Richard Carrier solves the mystery of the universe

[Ophiolite]

That is roughly my position. It is one thing for a layman to have an interest in physics, but it takes more than the ordinary amount of arrogance to suppose that, without any training in the subject, you are going to achieve something which defeated not only Einstein, but has, so far, defeated every PhD physicist since.

Then perhaps you may have stated your case a little too emphatically and that has what has produced the generally antagonistic responses. (We also should remember that many members on forums, even a Christian forum, are just looking for an excuse for an argument. I know that's why I'm here!. )

 

[Loudmouth]

And for evolutionists, the choice is whether
God is incompetent or a liar, since most of
what he said about his creation is wrong.

It is creationists who make God out to be a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is creationists who make God out to be a liar.

And none of them seem to be able to understand that.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I notice that Leslie has received zero support for his assertions thus far. So, if you don't mind Leslie, I'll weigh in on your side. (Warning: many people later regret having me on their side.)

I have a number of notions. I hesitate to call them hypotheses and they are certainly not theories. I have a sound education, rank high in IQ tests (which at least demonstrates an aptitude for IQ tests.) and have several decades of engineering and business experience. I am recognised by my peers as being very logical, objective and a sound critical thinker.

I mention these points not to blow my own trumpet, but as relevant background information. If we accept that this description is accurate would it be reasonable for me to present these notions to experts for their review? My belief is that it would be inappropriate. Although these notions fall within or immediately adjacent to the fields in which I graduated with an honours degree I do not feel, given their radical nature, that it would be appropriate to waste the time of a professional by asking them to review the notions.

It appears as if Carrier, with little if any more grounding than I, is willing to place this imposition on the professionals. Despite his protestations that he expects to be proven wrong it seems to me presumptuous to, nevertheless, trouble the professionals to explain in what way his thinking is mistaken. My own approach is to continue to expand my knowledge and to test my notions against current theory and observation. This seems to me a more sensible and respectful approach.

Leslie, does this broadly reflect your reservations about Carrier's approach, or am I in some remote no-man's land twixt the two "sides"?

I agree with you generally: it is somewhat annoying for an expert in a field to be explaining why someone, who thinks they've figured out something profound, are really just being ignorant. (This is highly relevant in this subforum, re: flat earth, climate change, etc).

I mainly dislike the over-the-top sarcastic tone of the OP's linked article.

1) No physicist is being forced to respond to Carrier, so he isn't really wasting anyone's time
2) The article that was linked to in the OP and leslie have not addressed a single reason why his arguments fail. This means that everything stated thus far is either an ad hominem or a red herring. This does not further the conversation and only antagonizes one side. If the OP's linked article said: "Richard Carrier is an idiot and here is why his thesis is false ... ", then I'd be fine with that.


But I do understand where you are coming from.

I don't know much about theoretical physics, I would be far more interested in a thread which dismantled Carrier's arguments and explained why he is wrong.

 

[Ophiolite]

1) No physicist is being forced to respond to Carrier, so he isn't really wasting anyone's time.

On the face of it this is a telling point. However, by publishing his thoughts he is implicitly inviting physicists to invest time in considering his thoughts. The alternative is that they lay themselves open to accusations of "failing to think outside of the box", "rejecting any non-mainstream ideas", "succumbing to dogma", etc. The accusations would not necessarily come from Carrier, but they would come.

I don't know much about theoretical physics, I would be far more interested in a thread which dismantled Carrier's arguments and explained why he is wrong.

I too would find that useful.

 

[bhsmte]

It takes a reasonably sized ego to even entertain the idea that, although unqualified as a physicist, you might still have achieved something which defeated Einstein.

If his ego was out of control, he wouldn't make the qualifying statement that Loudmouth has pointed out.

 

[lesliedellow]

If his ego was out of control, he wouldn't make the qualifying statement that Loudmouth has pointed out.

Unless I had a physics PhD, I wouldn't be able to take myself that seriously. It seems to give Mr Carrier no problems.

 

[bhsmte]

Unless I had a physics PhD, I wouldn't be able to take myself that seriously. It seems to give Mr Carrier no problems.

And he appears to have no problem admitting he could be completely wrong.

Not typical when the ego is out of hand.

 

[essentialsaltes]

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/calling-all-physicists.html

Doesn't look too good to me on a first look. Never trust people who make its/it's errors:

"It's thesis: quantum entanglement phenomena, as exemplified in any form of the EPR experiment, can be wholly explained by general relativity, if certain premises are adopted which may not be popular but which contradict no scientific observations to date. Those premises are that spacetime is an entity akin to particles themselves (and that relativity theory describes an actual geometry of that entity), and that the specific properties of particles which are subject to entanglement are fully caused by normal massless boson interactions between a particle at the instant it forms and the instant it decoheres." [my emphasis]

But we know from Bell's Theorem, and Aspect's experimental validation of it, that the entanglement 'messages' [if any] are sent faster than light, so it can't be the result of massless boson interactions. As wiki puts it, "the phenomenon of entanglement in quantum mechanics ... could not possibly occur according to a classical picture of the world, characterised by the notion of local realism"

Carrier attempts to address this in the comments (since another commenter raised the issue) but I am not persuaded.