• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Physics is Just a Model

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
On a separate theme, physics is several things.
1/ A method of analysing repeat phenomena, and the model so created. Modelling presumes an objective causal universe , with single direction time arrow.

2/ The philosophy of scientific realism that presumes the model is not empirical but approximates an underlying objective causal universe.

to prove or disprove the validity of 2/ , Do you agree proof of a phrophesy fulfilled , falsifies the presumption of 2/?
PS: I see that you are trying to get me to argue the logical consequences along the lines of what you say there .. but all that comes back to the underlying assumptions of the truth value of the respective premises of both sides of that particular argument.

IMO, arguing in that way, would require me to take a stance on the truth value of my philosophical viewpoints vs yours .. which is a total waste of time. Its far better to argue that from within the scientific thinking realm ... (hence the scientific focus in my prior response).
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟346,939.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Lagrangian for the standard model of particle physics uses Lagrangian densities since particle physics is based on field theories using space-time ψ(x,t).
In the simplest case for gravity the Lagrangian density ₤ is defined where

L = T - V = ∫ ₤d³x

T and V are the kinetic and potential energies respectively.
∫ ₤d³x is integrating over a volume.

The action S is defined as;

S = ∫ Ldt = ∫ ₤d⁴x

∫ ₤d⁴x is integrating over space-time.

Lagrangians in quantum field theories depend only on the fields and their first derivatives.
₤ → ₤(ψ, ∂ₙψ).

The Euler-Lagrange equation can formulated in terms of a quantum field theory.
δs = ∫ (δ₤)d⁴x

CodeCogsEqn%20(29).gif


The terms in the square brackets are the total derivative of δ₤.
The second term in the right hand most bracket can be integrated by parts and since the endpoints are fixed (refer post#55);

CodeCogsEqn%20(31).gif


Combining with the previous equation;

CodeCogsEqn%20(32).gif


The Euler-Lagrange equation for the field is;

CodeCogsEqn%20(33).gif


The Lagrangian density of a field is more complicated as the potential of the field and the density of the central mass needs to be considered.
Whereas the Lagrangian L of Newtonian gravity is simply T - V, the Lagrangian density ₤ of a gravitational field is;

CodeCogsEqn%20(34).gif


▽ is the del operator i(∂/∂x) + j(∂/∂y) + k(∂/∂z)
Φ is the gravitational potential.
ρ is the mass density.
G is the gravitational constant.

A property of the Lagrangian density is that it must remain invariant under mathematical transformations.
A typical transformation is a unitary transformation U = exp(iθ) which is a rotation.
If ₤ ≡ ₤(ψ) then ₤(U(ψ)) = ₤(ψ) = ₤.
Rotations can be global or local space-time.

Scan4.gif
For local transformations it is found the condition ₤(U(ψ)) = ₤(ψ) = ₤ is not met.
Physicists borrowed a technique from classical physics in electrodynamics; the electromagnetic field can be described by a potential Aₙ.
The corresponding space-time dependent field Aₙ = Aₙ(x) for every point x in the field is known as the gauge potential.
In a global transformation both the space-time ψ(x,t) and the first derivative ∂ₙψ(x,t) transform as
ψ → Uψ and ∂ₙψ → U∂ₙψ respectively.
The introduction of a gauge field allows the use of the covariant derivative where;

Dₙψ = ∂ₙψ - iAₙψₙ

Locally the transformations are ψ → Uψ and Dₙψ → UDₙψ.

The covariant derivative preserves the invariance of ₤ in local space-time.
There also a physical significance of the invariance of ₤ locally under transformations which results in the creation of gauge bosons or force carriers from the gauge field for the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces and have been experimentally confirmed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
In that case your hypothesis is 99.99% gap.

Abiogenesis begs the question of a self building evolving chemical plant for at least 15000 proteins
Noting a hypothesis for one possible source of a minor ingredient is hardly substantive!

Also: since Life is arguably defined at the point the chemical construct becomes self building and evolving.
That is the question of abiogenesis. In that context your hypothesis does not address the central question at all. It is at best peripheral.

I did point out that forensic evidence for origin of life exists and has been tested by labs whose day job is criminal evidence. Which is eucharistic miracles containing in vitro white cells which came from bread....its not only a long way from darwinian evolution, but Darwin himself said such evidence would disprove his theory!

