The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[stevevw]

Only someone who doesn't understand what Many Worlds means would ask that. All the 'worlds' of Many Worlds are superpositions of the universe's wavefunction in Hilbert space; they're all equally real.

You have misunderstood what I said. I was not questioning whether the worlds the paralelle world theory produces were real or any less real than each other. I was talking about the types of realities these paralelle worlds produce and how many are quite willing to believe that these realms exist. These paralelle realms could produce unicorns, strange and weird creatures, where perhaps time goes backwards or where particles can go through walls or where there is another you and I living a slightly different life in a different reality. UNreal and far fetched realities that cannot be verified but many who support the scientific world view will willing have faith that they exist becuase it helps support their world view of how things work.

Yet the same people will not entertain the idea that a spiritual realm or some sort other reality or unreality exists somewhere. They quickly will call other people stupid for believing such things but at the same time do exactly the same themselves except they put a scientific tag on it which somehow makes it more acceptable. In the world of qunatum physics there are many possibilities and what may be considered heaven or the spiritual realm is just a realm we cannot see or explain where another reality exists.

 

[stevevw]

Scientific hypothesis may seem outlandish, but they do always have a ground in facts and data. But there is often a long way before they may be confirmed and considered a scientific theory.

You really should learn how science works and how scientists work. Science and religion has nothing in common, they work under very different paradigms.

Just because you dont understand it doesnt make it not science or "faith".

I understand exactly how science works, perhaps you should learn about humans nature. Just becuase someone has a science degree does not exclude them from being human. Many of these ideas (hypothesis) are not based in facts and that just proves what I am saying that people who support the scientific world view have been brainwashed to believe that what ever is put forward is fact. Its not and its only indirectly supported for which a number of alternative and just as far fetched ideas could also be indirectly presented. Show me the direct evidence for a paralelle world or a holographic dimension.

 

[VirOptimus]

I understand exactly how science works, perhaps you should learn about humans nature. Just becuase someone has a science degree does not exclude them from being human. Many of these ideas (hypothesis) are not based in facts and that just proves what I am saying that people who support the scientific world view have been brainwashed to believe that what ever is put forward is fact. Its not and its only indirectly supported for which a number of alternative and just as far fetched ideas could also be indirectly presented. Show me the direct evidence for a paralelle world or a holographic dimension.

I’m not intererested in playing games and I’m certainly not responsible for your education.

Your posts clearly show that you are woefully ignorant about even the basics of science.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

Yet the same people will not entertain the idea that a spiritual realm or some sort other reality or unreality exists somewhere. They quickly will call other people stupid for believing such things but at the same time do exactly the same themselves except they put a scientific tag on it which somehow makes it more acceptable. In the world of qunatum physics there are many possibilities and what may be considered heaven or the spiritual realm is just a realm we cannot see or explain where another reality exists.

Many scientists are believers in religions but that has nothing to do with science and has no place in a science debate.

Metaphysics are inherently unscientific.

 

[stevevw]

I’m not intererested in playing games and I’m certainly not responsible for your education.

Your posts clearly show that you are woefully ignorant about even the basics of science.

I am not playing any games. The fact that you cannot answer my question shows I am right. Explain to me how something like a paralelle world which is based in quantum physics can be based in fact, and data. The idea that a paralelle world can be created by the measurement of a quantum particle is just an idea that stems from the behaviour of a quantum particle. It is not something that has been directly verified yet it is something people of science will believe to be a real possibility.

 

[stevevw]

Many scientists are believers in religions but that has nothing to do with science and has no place in a science debate.

Metaphysics are inherently unscientific.

So your saying the belief in parallel worlds is metaphysics. I appreciate that a science debate requires certain criteria but what I am pointing out is that if it is good enough for some scientists many of which are mainstream to promote ideas that can never be verified and have all the hallmarks of religious belief that they are being hypocritical. In fact some scientists are now wanting to side step scientific verification for ideas like multiverses because they know they can never verify but like their ideas so much that they still want to hold onto and use them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not playing any games. The fact that you cannot answer my question shows I am right. Explain to me how something like a paralelle world which is based in quantum physics can be based in fact, and data.

How it could be based on facts?

Sure.

Suppose you have a scientific theory that accurately explains certain phenomena of the universe.

Suppose this theory makes 100 predictions, 99 of which are testable. (arbitrary numbers).
The 100th, untestable, prediction is that other universes exist.

