Why do you believe?

[Wiccan_Child]

The way that Virtual Reality Theory explains it is simple and makes logical sense,

So is classical mechanics, but sadly reality is under no onus to be either simple or sensible. QM and GR do nothing if not show that.

Another simple theory is 'God did it'.
Rain? That's God!
Particle decay? God!
Precession of the perihelion of Mercury? God again!

See? Simple and sensible.

Does it make logical sense to you personally that a continuously existing billiard ball has a small but greater than 0 probability of passing through a continuously existing wall?

Yes. Does it not make logical sense to you?

Does it make common sense? No, but my beliefs aren't based on common sense, they're based on logic and evidence. As neat an idea as VRT is, there's ultimately no evidence for it.

Or a bit like a printer that prints itself out and disappears once every planck time.

Absolutely.

 

[Gottservant]

Theories.

 

[nebulaJP]

So is classical mechanics, but sadly reality is under no onus to be either simple or sensible. QM and GR do nothing if not show that.

There is no basis for this. It's all in your interpretation. While the math in QM & GR may be complicated, the underlying principles are not, they are simple. The underlying principles are also sensible. They make common sense, logical sense, any kind of sense. There are absolutely NO PARADOXES in either of these fields, none whatsoever. Give me a so called paradox from QM or GR and I'll explain why it's not a paradox. The paradoxes only exist if you subscribe to a wrong interpretation of the data.

Another simple theory is 'God did it'.
Rain? That's God!
Particle decay? God!
Precession of the perihelion of Mercury? God again!

See? Simple and sensible.

Do you reject every simple theory on the grounds that "God did it" is a simple theory? E=mc2 is a simple concept, so you reject it? I mean where do you draw the line? How complicated does something have to be for you to consider it a good explanation of phenomena?

Yes. Does it not make logical sense to you?

Paradoxes do not make logical sense to me and one continuously existing thing passing through another is a paradox.

Does it make common sense? No, but my beliefs aren't based on common sense, they're based on logic and evidence. As neat an idea as VRT is, there's ultimately no evidence for it.

Your beliefs are based on evidence? Is there any evidence that physical reality is continuous and self existent? Because if there is I'd love to hear it. This is nothing more than an assumption that you make all data conform to regardless of how convoluted or nonsensical the explanation is.

There is no conclusive evidence for either Objective Reality Theory (i.e. physicalism) or Virtual Reality Theory. Evidence or lack of evidence is not the issue here. The issue is which theory explains the data better, with fewer problems. VRT wins because paradoxes are problems and it has none.

 

[nebulaJP]

Absolutely.

You fail to see the point. A printer CAN'T print itself out. A billiard ball is NOT a disappearing billiard ball factory. The transfer of momentum is a poor analogy for your proposed "transfer of existence" in the case that reality is discontinuous.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is no basis for this. It's all in your interpretation. While the math in QM & GR may be complicated, the underlying principles are not, they are simple. The underlying principles are also sensible. They make common sense, logical sense, any kind of sense. There are absolutely NO PARADOXES in either of these fields, none whatsoever. Give me a so called paradox from QM or GR and I'll explain why it's not a paradox. The paradoxes only exist if you subscribe to a wrong interpretation of the data.

Since I never said paradoxes exist in either QM or GR, your objection is moot. That said, QM and GR are mutually exclusive.

Do you reject every simple theory on the grounds that "God did it" is a simple theory? E=mc2 is a simple concept, so you reject it? I mean where do you draw the line? How complicated does something have to be for you to consider it a good explanation of phenomena?

Again, you seem to have missed my point. You said: "The way that Virtual Reality Theory explains it is simple and makes logical sense", implying that sheer simplicity is a virtue. I criticised this by pointing out that simplicity is not the only barometer for truth. What I didn't do was say that I always reject things because they're simple - so please don't put words into my mouth.

Ironically, my actual beliefs are quite the opposite: per Occam's Razor, truth is parsimonious.

Paradoxes do not make logical sense to me and one continuously existing thing passing through another is a paradox.