My point about objective and causal is the scientific method no longer works unless the phenomenon studied has both properties. Which is why some quantum effects violate the fundamentals of the scientific method so arguably cannot be studied by it.


So, implied in that, seems to be a quest to explain in entirety, the origins and evolution of life, to date, on this planet?
If so, then: 'So what if it has gaps'? That's part of the fun of it .. trying to solve a mystery! And how we go about solving mysteries in science, is by forming objectively testable hypotheses, y'know(?)

Abiogenesis ideas come in the format of hypotheses, and the evolution of life, is a theory.
Other than that, I'm not sure I understand why you see that as being a problem?
Maybe, maybe not .. but you see the whole point of the Mind Dependent Reality hypothesis is to demonstrate the misconception of 'things' asserted as 'existing' (such as 'Physics'), evidently depends entirely on the mind(s) making those assertions.
I for one, am not aware items 1 or 2 appear anywhere as being mandatory assumptions in published and widely taught versions of the scientific method. Science does not need to be conducted under any philosophical assumptions. They are simply totally irrelevant for doing science.
People who claim that such assumptions are necessary for science to exist, can easily be shown that they are mistaken by production of the evidence from the Mind Dependent Reality Hypothesis. Those 'assumptions' there, turn out to be nothing more than their personally preferred beliefs.

The assertion of: 'Modelling presumes an objective causal universe , with .. {whatever}', is directly challenged, with supporting objective evidence from the mind dependent reality hypothesis that: 'a universe' there, means no more than whatever is the last best tested theory. That that testing produces evidence of 'a causal' universe is an inference .. and not some 'absolute truth' (which they may have just chosen for their own personal belief reasons .. they are likely just not aware of their choice there, also).
See, no last best tested theory is ever absolute and 'complete' .. its provisional and contextual .. we never know for sure where it breaks down (aka: its limits).
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
In that case your hypothesis is 99.99% gap.
Its still a testable hypothesis.
Mountainmike said:
Abiogenesis begs the question of a self building evolving chemical plant for at least 15000 proteins
Noting a hypothesis for one possible source of a minor ingredient is hardly substantive!
Abiogenesis hypotheses, in general, address how self-replicating molecules might have assembled. The build up in complexity after that, is extensively covered by the ToE.
A self-replicating molecule which becomes more efficient in consuming its resources, will out-compete others in a resource constrained environment, (this has been demonstrated/observed).

Overall the two combined, ends up being an extensive description of the 'hows' of life.
Mountainmike said:
Also: since Life is arguably defined at the point the chemical construct becomes self building and evolving.
More like self-replication, in a resource constrained environment.
A general high school definition of life (generally accepted for testing purposes) is one which addresses: movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and consumption of nutrients. More detailed ones go more into key processes (homeostasis, metabolism, reproduction, etc), then the pathways.
Biologists have far more explicit criteria for distinguishing life signs.
As expected, those various definitions are all context specific.
The development of abiogenesis hypotheses aren't driven by definitions. More like they are aimed at defining what abiogenesis means (based on objective evidence).
Mountainmike said:
That is the question of abiogenesis. In that context your hypothesis does not address the central question at all. It is at best peripheral.
Its still a testable hypothesis.
Mountainmike said:
I did point out that forensic evidence for origin of life exists and has been tested by labs whose day job is criminal evidence. Which is eucharistic miracles containing in vitro white cells which came from bread....its not only a long way from darwinian evolution, but Darwin himself said such evidence would disprove his theory!
Not exactly essential .. but still, also not objectively testable: 'miracles' ...?
'Eucharistic miracles' is context specific though .. that context is demonstrably based on a pure belief .. Go for it within that context though ..
Mountainmike said:
My point about objective and causal is the scientific method no longer works unless the phenomenon studied has both properties.
How would you say those properties of those phenomena become realised in the first place then?
The meanings you use there, are either a product resulting from the scientific method, or they are just based on your beliefs. From which those contexts do you derive your meanings for 'causal' and 'objective'?
Mountainmike said:
Which is why some quantum effects violate the fundamentals of the scientific method so arguably cannot be studied by it.
Huh?
How do you think 'Quantum Mechanics' came to mean what it means then?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
@Mountainmike: I have a couple of observations from your posts about the way you're using terminology .. both scientific and common language. Basically, I find that you're mixing them together and then producing contradictions, in your mind, because of that.