Suppose you test all 99 and all of them check out.

That's be a pretty good motivation to assume that prediction 100 is very likely correct as well.

In such a situation the theory, which predicts the existance of a multi-verse, would definatly be based on fact.

The idea that a paralelle world can be created by the measurement of a quantum particle is just an idea that stems from the behaviour of a quantum particle. It is not something that has been directly verified yet it is something people of science will believe to be a real possibility.

Lot's of things aren't directly verifiable. Take a black hole for example. You can't directly observe a black hole. The very nature of what it is, prevents you from actually directly observing it. You can detect its effects on its immediate surroundings though.

You wouldn't be able to do that with other universes, if they exist. We are confined to this universe and, at this point at least, it seems not possible that other universe, if real, are detectable from within this universe.

When it comes to such things, it can only be infered from theories like the one I described above.

But as far as I know, there currently is no such theory. There are various hypothesis (some of the competing with one another), that in fact do predict the existance of multiple universes, sure. But nothing conclusive. It concerns ideas at the very frontier of scientific discovery. Works in progress. It's far to early to tell.

 

[stevevw]

When it comes to science, ours is a paradoxical era. On the one hand, prominent physicists proclaim that they are solving the riddle of reality and hence finally displacing religious myths of creation. That is the chest-thumping message of books such as The Grand Design by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. A corollary of this triumphal view is that science will inevitably solve all other mysteries as well.

On the other hand, science's limits have never been more glaringly apparent. In their desperation for a "theory of everything"—which unifies quantum mechanics and relativity and explains the origin and structure of our cosmos—physicists have embraced pseudo-scientific speculation such as multi-universe theories and the anthropic principle (which says that the universe must be as we observe it to be because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it). Fields such as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics and complexity have fallen far short of their hype.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When it comes to science, ours is a paradoxical era. On the one hand, prominent physicists proclaim that they are solving the riddle of reality and hence finally displacing religious myths of creation. That is the chest-thumping message of books such as The Grand Design by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. A corollary of this triumphal view is that science will inevitably solve all other mysteries as well.

On the other hand, science's limits have never been more glaringly apparent. In their desperation for a "theory of everything"—which unifies quantum mechanics and relativity and explains the origin and structure of our cosmos—physicists have embraced pseudo-scientific speculation such as multi-universe theories and the anthropic principle (which says that the universe must be as we observe it to be because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it). Fields such as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics and complexity have fallen far short of their hype.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

What does any of this have to do with evolution?

 

[stevevw]

How it could be based on facts?

Sure.

Suppose you have a scientific theory that accurately explains certain phenomena of the universe.

Suppose this theory makes 100 predictions, 99 of which are testable. (arbitrary numbers).
The 100th, untestable, prediction is that other universes exist.

Suppose you test all 99 and all of them check out.

That's be a pretty good motivation to assume that prediction 100 is very likely correct as well.

In such a situation the theory, which predicts the existance of a multi-verse, would definatly be based on fact.

The problem is when it involves subjects like the cosmos there can be a lot of wiggle room. Quite often a pprediction is shown to be wrong so a new idea is proposed which may not be directly verifiable either such as when we are talking about the big bang and say inflation. It can be manipulated enough to to make it fit and presto problem solved. So these predictions themselves are not completely verifiable and onlt rely on making the maths fit.

Lot's of things aren't directly verifiable. Take a black hole for example. You can't directly observe a black hole. The very nature of what it is, prevents you from actually directly observing it. You can detect its effects on its immediate surroundings though.

The problem is that often what was proposed was found out to be wrong becuase it was based on an assumed idea that was wrong. This is the very problem I am talking about, the materialistic scientific view.

You wouldn't be able to do that with other universes, if they exist. We are confined to this universe and, at this point at least, it seems not possible that other universe, if real, are detectable from within this universe.

Exactly but ideas like this are being proposed (String theory) to help explain what is seen through a materialistic world view. As time goes by some believe and rely on some of these far fetched ideas to help explain things and prop up other ideas.

When it comes to such things, it can only be infered from theories like the one I described above.

But as far as I know, there currently is no such theory. There are various hypothesis (some of the competing with one another), that in fact do predict the existance of multiple universes, sure. But nothing conclusive. It concerns ideas at the very frontier of scientific discovery. Works in progress. It's far to early to tell.

