Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[Michael]

As my quote you posted shows, that's not what I said.
Just sayin'

Physicists base multiverse hypotheses on the implications of an empirically tested, working model of how our reality behaves.

Hmm. I suppose there are multiple ways to interpret that sentence, however your statement is incorrect either way you look at it. Current models in M-Theory are based upon the overall assumption set of Lambda-CDM with respect to photon redshift and exotic matter, and Lambda-CDM is not based upon "empirically tested" working model of how our reality behaves. 'Dark' stuff amounts to supernatural gap filler, most of which has *failed* every "empirical test" ever done by man. "Dark matter" theory for instance has been a complete sham in the lab to date, and dark energy theory was based upon a premise that has since been falsified by later (more robust) studies of SN1A events, showing them to be less than 'standard candles' afterall.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In no way does our "best scientific model" invalidate the concepts of a spiritual realm, life after physical death, or other dimensions.

I'm basing my comments on ideas about the Standard Model most clearly expressed by Sean Carroll in this video:

You seem to have dismissed the idea out of hand then, *without* even bothering to read it.

I read the original Orch OR material when it was first published, I read many of the criticisms, I read some of the responses to the criticisms, etc. I also read the 'review and update'. In my opinion, it was implausible when it started, and the reported discovery of 'quantum vibrations' in microtubules doesn't change that - though I'd like to see Bandyopadhyay's evidence - neither of the abstracts referred to for it in the review paper actually mention quantum vibrations - one talks vaguely of elicited electromagnetic resonance (could that be what they mean?), and the other claims a tubule can be a 'memory switch'.

 

[Michael]

I'm basing my comments on ideas about the Standard Model most clearly expressed by Sean Carroll in this video:

I read the original Orch OR material when it was first published, I read many of the criticisms, I read some of the responses to the criticisms, etc. I also read the 'review and update'. In my opinion, it was implausible when it started, and the reported discovery of 'quantum vibrations' in microtubules doesn't change that - though I'd like to see Bandyopadhyay's evidence - neither of the abstracts referred to for it in the review paper actually mention quantum vibrations - one talks vaguely of elicited electromagnetic resonance (could that be what they mean?), and the other claims a tubule can be a 'memory switch'.

Well, keep in mind that if the "standard" (particle physics) model represents the sum total of all forms of matter/energy in the universe, then Lambda-CDM is also falsified in the same breath. If you allow for any other type of particle/energy to exist in nature, then all bets are off as to the nature of reality, and the possibility of soul, God, "dark" stuff, gravitons, the whole nine yards. You can't really have it both ways in fact. Either you stick entirely with empirical particle physics, or anything remains scientifically possible.

If you study MHD theory and particle physics, you'll find that "tubes" are the standard method of transport for both current and magnetic fields through plasma. You can observe this phenomenon inside of an ordinary plasma ball once the current starts to flow. It wouldn't surprise me at all for "awareness"/consciousness to exist as a quantum EM field, and for that field to have some net effect on/in an electromagnetic universe. EM circuits appear at virtually every scale in nature, so I'm sure it's an important feature inside of a brain.

Furthermore, all "communication" with God is typically reported to occur "inside" of the brain, and even Jesus suggested that the kingdom of heaven is found within.

 

[[serious]]

Well, keep in mind that if the "standard" (particle physics) model represents the sum total of all forms of matter/energy in the universe, then Lambda-CDM is also falsified in the same breath. If you allow for any other type of particle/energy to exist in nature, then all bets are off as to the nature of reality, and the possibility of soul, God, "dark" stuff, gravitons, the whole nine yards. You can't really have it both ways in fact. Either you stick entirely with empirical particle physics, or anything remains scientifically possible.

If you study MHD theory and particle physics, you'll find that "tubes" are the standard method of transport for both current and magnetic fields through plasma. You can observe this phenomenon inside of an ordinary plasma ball once the current starts to flow. It wouldn't surprise me at all for "awareness"/consciousness to exist as a quantum EM field, and for that field to have some net effect on/in an electromagnetic universe. EM circuits appear at virtually every scale in nature, so I'm sure it's an important feature inside of a brain.