Allegedly. Do you have evidence or rationale to substantiate that claim?

Your beliefs are based on evidence? Is there any evidence that physical reality is continuous and self existent? Because if there is I'd love to hear it. This is nothing more than an assumption that you make all data conform to regardless of how convoluted or nonsensical the explanation is.

I don't appreciate your hostile tone, nebulaJP.

There is no conclusive evidence for either Objective Reality Theory (i.e. physicalism) or Virtual Reality Theory. Evidence or lack of evidence is not the issue here. The issue is which theory explains the data better, with fewer problems. VRT wins because paradoxes are problems and it has none.

First, that's a false dichotomy.
Second, VRT only 'wins' if you can prove that all alternatives are fundamentally impossible (e.g., they're paradoxical), and thus far I have only your gut feeling to go on.

 

[nebulaJP]

...I never said paradoxes exist in either QM or GR,...

You would be wrong. They are full of paradoxes if you believe in a continuous, self existent reality. Here is one:

"Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer."

Wave–particle duality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: Here are some more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Quantum_mechanics

I don't appreciate your hostile tone, nebulaJP.

You said your beliefs are based on logic and evidence and that's why you won't get on board with VRT. So I asked a legitimate question which you did not answer. Is there evidence for your belief that reality is continuous and self existent. If so, what is this evidence?

 

[nebulaJP]

QM and GR are mutually exclusive.

They are both true, yet they contradict each other. Paradox. VRT explains them both easily, without contradiction.

 

[nebulaJP]

Allegedly. Do you have evidence or rationale to substantiate that claim?

Electromagnetic fields don't let that happen. If EM is true and EM fields exist continuously, it can never happen. To say that it can never happen and that it also can happen because of QM is a paradox. Either something can happen or it can't happen. Both is a paradox.

 

[Received]

You guise and yer physics talk makes me all happy n stuff.

 

[nebulaJP]

First, that's a false dichotomy.

No it's not. Tradition or the commonly accepted view should have no bearing on this. There is no good, scientific reason to start from an assumption that reality is self existent. Looking at it with a completely open mind, with no agendas, which theory fits the data better?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You would be wrong. They are full of paradoxes if you believe in a continuous, self existent reality. Here is one:

"Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer."

Wave–particle duality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: Here are some more:

List of paradoxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are conflating logical paradoxes with veridical ones. The opening line of the article says it best:

"Because of varying definitions of the term paradox, some of the following are not considered to be paradoxes by everyone. This list collects only scenarios that have been called a paradox by at least one source and have their own article."

You said your beliefs are based on logic and evidence and that's why you won't get on board with VRT. So I asked a legitimate question which you did not answer. Is there evidence for your belief that reality is continuous and self existent. If so, what is this evidence?

I don't get on board with VRT because it lacks empirical support, and because it's unparsimonious. I've not espoused a belief in a continuous and self-existent reality, so I don't feel obligated to cite evidence for it.

They are both true, yet they contradict each other. Paradox.

Yes, it's a paradox, which implies the underlying assumption - that both theories are true - is false. We can conclude, therefore, that one or both theories

VRT explains them both easily, without contradiction.

OK. According to VRT, what is the density of a black hole?

Electromagnetic fields don't let that happen. If EM is true and EM fields exist continuously, it can never happen. To say that it can never happen and that it also can happen because of QM is a paradox. Either something can happen or it can't happen. Both is a paradox.

Again, the paradox only emerges when you assume both are true. Electromagnetism is subsumed by quantum theory, therefore, we turn to Schrödinger, not Maxwell, to resolve the issue.

That said, I again dispute that QM implies existential discontinuity.

No it's not. Tradition or the commonly accepted view should have no bearing on this. There is no good, scientific reason to start from an assumption that reality is self existent. Looking at it with a completely open mind, with no agendas, which theory fits the data better?

The former, for reasons of parsimony.

 

[pjnlsn]

Theories.

QM, while on the frontiers of science, is more or less definite, at least compared to saying "God did it," or a contingent statement. Bottom line, it's far more likely.