Do you notice that nearly all the proposed ideas involve some far fetch idea to make it fit and can never really be directly verified. In fact as time goes by more and more non-verifiable ideas are added and it becomes pretty hard to beleive after a while. It seems the more we tryt and explain the nature and origin of things the more we have to appeal to ideas that defy our classical reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem is when it involves subjects like the cosmos there can be a lot of wiggle room. Quite often a pprediction is shown to be wrong so a new idea is proposed which may not be directly verifiable either such as when we are talking about the big bang and say inflation. It can be manipulated enough to to make it fit and presto problem solved. So these predictions themselves are not completely verifiable and onlt rely on making the maths fit.

That has nothing to do with the quote you are responding too.
You asked how a theory that includes a multi-verse could be based on fact and I provided you with a possible way that such could come about.

If you have nothing to respond to that, then don't respond.

The problem is that often what was proposed was found out to be wrong becuase it was based on an assumed idea that was wrong. This is the very problem I am talking about, the materialistic scientific view.

No, you are inventing problems that aren't there.
Are you saying black holes don't exist?

Exactly but ideas like this are being proposed (String theory) to help explain what is seen through a materialistic world view.

This is part of your misundestanding. String theory does not propose a multi-verse. It predicts one.

"if this and this, then that".
The "this and this", is what is being proposed in string theory.
The "that" is a prediction, like a multi-verse.

As time goes by some believe and rely on some of these far fetched ideas to help explain things and prop up other ideas.

Who "relies" on string theory, which is at best nothing but a hypothesis at this point, which isn't currently testable, or at best extremely hard to test?

At this point in time, while I'm sure string theory has some very interesting aspects, it pretty much is indistinguishable from intellectual masturbation.

Do you notice that nearly all the proposed ideas involve some far fetch idea to make it fit and can never really be directly verified.

Not nearly as far fetched and unverifiable as any theistic idea though.
It's kind of ironic how you are complaining about unverifiable, untestable ideas - while what you are proposing is the very king of untestable and unverifiable ideas.

In fact as time goes by more and more non-verifiable ideas are added and it becomes pretty hard to beleive after a while

Yet, you believe your theistic ideas, the most far fetched and unverifiable ideas that any human ever came up with.

So, what's that all about?

It seems the more we tryt and explain the nature and origin of things the more we have to appeal to ideas that defy our classical reality.

This doesn't surprise me though.
Quantum physics, relativity, particle physics,.... all of that defies our "classical reality".

Our "classical reality" came about by being macroscopic objects with mass, having to deal with limited gravitational forces and sub-light speeds.

It goes without saying that the stuff that happens in the proximity of black holes, when approaching light speed or when being so small that gravity is neglectable and that surface tension is what one needs to worry about.... it is bound to be weird to us.

The difference however between the "weird" ideas in science and the "weird" ideas in religion, is that the science seeks actual understanding and to be evidence based...

Whereas religion is more of an exercise in trying to explain the unexplained with the inexplicable. It is the very king of unverifiability. This is why religions require "faith", while science requires evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I was talking about the types of realities these paralelle worlds produce and how many are quite willing to believe that these realms exist.

The 'Many Worlds' of QM are all the same 'type' of reality; they represent the various possible outcomes of quantum events that have occurred.

These paralelle realms could produce unicorns, strange and weird creatures, where perhaps time goes backwards or where particles can go through walls or where there is another you and I living a slightly different life in a different reality.

Particles go through walls in this reality; around 100 trillion neutrinos go through you every second. Many Worlds only allows physically possible outcomes under the known laws of physics; that doesn't include time 'going backwards' to any greater extent than it does in our familiar branch.

There would indeed be other me's and you's in alternate branches, although the further from our branch their branches are, the less like you and me they would be - you could think of them ranging from identical twins, through normal siblings and relatives, to quite different people, depending on branch separation.

UNreal and far fetched realities that cannot be verified but many who support the scientific world view will willing have faith that they exist becuase it helps support their world view of how things work.

Under the MW interpretation, as I said, the other branches are not 'unreal', they're just as real as the one you are in. Close branches are practically indistinguishable from ours; distant branches might seem 'far-fetched', but would be the result of alternate outcomes of the quantum events that led to our own branch; i.e. in practical terms, no more far-fetched than our own reality, just different.