Furthermore, all "communication" with God is typically reported to occur "inside" of the brain, and even Jesus suggested that the kingdom of heaven is found within.

Can you point me to any reputable source (science journal, science dept of a university, etc) that says the standard model is a complete theory of all particles and/or interactions?

 

[Michael]

Can you point me to any reputable source (science journal, science dept of a university, etc) that says the standard model is a complete theory of all particles and/or interactions?

No. That's also why both of his claims that I took issue with are not true. Nothing about known quantum physics or "reality" precludes the concept of soul, God, or anything else as FB suggested. Furthermore, multiverse theory isn't based upon an empirically tested working model. 95 percent of Lambda-CDM has been a complete disaster in the lab to date in fact *excluding* the whole claim about inflation. Whatever "reality" might be made of, scientists seem to know very little about it. The only so called evidence I've seen for multiverse theory would require *all* the hypothetical animals of Lambda-CDM to exist and have some tangible effect on a photon, and the outcome of every 'empirical test' in the lab to date has to simply be ignored.

 

[[serious]]

No. That's also why both of his claims that I took issue with are not true. Nothing about known quantum physics or "reality" precludes the concept of soul, God, or anything else as FB suggested. Furthermore, multiverse theory isn't based upon an empirically tested working model. 95 percent of Lambda-CDM has been a complete disaster in the lab to date in fact *excluding* the whole claim about inflation. Whatever "reality" might be made of, scientists seem to know very little about it. The only so called evidence I've seen for multiverse theory would require *all* the hypothetical animals of Lambda-CDM to exist and have some tangible effect on a photon, and the outcome of every 'empirical test' in the lab to date has to simply be ignored.

I didn't see FB say any physics model precluded God, the soul, etc. I was commenting on the direct chain of replies I quoted.

The standard model describes a certain subset of interactions and particles. It is not intended to be a unified theory of everything, so something not appearing in the standard model is not really an issue.

 

[Michael]

I didn't see FB say any physics model precluded God, the soul, etc. I was commenting on the direct chain of replies I quoted.

The standard model describes a certain subset of interactions and particles. It is not intended to be a unified theory of everything, so something not appearing in the standard model is not really an issue.

Well, it all started with one paragraph and two fallacies that I took exception to.

I was referring to your suggestion, "[if multiverses]... then why not a spiritual realm or life after death or that our conscience moves on after death to other dimensions." The latter are fanciful, not scientific, ideas; our best scientific model invalidates them.

FYI, even the notion that there is a "unified theory of everything" to be found in nature is a bit of an "act of faith". It's more or less the scientific equivalent of a Holy Grail that may or may not actually exist. Keep in mind that gravity may not be a quantum effect, but rather it may simply be a geometric feature as Einstein described it. With simply GR, standard particle physics, inelastic scattering, and plasma physics, everything we observe in spacetime can be "explained", at least well enough to eliminate the need for any exotic forms of matter.

Keep in mind that adding 'dark energy', and inflation to the mix only adds *more* fields to have to merge into a single unified field theory, not fewer. Based upon the fact that collisions of positrons and electrons will produce subatomic particles in collider experiments, it's possible that the EM field plays a major role in even the strong nuclear force. I'm still unclear how gravity might be explained by EM field processes, but I'm fine with gravity as a curvature of spacetime actually, and fine without a unified theory of everything as well. From may vantage point that's bound to be "God" anyway.

 

[stevevw]

I would argue that there is actually now more "empirical" verification to support Orch-OR theory, and the concept of "soul" than there will *ever* be to support inflation theory, dark energy theory, and there is even more empirical evidence to support Orch-OR than there is to support exotic matter claims at the moment

As Orch-OR theory demonstrates, the concept of consciousness surviving physical death is a scientific idea, and science has certainly not invalidated the idea. Furthermore multiverse theory is *not* based upon "empirically tested" ideas, it's based upon ideas which in some cases could *never* be verified empirically.

