Religion and science - Page 12 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

I mean sure, if your argument is that it would be beneficial to convert fundamentalist religionists to a less societally harmful belief system, I'm all for it. I don't think that is at odds with anything I've said ITT.

Pretty confident that you don't know what "Fundamentalist" means (in a Christian context).

06-29-2020 , 03:23 PM

#277

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

That's not my line at all. My line is more that you consider the results crazy, because of your pre-conceived notions of how "matter" and "energy" behave from observations at macroscopic scales. But those macroscopic scale behaviours are emergent properties of those counter-intuitive subatomic scale particle/wave/field/string interactions. Much like the concept of "temperature" is an emergent property of the average kinetic energy of a large number of particles - you can't take the "temperature" of a single particle - the concept simply doesn't exist. The fact that matter doesn't simultaneously exhibit particle-like and a wave-like behaviours at scales accessible to the human senses has inhibited our imagination - we are primarily experiential learners, after all.

You're right that the results don't have to be "crazy" and that that interpretation of them is based on our modern 21st century worldview. So I should probably get away from using that sort of language as it is normative.
The results still kill materialism though and what applies to the subatomic also applies to the macroscopic, e.g., if the subatomic world is shown to be immaterial then the implication is that the macroscopic world is as well.

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 06-29-2020 at 03:29 PM.

06-29-2020 , 03:27 PM

#278

IchoiBoy

adept

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,060

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I mean ya, that was roughly my argument.

I was only making it because I felt you had characterized something I said earlier about simulation theory as just for fun.

06-29-2020 , 03:33 PM

#279

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,066

Quote:

Originally Posted by IchoiBoy

I mean ya, that was roughly my argument.

I was only making it because I felt you had characterized something I said earlier about simulation theory as just for fun.

I doubt you will get many religionists moving over to simulation theory, but would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, and I will certainly start promoting it from the rooftops if they do.

Last edited by d2_e4; 06-29-2020 at 03:40 PM.

06-29-2020 , 03:33 PM

#280

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,066

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

You're right that the results don't have to be "crazy" and that that interpretation of them is based on our modern 21st century worldview. So I should probably get away from using that sort of language as it is normative.
The results still kill materialism though and what applies to the subatomic also applies to the macroscopic, e.g., if the subatomic world is shown to be immaterial then the implication is that the macroscopic world is as well.

I disagree with the bolded. Is temperature "real"?

06-29-2020 , 03:35 PM

#281

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,066

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Pretty confident that you don't know what "Fundamentalist" means (in a Christian context).

Would you prefer I use the term "religious nutjob"? I was trying to be polite.

06-29-2020 , 03:38 PM

#282

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I disagree with the bolded. Is temperature "real"?

It's an epiphenomenon and yes, those exist-- there are "emergent properties". But temperature doesn't apply to the subatomic-- you're taking it backwards and saying that what applies to the macroscopic applies to the subatomic. That's not what I'm saying. It's the subatomic that is fundamental. We can call our seemingly material world an epiphenomenon if we want. What's fundamental though it is the immaterialiy of it.

06-29-2020 , 03:43 PM

#283

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,066

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

But dismissing materialism sounds like you're dismissing all epiphenomena. You're saying that only the most fundamental particle interactions "count", and emergent properties aren't "real" in some sense, no? That is why I used temperature as an example.

06-29-2020 , 04:06 PM

#284

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Would you prefer I use the term "religious nutjob"? I was trying to be polite.

"Fundamentalist" has a specific meaning in a Christian context.

In the early 20th century, a multiple volume set of books called "The Fundamentals" was published. The books sought to explicate the essential doctrines of a Biblically-based theology.

Many noteable Christian pastors and scholars of the day contributed articles in the series.

06-29-2020 , 04:06 PM

#285

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

It's a question of what is fundamental. Calling reality immaterial isn't going to change the fact that if I stub my toe it's going to hurt. It just means that deep down, reality is a much crazier thing than we've been led to believe.
Mainstream science already teaches that everything came from nothing, more or less. That all matter was packed into an infinitesimally small point that went off for who knows what reason 13.6 bya. That's already crazy enough. All that quantum physics adds to that is that matter is still 'nothing'.

06-29-2020 , 04:09 PM

#286

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

Lagtight,
What's the strongest evidence for young earth iyo? I've never really ventured to rgt and I assume this has been covered in your posts there so forgive me for asking you to repeat yourself.