One of the multi-faceted purposes of the mind dependent reality hypothesis is to generate the distinctions so that we can assign what it means when we say something is real, based on either (i) scientific thinking/objective thinking and (ii) by way of beliefs.

Real is a human word .. its ours to decide on its meaning. The alternative is that meanings might float around in space somewhere .. waiting for us to capture them, or something(?) .. Surely we can agree on this .. and that the latter, is highly unlikely?

Abiogenesis might refer to a phenomenon .. but its up to us to decide what a phenomenon 'is'.
The counterintuitivity of quantum phenomena, studied via the scientific method, is all about pushing our minds to see if we can descibe what those phenomena 'are' using the only way our minds can do that .. by way of using models. (See @sjastro's Lagrangian commentaries on this .. to make that even clearer!)

It is plainly evident to me that you see both Abiogenesis and QM as being properties of 'a thing' called the universe, all of which, stand completely aloof, distinct or independent from our own minds' perceptions .. which, as I have shown by using science's objective method, is nothing more than just an untestable belief. All are testable models developed by our minds. There is nothing mind independent, or absolute, about those, in a science forum.

Its essential that you understand this .. for this conversation to continue.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Greater minds than I ( who passed four sigma IQ) have noted that there is a fundmental philosophical contradiction in a scientific process that relies on objectivity and causality to progress a model , to arrive at a model that is demonstrably neither causal nor objective, and confirms by the "bell experiments" that it can be validated by experiment. ie Copenhagen interpretation.
Leading einstein to refuse to believe "the moon does not exist before I look at it"

Carrol, a leading UK professor of physics declares it the "greatest embarassment in physics" that physicists cannot conclude a philosophical basis on which to understand the copenhagen interpretation. It has none. It breaches the basic tennets of the scientific process to which it owes its existence.

I didnt name them eucharistic "miracles", it is true that ascribes a cause, not just a phenomenon. I am at pains to say "so called" eucharistic miracles

I title them "bread became flesh" according to forensic science, (which confirms a core doctrine of christianity). I also title them life created from no life. Because white cells in vitro show life, where before there was just bread and water, and incidentally white cells in vitro are supposedly impossible. Except they exist in (so called) eucharistic miracles!. I am a sceptic of most paranormal, but because no mechanism of fraud appears credible , I accept them.

Now imagine you are an observer of the inside of a machine that normally does XYZ. You model it. Your models are uncannily accurate. Unbeknown to you there is out of view a designer operator pressing buttons that change the machines function once in a while. It still normally meets the model you create.
Your model and reality only perceives the machine. Your philsophy accepts the machine as the entire universe. So do you tell those who observe the strange behaviour they are misled and got it wrong. Or do you accept there maybe a force beyond your perception pulling strings once in a while? Say the odd so called "eucharistic miracle". And if there was, how would your physics and philosophy cope with the occasional philosophical spanners in the works?
Would you deny they exist because you cannot model them?

That is the conundrum scientific realists must face. Or they can put a Dawkins or Sagans folly in the way "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" ( the antithesis of science) so raising the bar against things they dont like, till things they really really dont like cant exist because they set the bar too high. The fact that they happen ( like so called eucharistic miracles) is no longer good enough to pass the bar of existence, so whoever claims them must be wrong!.

What it is to be a pseudo scientific ostrich like Dawkins...


Anyway. Fun conversation. It will never conclude....

Its still a testable hypothesis.
Abiogenesis hypotheses, in general, address how self-replicating molecules might have assembled. The build up in complexity after that, is extensively covered by the ToE.
A self-replicating molecule which becomes more efficient in consuming its resources, will out-compete others in a resource constrained environment, (this has been demonstrated/observed).