Yet the same people will not entertain the idea that a spiritual realm or some sort other reality or unreality exists somewhere. They quickly will call other people stupid for believing such things but at the same time do exactly the same themselves except they put a scientific tag on it which somehow makes it more acceptable. In the world of qunatum physics there are many possibilities and what may be considered heaven or the spiritual realm is just a realm we cannot see or explain where another reality exists.

The difference is that QM Many Worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics; i.e. an interpretation of what underlies the phenomena we actually observe - it simply says that if we take the Schrodinger equation (which describes the behaviour of quantum systems) literally, without any ad-hoc additions (e.g. wavefunction collapse), then according to the quantum formalism, the wavefunction that describes the universe is a constantly branching superposition of all the alternate outcomes of quantum events (i.e. a multiverse).

The spiritual realms of religious beliefs have no well-tested empirical and theoretical basis; they are entirely ad-hoc imaginative descriptions. There is no rational reason, beyond emotional need, to maintain a belief in any of them.

But it's worth bearing in mind that the quantum formalism and all its interpretations are models for the behaviour we observe. The quantum formalism is a 'correct' model in that it correctly tells us the precise probabilities of the outcomes we will get when we make a particular observation, but it doesn't claim to say anything about reality beyond that. The various interpretations are as yet untestable explanatory models; ways to visualise how it works - they may or may not describe the reality to some extent - we don't know.

People can believe what they like, and scientists will vigorously argue their preferred interpretation, but a scientific statement of belief in one or other should be taken as an expression that they think it is likely to be the best model for whatever lies behind the phenomena we observe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fact that you cannot answer my question shows I am right.

Oh dear; false.

I recommend logic 101.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. The idea that a paralelle world can be created by the measurement of a quantum particle is just an idea that stems from the behaviour of a quantum particle. It is not something that has been directly verified yet it is something people of science will believe to be a real possibility.

Superposition is an observed fact, weird though it is. There's a good argument to be made that, in itself, is evidence for alternate realities - either as a point where a single universe has started to branch (separating like an expanding delamination), or an indication that there are already two (or more) identical universes, differing only by the possible states of the superposed particle.

You don't have to accept that argument, you can find others, or make your own interpretation of superposition - but don't expect it to be common-sense or intuitive.

 

[stevevw]

That has nothing to do with the quote you are responding too.
You asked how a theory that includes a multi-verse could be based on fact and I provided you with a possible way that such could come about.

If you have nothing to respond to that, then don't respond.

That is unreal. How can predictions support a theory as being fact when it can never by directly verified to establish that fact. This is what I am talking about where the method is flawed. If this is how you say something can be established as a fact then the method is wrong for establishing the fact.

No, you are inventing problems that aren't there.
Are you saying black holes don't exist?

No I am saying that the math and observations does not make something a verified fact.

This is part of your misundestanding. String theory does not propose a multi-verse. It predicts one.

propose predict I can't see much difference. I am fully aware that string theory predicts multiverse that's why I mentioned it with multiverse. Multiverse are also predicted from inflation theory which has its own problems. The problem is more and more ideas are added to solve previous hypothesis which then create more problems and it ends up becoming a complicated mess.

"if this and this, then that".
The "this and this", is what is being proposed in string theory.
The "that" is a prediction, like a multi-verse.

That's a good example of what I mean when you say that if 99 out of 100 predictions are shown to be correct that it can make an idea fact. The problem is many of the predictions like a multiverse within String theory cannot be verified. So the predictions themselves are suspect. But much of the time this is overlooked because the original theory works so well to fit things. IE

Is String Theory Science?
“Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe,” they wrote, some scientists argue that “if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally”.
Is String Theory Science?

Who "relies" on string theory, which is at best nothing but a hypothesis at this point, which isn't currently testable, or at best extremely hard to test?[/quote] According to articles like the above some do rely on these theories as they are the only ones they have at the moment and they fit what is being observed so well. The problem is whatever idea they end up coming up with it is going to have to be something similar and something that cannot be verified because that is what the observations demand. For me they may as well include ideas about intelligent designers because this is also non-verifiable and has just as much explanation power and indirect evidence as these other ideas.

Not nearly as far fetched and unverifiable as any theistic idea though.
It's kind of ironic how you are complaining about unverifiable, untestable ideas - while what you are proposing is the very king of untestable and unverifiable ideas.