Yes this is what I have been trying to point out. But I havnt even gone that far and have met a lot of resistance in the time I have been debating. All I was saying is that why cant we consider some of these ideas like the mind being something that may exist beyond what we see. Or the idea of other dimensions and that maybe what is called a spiritual realm is what some scientists are talking about as well but in another way.

It may be that science is just describing what is the soul and a spirituality all along. But because they can use it under the heading of science they can say its a valid hypothesis. As soon as you try to mention God or spirituality it suddenly becomes wacky and woo. To me a lot of what is said about God relates to the effects we see in the quantum world and what science is trying to explain.

 

[stevevw]

I suppose in the final analysis, I simply 'have faith" that science leads us to a deeper appreciation of God's creation, and helps us to understand it 'physically' to some degree, even if we don't have a full or complete physical understanding.

Standard cosmology theory is based on exactly that same principle, since a full 95 percent of it remains a 'dark' mystery, and inflation has never had a tangible effect on anything in a lab experiment. QM oriented theories about gravity are based on such limitations as well. Atheists however, tend to hate to admit that stuff.

As humans learn and grow in our understanding of 'nature', I believe they learn and grow about God. Eventually that will lead us to the 'mechanism' of God's intervention processes and creation methods, but in the meantime it simply remains a mystery, much like the vast majority of the universe remains a mystery to most astronomers.

 

[[serious]]

Well, it all started with one paragraph and two fallacies that I took exception to.



FYI, even the notion that there is a "unified theory of everything" to be found in nature is a bit of an "act of faith". It's more or less the scientific equivalent of a Holy Grail that may or may not actually exist. Keep in mind that gravity may not be a quantum effect, but rather it may simply be a geometric feature as Einstein described it. With simply GR, standard particle physics, inelastic scattering, and plasma physics, everything we observe in spacetime can be "explained", at least well enough to eliminate the need for any exotic forms of matter.

Keep in mind that adding 'dark energy', and inflation to the mix only adds *more* fields to have to merge into a single unified field theory, not fewer. Based upon the fact that collisions of positrons and electrons will produce subatomic particles in collider experiments, it's possible that the EM field plays a major role in even the strong nuclear force. I'm still unclear how gravity might be explained by EM field processes, but I'm fine with gravity as a curvature of spacetime actually, and fine without a unified theory of everything as well. From may vantage point that's bound to be "God" anyway.

There is a bit of a difference between, "quantum physics or 'reality' precludes the concept of soul [or] God" and "our best scientific model invalidates [consciousness moving to another dimension]"

I'd ask FB about exactly what aspect of which model precludes that though. From my reading, the statement he is replying to doesn't seem detailed enough to really make any comment about.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, keep in mind that if the "standard" (particle physics) model represents the sum total of all forms of matter/energy in the universe, then Lambda-CDM is also falsified in the same breath.

That's not what Carroll says; he explicitly there probably are undiscovered particles (fields), or forces, but they are not relevant (i.e. don't significantly interact, too weak, or too short range) at human frames & scales, or we'd already know about them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is a bit of a difference between, "quantum physics or 'reality' precludes the concept of soul [or] God" and "our best scientific model invalidates [consciousness moving to another dimension]"

I'd ask FB about exactly what aspect of which model precludes that though. From my reading, the statement he is replying to doesn't seem detailed enough to really make any comment about.

The Standard Model based on quantum field theory implies that the fields and forces relevant to everyday life at human scales are known; basically, it's gravity, electromagnetism, protons, neutrons, & electrons. This effectively invalidates phenomena that those fields & forces can't generate. The video of Sean Carroll's talk covers the argument better than I can - it's entertaining too. Unfortunately, people tend to ignore the careful qualifications and caveats he makes, and assume he's making claims he explicitly isn't. Such is life...

 

[Michael]

That's not what Carroll says; he explicitly there probably are undiscovered particles (fields), or forces, but they are not relevant (i.e. don't significantly interact, too weak, or too short range) at human frames & scales, or we'd already know about them.

If there are indeed undiscovered forms of matter and energy, then "science" cannot and does not rule out the possibility of soul, God, or anything else! You can't have your cake and eat it too. The standard particle physics model is A) either not complete, or B) it cannot rule out anything else that might exist, including QM concepts related to soul, God, or anything else for that matter.