Overall the two combined, ends up being an extensive description of the 'hows' of life.
More like self-replication, in a resource constrained environment.
A general high school definition of life (generally accepted for testing purposes) is one which addresses: movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and consumption of nutrients. More detailed ones go more into key processes (homeostasis, metabolism, reproduction, etc), then the pathways.
Biologists have far more explicit criteria for distinguishing life signs.
As expected, those various definitions are all context specific.
The development of abiogenesis hypotheses aren't driven by definitions. More like they are aimed at defining what abiogenesis means (based on objective evidence).
Its still a testable hypothesis.
Not exactly essential .. but still, also not objectively testable: 'miracles' ...?
'Eucharistic miracles' is context specific though .. that context is demonstrably based on a pure belief .. Go for it within that context though ..
How would you say those properties of those phenomena become realised in the first place then?
The meanings you use there, are either a product resulting from the scientific method, or they are just based on your beliefs. From which those contexts do you derive your meanings for 'causal' and 'objective'?
Huh?
How do you think 'Quantum Mechanics' came to mean what it means then?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Greater minds than I ( who passed four sigma IQ) have noted that there is a fundmental philosophical contradiction in a scientific process that relies on objectivity and causality to progress a model , to arrive at a model that is demonstrably neither causal nor objective, and confirms by the "bell experiments" that it can be validated by experiment. ie Copenhagen interpretation.
Leading einstein to refuse to believe "the moon does not exist before I look at it"

Carrol, a leading UK professor of physics declares it the "greatest embarassment in physics" that physicists cannot conclude a philosophical basis on which to understand the copenhagen interpretation. It has none. It breaches the basic tennets of the scientific process to which it owes its existence.
There is a reason we need interpretations in QM experimentation y'know(?), That being that we simply don't just have a quantum system and a measuring apparatus, and we don't just have a density matrix .. we also have a physicist who is using the apparatus to check a theory and gain understanding of what they mean by nature. That physicist raises a significant issue there, because they perceive a single outcome of the measurement. In this situation, the typical explanation of the result might be: 'its just a physical effect' which are just words that we have no idea what is meant there, because 'many worlds' is certainly not just a 'physical effect', is it(?) No .. its also an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

None of the QM interpretations require religion, or beliefs there .. and inferring they do, is what's contradictory.
Mountainmike said:
I didnt name them eucharistic "miracles", it is true that ascribes a cause, not just a phenomenon. I am at pains to say "so called" eucharistic miracles

I title them "bread became flesh" according to forensic science, (which confirms a core doctrine of christianity). I also title them life created from no life. Because white cells in vitro show life, where before there was just bread and water, and incidentally white cells in vitro are supposedly impossible. Except they exist in (so called) eucharistic miracles!. I am a sceptic of most paranormal, but because no mechanism of fraud appears credible , I accept them.
.. which stands distinct from the approach of QM physicists keeping 'open' the question of QM interpretations until objective results sway the matter in one direction, or some other!
Mountainmike said:
Now imagine you are an observer of the inside of a machine that normally does XYZ. You model it. Your models are uncannily accurate. Unbeknown to you there is out of view a designer operator pressing buttons that change the machines function once in a while. It still normally meets the model you create.
Your model and reality only perceives the machine. Your philsophy accepts the machine as the entire universe. So do you tell those who observe the strange behaviour they are misled and got it wrong. Or do you accept there maybe a force beyond your perception pulling strings once in a while? Say the odd so called "eucharistic miracle". And if there was, how would your physics and philosophy cope with the occasional philosophical spanners in the works?
Would you deny they exist because you cannot model them?
I wouldn't commit to giving 'existence' the meaning you simply desire there, unless I choose to adopt a belief as the basis for what I say 'exists' .. which is always a choice I reserve for myself .. This is why I mostly use the term 'Objective Reality' (or 'objectively exists') to distinguish science's meaning of reality, from my own personal belief-based notions.
Mountainmike said:
That is the conundrum scientific realists must face. Or they can put a Dawkins or Sagans folly in the way "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" ( the antithesis of science) so raising the bar against things they dont like, till things they really really dont like cant exist because they set the bar too high. The fact that they happen ( like so called eucharistic miracles) is no longer good enough to pass the bar of existence, so whoever claims them must be wrong!.
Maybe .. but its not me who's using the word: 'wrong'! So, all I can recommend there is to take it up with them. The Mind Dependent Reality Hypothesis thinking doesn't rule out such notions .. I said way back all we have to do there is allow for the possibility .. and then step aside (and then pass the ball back to the believer), whilst proceeding with scientific thinking and investigation.
Mountainmike said:
What it is to be a pseudo scientific ostrich like Dawkins...
Meh .. Dawkins made some useful contributions to science .. He also portrays himself as a rabid Atheist too!
Hey .. its a 'love/hate' thing there for me .. He really doesn't need to invoke a personal belief in the religion (or politics) of Atheism there, in order to make useful scientific progress.
Mountainmike said:
Anyway. Fun conversation. It will never conclude....
Yeah but its just you and me in this conversation .. (maybe time to call it quits ... for that reason alone?) .. and demonstrate respectfulness.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That’s the problem.
QM interpretations are not open, in the sense bell experiments show that observation crystallises existence. Before that it doesn’t exist.