 

[pjnlsn]

The way that Virtual Reality Theory explains it is simple and makes logical sense,



Does it make logical sense to you personally that a continuously existing billiard ball has a small but greater than 0 probability of passing through a continuously existing wall?

Does it actually explain anything?

And QM is somewhat unintuitive, but it works.

 

[pjnlsn]

What I mean is they have a sense of being dead. That is the most common trait of an NDE.

Elements of NDE1 Frequency (n=62)
1 Awareness of being dead 31 (50%)
2 Positive emotions 35 (56%)
3 Out of body experience 15 (24%)
4 Moving through a tunnel 19 (31%)
5 Communication with light 14 (23%)
6 Observation of colours 14 (23%)
7 Observation of a celestial landscape 18 (29%)
8 Meeting with deceased persons 20 (32%)
9 Life review 8 (13%)
10 Presence of border 5 (8%)

Source Compare with: Near-death experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: When they wake up they have a memory of the sense/awareness of being dead.

It's still more likely that 'death' is simply a grey word, that it's not as black-and-white as people would like to believe. Or that it's possible to be throughly incapacitated but not quite gone.

More likely than there being a generally undescribed 'afterlife.'

 

[Gottservant]

Two things here:
i) To believe makes you holy, then I'll be holy therefore God.

He who makes himself God, makes Himself slave.

In a slight sense (other than your claim of holy = the justification for God), this is an ignorance fallacy. "I don't know any other explanation of being 'holy' or to have justification to believe so therefore the best natural conclusion is God".

He who is holy, reverances God, not because God is God alone, but because without God, there is nothing.

ii) Faith in it's basic sense and by its definition is gullibility. That's an explanation for you. You have taken the word of the most outrageous claims because you heard it and because you like it. If you were born in North America, you have taken that leap onto Christianity. If you were born in the Middle East, you have taken that leap onto the Muslim dogma. In no way are any of these faiths justified and assessed accordingly by their followers but by concluding that "it is the best possible conclusion because I could not see it any other way".

He who believes because of culture, has culture for a strength.

Is there anything wrong with that?

 

[directorrico]

He who believes because of culture, has culture for a strength.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Except it is beyond just having strength from culture but having faith in an absurd claim that has no evidence for it. What you believe will dictate how you will act.

 

[nebulaJP]

I've not espoused a belief in a continuous and self-existent reality, so I don't feel obligated to cite evidence for it.

Generally physicalists believe that our universe is self contained, that it exists in and of itself, that its existence doesn't depend on anything external to it. That is what I'm arguing against. If this is not your view then what ARE you espousing?

Edit:
And I don't mean origin. I'm talking about here and now. Does its existence at this moment depend on something external to the universe existing right now? I say yes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Generally physicalists believe that our universe is self contained, that it exists in and of itself, that its existence doesn't depend on anything external to it. That is what I'm arguing against. If this is not your view then what ARE you espousing?

I never said it wasn't my view, only that I've not espoused it in this thread (I've not espoused evolution in this thread, either). The point is that you said I claimed such and such, and if I have evidence for it. Since I hadn't claimed it, I felt not need to begin compiling evidence. For the purposes of our discussion, I'm content to say "I don't know".

That said, I asked a while back for evidence of VRT, and I've yet to see any. You've also asserted that quantum tunnelling implies discontinuous existence, which is paradoxical and therefore not true - do you have evidence or rationale for this? You also asserted that QM contains paradoxes - do you have evidence or rationale for that?

And I don't mean origin. I'm talking about here and now. Does its existence at this moment depend on something external to the universe existing right now? I say yes.

Can you substantiate that claim?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He who makes himself God, makes Himself slave.



He who is holy, reverances God, not because God is God alone, but because without God, there is nothing.



He who believes because of culture, has culture for a strength.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Yes; I think you need to take more creative writing classes before you try your hand as such poetic flourishes. C-.

 

[nebulaJP]

Being a particle physicist, that sounds like a fun debate

For the purposes of our discussion, I'm content to say "I don't know".

I thought you wanted to debate. To debate you have to choose a side.