I do find it amusing that you're more than willing to entertain the idea that such forces are "too weak" to measure in the lab, and in the same breath you're tossing out the whole concept of God. How exactly does that work considering the fact that humans claim to have been affected by something they call "God", but no photon ever claimed "dark stuff did it".

 

[Michael]

Yes this is what I have been trying to point out. But I havnt even gone that far and have met a lot of resistance in the time I have been debating. All I was saying is that why cant we consider some of these ideas like the mind being something that may exist beyond what we see. Or the idea of other dimensions and that maybe what is called a spiritual realm is what some scientists are talking about as well but in another way.

It may be that science is just describing what is the soul and a spirituality all along. But because they can use it under the heading of science they can say its a valid hypothesis. As soon as you try to mention God or spirituality it suddenly becomes wacky and woo. To me a lot of what is said about God relates to the effects we see in the quantum world and what science is trying to explain.

In my experience, atheists tend to misunderstand, or at least misrepresent the "scientific method". It's never been restricted to demonstrated cause/effect relationships as they tend to *require* when it relates to the topic of God. Orch-OR theory is an excellent example of a typical "scientific theory" that might explain the concept of a "soul", and might explain how such a thing survives physical death.

Atheists tend to "take it on faith" that all the various mass/energy elements of Lambda-CDM are correct, even though not a single one of them actually has any tangible effect on a single photon in a real empirical experiment. On the other hand they *require* a demonstration of cause/effect relationships as it relates to the topic of God. It's a blatant double standard. Most of them don't even understand either the scientific method, or current theories about "reality"/the universe. They just "have faith" in anything labelled "science", so long as it's not related to the topic of soul or God.

 

[Michael]

I'm basing my comments on ideas about the Standard Model most clearly expressed by Sean Carroll in this video:

I read the original Orch OR material when it was first published, I read many of the criticisms, I read some of the responses to the criticisms, etc. I also read the 'review and update'. In my opinion, it was implausible when it started, and the reported discovery of 'quantum vibrations' in microtubules doesn't change that - though I'd like to see Bandyopadhyay's evidence - neither of the abstracts referred to for it in the review paper actually mention quantum vibrations - one talks vaguely of elicited electromagnetic resonance (could that be what they mean?), and the other claims a tubule can be a 'memory switch'.

FYI, I sat through the whole video, and I enjoyed his sense of humor and his explanation of the "standard model'. He did however make a few claims related to his atheistic agenda that warrant a few comments.

To date, nobody has observed a 'graviton' in a lab experiment. Is it actually considered part of the 'Standard model" in his opinion? Sean claimed that nothing which we haven't already seen to date in a lab experiment could possibly exist which might have any tangible effect on something on the scale of an atom, or consciousness.

If we go by his logic, then gravity does not actually exist or have any influence on humans, or at least quantum gravity theory is utterly bogus and quantum gravity cannot have any tangible effect on a human being. Ditto for dark stuff, and pretty much 95 percent of astronomy today.

His description of particle physics was enjoyable, but his atheistic agenda has a bunch of gaping holes in it logically. He's trying to claim that if it hasn't been seen at LHC so far, it cannot influence human beings on scale of a human brain. That's simply absurd. Something makes his brain stick to the Earth, and gravitons haven't ever been seen at LHC to date. Either QM theories of gravity are therefore bogus, and only GR correctly describes gravity, or particles/fields that haven't been seen in the lab to date may have some influence on humans on Earth.

Please note that it's entirely possible to A) physically define God based on the 'standard model' (panentheism), and B) physically identify a logical possible communication mechanism (EM fields) for 'God' to influence human thought right here on Earth. Nothing more than the standard particle physics model is necessary to explain everything we see in nature to date, and even concepts of "God". There might even be enough identified fields in particle physics to explain a quantum soul as well. I simply don't think Sean can really rule out the possibility that some fields/particles may exist that can and might influence human thought. While his "floating yogi's" image was cute, none of them, and no human at all would even exist were it not for gravity, and no carrier particle has ever been seen to explain gravity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do find it amusing that you're more than willing to entertain the idea that such forces are "too weak" to measure in the lab, and in the same breath you're tossing out the whole concept of God. How exactly does that work considering the fact that humans claim to have been affected by something they call "God", but no photon ever claimed "dark stuff did it".

