universe is.

I'm sure Pascal would have agreed with this as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well that is positive for some of us!

.. I mean if Angus Young (of AC/DC fame) can realise his lead vocalist, (Brian Johnson's), voice as being 'angelic', then I'm evidently justified in holding that position, no(?)

Oh, I don't know if it's as 'evident' as all that. Again, I'll lean toward a sort of 21st century adaptation of Pascal in citing the underlying moral critique he had of sheer antagonistic, apathetic, atheism or skepticism.

The Vanity of the Sciences. --- Physical science will not console me for the ignorance of morality in the time of affliction. But the science of ethics will always console me for the ignorance of the physical sciences. [Pensees, Section 2, #67]​

​

His critique becomes especially acute if and when the person in affliction is actually at the point of death. Hence, his A.A.S.S.

 

[SelfSim]

Oh, I don't know if it's as 'evident' as all that. Again, I'll lean toward a sort of 21st century adaptation of Pascal in citing the underlying moral critique he had of sheer antagonistic, apathetic, atheism or skepticism.

The Vanity of the Sciences. --- Physical science will not console me for the ignorance of morality in the time of affliction. But the science of ethics will always console me for the ignorance of the physical sciences. [Pensees, Section 2, #67]​

​

His critique becomes especially acute if and when the person in affliction is actually at the point of death. Hence, his A.A.S.S.

Hmm it seems Pascal has finally made an appearance in a thread! (I'm glad to see your quoting the relevant dialogue, for once).
What does this A.A.S.S. thing stand for? You use it all the time .. please clarify.

His 'ignorance of morality' is introduced by humans .. its not limited to how humans might refer to only science.

In these more modern times, (which, for science, has clearly changed from Pascal's day .. perhaps having the effect of producing even more humble, ethically accountable and more intellectually honest scientists), science's objective reality is also less ignorant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm it seems Pascal has finally made an appearance in a thread! (I'm glad to see your quoting the relevant dialogue, for once).
What does this A.A.S.S. thing stand for? You use it all the time .. please clarify.

No. He's appeared before, just not to your specific notice over the years, and what I've coined as his A.A.S.S. is simply an acronym for 'Argument Against Sarcastic Skeptics.' It's quite solid, really and I'm utterly in accord with its essential premises.

To bad I won't be quoting more of him here since this is a science thread rather than a religious one.

His 'ignorance of morality' is introduced by humans .. its not limited to how humans might refer to only science.

The conclusion for your interpretive position here remains to be seen..........................as does everyone else's.

In these more modern times, (which, for science, has clearly changed from Pascal's day .. perhaps having the effect of producing even more humble, ethically accountable and more intellectually honest scientists), science's objective reality is also less ignorant.

Right. These are more 'modern times.' Not that that fact alone guarantees the presence of ethics among working scientists. But it is why I don't rely solely on Pascal but with the likes of John D. Barrow, or assorted other, modern voices in the sciences in creating my own interpretive mental model of the world in which we're collectively stuck. One has to deal with the parallax one way or another .....

Royal Blood - Oblivion

 

[SelfSim]

The conclusion for your interpretive position here remains to be seen..........................as does everyone else's.


Right. These are more 'modern times.' Not that that fact alone guarantees the presence of ethics among working scientists. But it is why I don't rely solely on Pascal but with the likes of John D. Barrow, or assorted other, modern voices in the sciences in creating my own interpretive mental model of the world in which we're collectively stuck. One has to deal with the parallax one way or another .....

And so, yet again your precious philosophy thread ends up exactly where it began .. in the dumpster of valuelessness.

The only value I'm getting is in the sub-conversation with @Hans Blaster (which is always a pleasure because I can actually learn something from what he has to say ..?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And so, yet again your precious philosophy thread ends up exactly where it began .. in the dumpster of valuelessness.

The only value I'm getting is in the sub-conversation with @Hans Blaster (which is always a pleasure because I can actually learn something from what he has to say ..?)

Someone once said, "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all of the time." This is one of those cases. Besides, if I quoted something from Barrow's (1998) book, Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits, do you think you'd learn anything?

I doubt you would since you're already educated down a particular epistemic path.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank God, some people actually PERCEIVE reality for what it is ................................