Don't let this thread go to waste Lagtight. Let's talk about carbon-14, other forms of dating, plate tectonics, the grand canyon, dinosaurs, hummingbirds, language families, and whatever else.

06-29-2020 , 04:10 PM

#287

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Would you prefer I use the term "religious nutjob"? I was trying to be polite.

I don't care what term you use.

I just want the readers here to understand that you don't know what you're talking about.

06-29-2020 , 04:11 PM

#288

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

Don't let this thread go to waste Lagtight. Let's talk about carbon-14, other forms of dating, plate tectonics, the grand canyon, dinosaurs, hummingbirds, language families, and whatever else.

There is a YEC thread in RGT. We can revive that thread, if you want.

06-29-2020 , 04:18 PM

#289

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,066

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

I don't really take any view on such abstract philosophical questions tbh.

FWIW, my inkling is that eventually we will discover that consciousness is an emergent property and map out the neurons and synapses in the brain much like we've mapped out DNA, and be able to achieve "immortality" by uploading our brains to a computer. That is my bold prediction.

Last edited by d2_e4; 06-29-2020 at 04:27 PM.

06-29-2020 , 04:20 PM

#290

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

There is a YEC thread in RGT. We can revive that thread, if you want.

This is supposed to be your vanity thread and I'm pretty sure WN is fine as long as you don't touch my favorite people (really they are)-- but if you're going to let me, I'll spend the whole time diving deep into arcane aspects of qm with d2 that don't take anyone anywhere.
But I'll figure out how to actually engage you here. We can talk about the bible.

06-29-2020 , 04:21 PM

#291

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,066

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

I don't care what term you use.

I just want the readers here to understand that you don't know what you're talking about.

You're making it a bit too easy to troll you now. I smell a trap!

06-29-2020 , 04:29 PM

#292

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I don't really take any view on such abstract philosophical questions tbh.

FWIW, my inkling is that eventually we will discover that consciousness is an emergent property and map out the neurons and synapses in the brain much like we've mapped out DNA, and be able to achieve "immortality" by downloading our brains to a computer. That is my bold prediction.

We won't be able to do that because consciousness is fundamental. It comes before matter. It's the fact that consciousness/the role of observers/the knowledge gleaned from particle detectors are fundamental to the laws of quantum mechanics that kill materialism and make reality immaterial in the first place.
So you can't then replicate that though material means.

06-29-2020 , 04:33 PM

#293

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,066

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

So I guess this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe there are such transcendental phenomena, and as far as I know there is no evidence to support such a view. Sounds more like mysticism to me.

06-29-2020 , 04:35 PM

#294

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

The evidence that supports it is what we're working around actually discussing like double slit, non-locality, delayed choice quantum eraser, etc.
They all point to consciousness being inextricably linked with the fundamental nature of reality, and ergo, no computer downloads of our minds in the future.

06-29-2020 , 04:39 PM

#295

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 16,066

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

They do? How so?

I don't think we need to go anywhere near that far to map out a human brain, just to the scale of neurons and synapses. At that scale there are no quantum effects.

06-29-2020 , 04:58 PM

#296

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

They do? How so?

I don't think we need to go anywhere near that far to map out a human brain, just to the scale of neurons and synapses. At that scale there are no quantum effects.

Just starting with the double slit-- once a detector is added at the slits, the interference effects vanish and you get single bands. It's the knowledge gained from the detector that changes the pattern. How do we explain this without giving the detector some sort of role?

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 06-29-2020 at 05:03 PM.

06-29-2020 , 05:04 PM

#297

Cuepee

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 17,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Any of the Ten Commandments could have been contemplated before.

For the Christian or the Religious Jew, the Ten Commandments are binding because God Himself is the One "commanding" our obedience to them.

Since (from a Biblical perspective) God created all persons, He could certainly provide sufficient intelligence and moral discernment to certain individuals who can "discover" the correctness of the Commandments prior to God Himself codifying them on stone tablets that He gave to Moses.

So then you agree with my original point is that religion likely added nothing new to mankind, no unique insights or morals that likely were not expressed prior in philosophy or other prior religions, many of which are dead now.

I say this because many people seem to believe that religion brought man morals, when in fact they just really repeat morals already known and largely practiced.