I am not complaining about the unverifiable ideas of science but that the scientific material view will only entertain certain unverified ideas and exclude any even hint at pointing to a God or intelligence behind what we see. In the scheme of things when all ideas are considered there are some pretty far fetched ideas presented from scientists. The fact that they are offered and allowed to sit there within the science world shows that there is some bias about even entertaining theistic ideas.

There are some more thought out ideas about theistic ideas that seem to at least be on par with some of the ideas put forward from scientists and therefore should be considered. Like the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning argument, etc. There are some prominent scientists who are more honest who will acknowledge the possibility of a God or intelligence behind things. If science was truly about being open to all possibilities then they would consider these ideas. For example

Noted physicist says string theory suggests we’re all living in God’s matrix
Noted physicist says string theory suggests we’re all living in God’s matrix

The Existence of God: The Rational arguments from Mathematics to Human Consciousness.
An economist has studied the data and concluded God exists

Yet, you believe your theistic ideas, the most far fetched and unverifiable ideas that any human ever came up with.

There are many ways to look at theistic ideas and they can make a lot of sense and probably fit the observations just as well if not better.

This doesn't surprise me though.
Quantum physics, relativity, particle physics,.... all of that defies our "classical reality".

Our "classical reality" came about by being macroscopic objects with mass, having to deal with limited gravitational forces and sub-light speeds.

It goes without saying that the stuff that happens in the proximity of black holes, when approaching light speed or when being so small that gravity is neglectable and that surface tension is what one needs to worry about.... it is bound to be weird to us.

The difference however between the "weird" ideas in science and the "weird" ideas in religion, is that the science seeks actual understanding and to be evidence based...

Whereas religion is more of an exercise in trying to explain the unexplained with the inexplicable. It is the very king of unverifiable. This is why religions require "faith", while science requires evidence.

But science does not have all the answers. The problem is the scientific materialist view will limit what is possible and dictate what is. It is not always about looking for answers but deciding what is and then trying to make everything fit that preconceived world view.[/quote]

 

[VirOptimus]

So your saying the belief in parallel worlds is metaphysics. -snip-

I have not spoken about belief regarding science in any way as belief is a metaphysical term. Science only deals with physical reality.

I have certainly not said that parallel worlds need to be a metaphysical idea.

Again, you dont understand the fundamentals about physics and metaphysics.

 

[stevevw]

Superposition is an observed fact, weird though it is. There's a good argument to be made that, in itself, is evidence for alternate realities - either as a point where a single universe has started to branch (separating like an expanding delamination), or an indication that there are already two (or more) identical universes, differing only by the possible states of the superposed particle.

You don't have to accept that argument, you can find others, or make your own interpretation of superposition - but don't expect it to be common-sense or intuitive.

You are just proving my point that an observed fact is then used to support all sorts of far fetched ideas that have not been verified. A Multiverse is not a verified fact like superposition but superposition is used to make a multiverse fact and this is the way some scientists are using science to support their ideas which they base on faith. This is no different to saying that consciousness is a product of the verified observations of the quantum world. The only difference is because those supporting parallel worlds put a science tag on their ideas its called science and is accepted in the halls of science but consciousness implies things that scientists do not want to allow into their hall so it is rejected.

 

[stevevw]

I have not spoken about belief regarding science in any way as belief is a metaphysical term. Science only deals with physical reality.

I have certainly not said that parallel worlds need to be a metaphysical idea.

Again, you dont understand the fundamentals about physics and metaphysics.

The problems is when it comes to what we have been seeing in recent times with the type of ideas proposed by many scientists I don't think they understand the difference.

As I posted yeasterday which is being stated more and more in mainstream science the recognition that scientsist themselves are turning to metaphysics and pseudo science to explain things.

On the other hand, science's limits have never been more glaringly apparent. In their desperation for a "theory of everything"—which unifies quantum mechanics and relativity and explains the origin and structure of our cosmos—physicists have embraced pseudo-scientific speculation such as multi-universe theories and the anthropic principle (which says that the universe must be as we observe it to be because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it). Fields such as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics and complexity have fallen far short of their hype.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

 

[VirOptimus]

The problems is when it comes to what we have been seeing in recent times with the type of ideas proposed by many scientists I don't think they understand the difference.

As I posted yeasterday which is being stated more and more in mainstream science the recognition that scientsist themselves are turning to metaphysics and pseudo science to explain things.