That’s a problem for objective existence, since there are as many realities as observers. The “ multiverse” is just a nonsense fudge trying to put a philosophical sticking plaster on a dead duck. If there is an objective reality, then science can only be an empirical not a fundamental model. AKA hawkings entire life’s mission was a philosophical dead end.

It gets stranger. The answer to why the moon appears to have objective existence is called quantum coherence. That’s a sophist way of saying it’s still an illusion, it’s just a coordinated illusion.!

but yes, it’s been fun. Let others have a say.

There is a reason we need interpretations in QM experimentation y'know(?), That being that we simply don't just have a quantum system and a measuring apparatus, and we don't just have a density matrix .. we also have a physicist who is using the apparatus to check a theory and gain understanding of what they mean by nature. That physicist raises a significant issue there, because they perceive a single outcome of the measurement. In this situation, the typical explanation of the result might be: 'its just a physical effect' which are just words that we have no idea what is meant there, because 'many worlds' is certainly not just a 'physical effect', is it(?) No .. its also an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

None of the QM interpretations require religion, or beliefs there .. and inferring they do, is what's contradictory.
.. which stands distinct from the approach of QM physicists keeping 'open' the question of QM interpretations until objective results sway the matter in one direction, or some other!
I wouldn't commit to giving 'existence' the meaning you simply desire there, unless I choose to adopt a belief as the basis for what I say 'exists' .. which is always a choice I reserve for myself .. This is why I mostly use the term 'Objective Reality' (or 'objectively exists') to distinguish science's meaning of reality, from my own personal belief-based notions.
Maybe .. but its not me who's using the word: 'wrong'! So, all I can recommend there is to take it up with them. The Mind Dependent Reality Hypothesis thinking doesn't rule out such notions .. I said way back all we have to do there is allow for the possibility .. and then step aside (and then pass the ball back to the believer), whilst proceeding with scientific thinking and investigation.
Meh .. Dawkins made some useful contributions to science .. He also portrays himself as a rabid Atheist too!
Hey .. its a 'love/hate' thing there for me .. He really doesn't need to invoke a personal belief in the religion (or politics) of Atheism there, in order to make useful scientific progress.
Yeah but its just you and me in this conversation .. (maybe time to call it quits ... for that reason alone?) .. and demonstrate respectfulness.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
That’s the problem.
QM interpretations are not open, in the sense bell experiments show that observation crystallises existence. Before that it doesn’t exist.
Remember, coming from the mind dependent reality (MDR) hypothesis thinking, all you're saying there is that our prior meaning of 'existence' there, (in the QM/Bell experiment context), appears to be calling for alteration of what we mean by that term.
There is no contradiction coming from the MDR viewpoint .. its only a surprise for believers of philosophical Realism.

Einstein's moon existed before he looked at it, only because he learned of its existence from others (eg: when he was an infant maybe via his parents .. when they were teaching him language?) when they used language which merely asserted its existence and imprinted that, in his mind/brain (eg:'Oh .. Albert .. that is the thing we call the Moon .. you'll see it come out tonight').
Mountainmike said:
That’s a problem for objective existence, since there are as many realities as observers. The “ multiverse” is just a nonsense fudge trying to put a philosophical sticking plaster on a dead duck. If there is an objective reality, then science can only be an empirical not a fundamental model. AKA hawkings entire life’s mission was a philosophical dead end.
You're cynicism there, doesn't alter the results from objective testing.

As I pointed out in my previous post, Copenhagen, MWI (and de Broglie-Bohm) are interpretations produced for consideration following the science.

(Aside: Its the same principle as Humanism is for me .. nothing more than just a conclusion produced by Science. Taking it beyond that, would just call for some belief or other .. which I don't see any need to do).
Mountainmike said:
It gets stranger. The answer to why the moon appears to have objective existence is called quantum coherence. That’s a sophist way of saying it’s still an illusion, it’s just a coordinated illusion.!
I don't think so .. I don't think any scientist would be able to find objective evidence which would convince other objective thinkers that illusions are no different from objective observations.