I haven't tossed out the concept of God at all; it fits perfectly well as an abstraction of human invention, along with ghosts, spirits, faeries, little-people and other projections of mysterious agency.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To date, nobody has observed a 'graviton' in a lab experiment. Is it actually considered part of the 'Standard model" in his opinion?

The default assumption is that gravity is a quantum field force, so as he says elsewhere, "... given that gravity is a force, the basic rules of quantum mechanics and relativity essentially guarantee that there are associated particles, so we use the word "graviton" to refer to those particles we haven't yet seen on an individual basis". If gravity turns out not to be a quantum field force, it would be surprising, but as yet there is no reason to suppose it might not be.

Sean claimed that nothing which we haven't already seen to date in a lab experiment could possibly exist which might have any tangible effect on something on the scale of an atom, or consciousness.

If we go by his logic, then gravity does not actually exist or have any influence on humans, or at least quantum gravity theory is utterly bogus and quantum gravity cannot have any tangible effect on a human being.

The effect of gravity is obvious, in and out of the lab; only the associated particle remains unseen.

I simply don't think Sean can really rule out the possibility that some fields/particles may exist that can and might influence human thought.

I guess this would require showing how the range/strength scaling argument is flawed. Carroll's position is that if one accepts QFT, this is a logical consequence (and that the significant uncertainties in QFT are well outside this regime).

 

[lesliedellow]

I haven't tossed out the concept of God at all; it fits perfectly well as an abstraction of human invention, along with ghosts, spirits, faeries, little-people and other projections of mysterious agency.

"As anyone familiar with anti-religious polemics knows, a recurring atheist criticism of religious belief is that it is infantile - a childish delusion which ought to have disappeared as humanity reached its maturity. Throughout his career, Dawkins has developed a similar criticism, drawing on a long-standing atheist analogy. In earlier works, he emphasised that belief in God is just like believing in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. These are childish beliefs that are abandoned as soon as we are capable of evidence based thinking. And so is God. It's obvious, isn't it?
Hmmm. Like many of Dawkins' analogies, this has been constructed with a specific agenda in mind - in this case the ridiculing of religion. Yet this analogy is obviously flawed. How many people do you know who began to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood? Or who found belief in the Tooth Fairy consoling in old age? I believed in Santa Claus until I was about five (though, not unaware of the benefits it brought, I allowed my parents to think I took it seriously until rather later)." (Alister McGrath in a riposte to the God Delusion)

 

[Loudmouth]

"As anyone familiar with anti-religious polemics knows, a recurring atheist criticism of religious belief is that it is infantile - a childish delusion which ought to have disappeared as humanity reached its maturity. Throughout his career, Dawkins has developed a similar criticism, drawing on a long-standing atheist analogy. In earlier works, he emphasised that belief in God is just like believing in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. These are childish beliefs that are abandoned as soon as we are capable of evidence based thinking. And so is God. It's obvious, isn't it?
Hmmm. Like many of Dawkins' analogies, this has been constructed with a specific agenda in mind - in this case the ridiculing of religion. Yet this analogy is obviously flawed. How many people do you know who began to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood? Or who found belief in the Tooth Fairy consoling in old age? I believed in Santa Claus until I was about five (though, not unaware of the benefits it brought, I allowed my parents to think I took it seriously until rather later)." (Alister McGrath in a riposte to the God Delusion)

How many adults believe in ghosts?

 

[Michael]

I haven't tossed out the concept of God at all; it fits perfectly well as an abstraction of human invention,

So how is the claim "space expansion is the cause of photon redshift" not also simply a "human invention", an imaginary process of the human mind?

Ditto for the phrase "gravity is caused by gravitons"?

FYI, in GR theory, gravity isn't really a 'force', it's more of a "geometric feature" of mass which wouldn't necessarily require any sort of carrier particle/field.