On the other hand, science's limits have never been more glaringly apparent. In their desperation for a "theory of everything"—which unifies quantum mechanics and relativity and explains the origin and structure of our cosmos—physicists have embraced pseudo-scientific speculation such as multi-universe theories and the anthropic principle (which says that the universe must be as we observe it to be because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it). Fields such as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics and complexity have fallen far short of their hype.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

A blog? A you serious?

 

[stevevw]

The 'Many Worlds' of QM are all the same 'type' of reality; they represent the various possible outcomes of quantum events that have occurred.

You are still missing my point. The 'Many Worlds' of QM is not the same reality within each alternative world. That is the idea that because a different world splits off at the point of decoherence it will be different in its own reality. It will have different physics and outcomes. That is why it is said some worlds may have hostile environments, some may have weird realities where time goes backwards or where objects can move through a solid material. All the possibilities we see in the quantum world to the classical world could be possible. My point is if this is a believed idea by scientists then what is the difference is a realm that may be so different that it would be what we call heaven or a spiritual realm that defies classical science. Afterall if there was such as realm the science would still attempt to put an explanation on it and call it science.

Particles go through walls in this reality; around 100 trillion neutrinos go through you every second. Many Worlds only allows physically possible outcomes under the known laws of physics; that doesn't include time 'going backwards' to any greater extent than it does in our familiar branch.

Not really according to the following.
Scientists Propose a 'Mirror Universe' Where Time Moves Backwards
Scientists Propose a 'Mirror Universe' Where Time Moves Backwards

Under the MW interpretation, as I said, the other branches are not 'unreal', they're just as real as the one you are in. Close branches are practically indistinguishable from ours; distant branches might seem 'far-fetched', but would be the result of alternate outcomes of the quantum events that led to our own branch; i.e. in practical terms, no more far-fetched than our own reality, just different.

The problem is some scientists say that what we see in the quantum world could be how things really work and it is only in our world that we do not see this dominate becuase of our particular physics. It may be possible that in other worlds the quantum weirdness is more dominant which would make their reality defy what we understand as reality. Becuase everything began from a quantum world anything from that point to what we understand as reality and beyond may be possible. How we see things even at the quantum level is only the way we see things in our reality.

The difference is that QM Many Worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics; i.e. an interpretation of what underlies the phenomena we actually observe - it simply says that if we take the Schrodinger equation (which describes the behaviour of quantum systems) literally, without any ad-hoc additions (e.g. wavefunction collapse), then according to the quantum formalism, the wavefunction that describes the universe is a constantly branching superposition of all the alternate outcomes of quantum events (i.e. a multiverse).

Yes and when we do not take this literally then some scientists say this can point to consciousness where the observer affects reality. So either way, we have ideas that scientists are willing to believe that step outside our understanding of reality and can point to other realms such as there being intelligence behind what we see and a realm that exists that is immaterial.

The spiritual realms of religious beliefs have no well-tested empirical and theoretical basis; they are entirely ad-hoc imaginative descriptions. There is no rational reason, beyond emotional need, to maintain a belief in any of them.

Depends what you mean by spiritual realm. Religion does not attempt to scientifically verify the spiritual realm of heaven. But realms with very similar descriptions from scientists have been proposed and are theoretically based as I have posted earlier. Like I said science could put a theory and explanation of heaven and then it would be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.

But it's worth bearing in mind that the quantum formalism and all its interpretations are models for the behaviour we observe. The quantum formalism is a 'correct' model in that it correctly tells us the precise probabilities of the outcomes we will get when we make a particular observation, but it doesn't claim to say anything about reality beyond that. The various interpretations are as yet untestable explanatory models; ways to visualise how it works - they may or may not describe the reality to some extent - we don't know.

I am not saying that any spiritual realm as a theory is scientifically verified. I am saying it doesn't even get to base one as being proposed as an idea to be included with other far-fetched ideas that scientists propose that are well accepted and not verified. Yet like consciousness, it can have all the theoretical basis and indirect support just as much as other ideas proposed by mainstream scientists.

People can believe what they like, and scientists will vigorously argue their preferred interpretation, but a scientific statement of belief in one or other should be taken as an expression that they think it is likely to be the best model for whatever lies behind the phenomena we observe.

Considering that they have been wrong so often when it comes to their ideas about the origins of cosmos and some of its observations I think some would say that the scientific method has limits in being able to explain and account for these things. Therefore they may need to consider that there is something else at play and acknowledge this. But that will never happen becuase it is not just about the science but also belief.