Also, the moon is not a quantum object in QM theory.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Quantum coherence is QM ( not my) explanation for why the moon just appears to be objectively real.

A load complete tosh if you ask me.

What it proves to me is the model is empirical. It’s useful because it predicts within reason. But it cannot be fundamental because it denies objective reality. ( which I accept is a belief on my part)

Or other fascinating discrepancies. Single particles interfering with a particle that might exist if you let it, but doesn’t in reality. So yielding single particle interference pattern observation with double slits! Interfering with... a figment of its imagination!

interesting discussion. Let’s move on.

Take prophecy. If a unique prophecy were shown to come true too far in advance for prediction models, what do you say that means for philosophy of science and reality?

Or consciousness. If I can prove conscious observation of a time a millenia ago, what does that mean for reality? Or consciousness as chemical process?

Remember, coming from the mind dependent reality (MDR) hypothesis thinking, all you're saying there is that our prior meaning of 'existence' there, (in the QM/Bell experiment context), appears to be calling for alteration of what we mean by that term.
There is no contradiction coming from the MDR viewpoint .. its only a surprise for believers of philosophical Realism.

Einstein's moon existed before he looked at it, only because he learned of its existence from others (eg: when he was an infant maybe via his parents .. when they were teaching him language?) when they used language which merely asserted its existence and imprinted that, in his mind/brain (eg:'Oh .. Albert .. that is the thing we call the Moon .. you'll see it come out tonight').
You're cynicism there, doesn't alter the results from objective testing.

As I pointed out in my previous post, Copenhagen, MWI (and de Broglie-Bohm) are interpretations produced for consideration following the science.

(Aside: Its the same principle as Humanism is for me .. nothing more than just a conclusion produced by Science. Taking it beyond that, would just call for some belief or other .. which I don't see any need to do).
I don't think so .. I don't think any scientist would be able to find objective evidence which would convince other objective thinkers that illusions are no different from objective observations.

Also, the moon is not a quantum object in QM theory.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Quantum coherence is QM ( not my) explanation for why the moon just appears to be objectively real.

A load complete tosh if you ask me.

What it proves to me is the model is empirical. It’s useful because it predicts within reason. But it cannot be fundamental because it denies objective reality. ( which I accept is a belief on my part)
Both QM models and your other description of the Moon there, are both demonstrably, objectively testable models. That is, there is abundant justification for claiming that they both describe what we mean by 'objective reality' in their respective contexts. QM models might well be counterintuive to our everyday experiences, but there can no 'denial' of 'objective reality' there, when both models, in fact, describe 'objective reality'.
Mountainmike said:
Or other fascinating discrepancies. Single particles interfering with a particle that might exist if you let it, but doesn’t in reality. So yielding single particle interference pattern observation with double slits! Interfering with... a figment of its imagination!
You're still not letting go of the idea that the 'objective reality' you keep referring to there, is a something which exists 'outside' your mind.
The whole point I've demonstrated throughout this thread, is that 'inside' or 'outside' our mind is a belief based worldview, (or just another untestable model .. a belief).

Thus your basis for making the judgements you keep making has been shown as an untestable belief basis.

Single particle interference is not 'a figment of its imagination' .. its an objectively demonstrable model conceived by the observer.
Mountainmike said:
interesting discussion. Let’s move on.
What .. 'move on', with you missing the whole point?
(I'd call that a massive cop out!?)
Mountainmike said:
Take prophecy. If a unique prophecy were shown to come true too far in advance for prediction models, what do you say that means for philosophy of science and reality?
I don't know what you mean by 'a prophecy', or, 'is true'.
That's what I mean for 'the philosophy of science' and 'reality'.
Mountainmike said:
Or consciousness. If I can prove conscious observation of a time a millenia ago, what does that mean for reality?
There are lots of such observations .. eg: Egyptian recordings inscribed in cuneiform on ancient clay tablets, etc. They record the mindset of those who inscribed them, at the time they did that.
Mountainmike said:
Or consciousness as chemical process?
There's not a lot of point in going too far into what consciousness 'is', in this conversation. Suffice it to say, that consciousness is a commonly understood concept for us to have, in order to have any conversations at all .. regardless of any other disagreements we may have in those conversations.
 
Upvote 0