Still hoping for an answer to this. I'm trying to start from ground zero in learning about all this (and not for the first time) but my complete lack of math/physics background (remember studied linguistics) doesn't make it easy. I've found some good lectures on youtube but when the formulas start coming out it gets tough.

This stems from a shallow, pop culture level understanding of quantum mechanics. There is nothing fundamental about consciousness, the realization of quantum computation will show the physical reality of quantum superposition and everything wed observe makes perfect sense in the materialist framework.

QFT doesn't add much to this discussion. Quantum decoherence is afaik most people's preferred solution for all this wavefunction collapse stuff which I don't find all that interesting tbh.

It is not the case that a number of people who have beyond a pop-culture level of understanding of quantum physics feel the same way that I do?
Case in point would be this article I keep posting . Or things about the Conway-Kochen theory. So it seems rather derisive to lump this viewpoint in as being a pop-culture understanding as if no actual physicists hold these views, when we know that many do.

I don't know anybody who does.

I thought maybe Roger Penrose because he has some pretty crazy views on consciousness, logic and computation but even he seems to be a strong no.

http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousn...rmal%20beliefs.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
From the Adam Frank article, this is worth a look. It's a survey of researchers at a QM conference and question #10 asks about the role of the observer. 6% feel the observer plays a distinguished role. It's not much but reality also isn't a popularity contest. And I don't know how to interpret the 39% who feel it's a complex quantum system.

As far as non-locality goes: what do you think that means exactly or why shouldn't that be something that gets latched onto?

Well it looks like 94% of a sample that included some philosophers agree that the observer plays no special role. Keep in mind that this was at a conference on the foundations of QM, which will skew heavily towards people who have nonstandard views. And even then you could only find 2 people willing to go that far.

I think non-locality is likely a property of the universe. Not sure what else needs to be said about it or why.

It seems like it's only 76%.
What are we to make of the 39% who treat the observer as a complex quantum system.
So non-locality means that instantaneous faster than light communication is possible? That would seem to have pretty profound implications for our understanding of what physical reality is.

Ecriture,
I take it you're a physicist of some sort but in what area do you do you research in?

Well, I have no doubt that most individuals, including Muslims, have the capacity to adapt peacefully and cohesively to their environment given a chance.

However, at the group level, given the empirical history of the last 2000 years or so, including modern times, I think it is fair to question whether this specific religion/worldview has been particularly incompatible with more modern worldviews, and a lot of tension and violence has resulted due to this.

I know that modern theologians from all religions, including Islam, have done an impressive job of philosophical and interpretive jiu jitsu to bend the religious works to be more compatible with modern societies, and I praise them for it. However, when a specific religion states that a specific religious work (in this case the Koran) is literally the word of God and the final source of jurisprudence, and that work has several suras that cannot be made compatible with modern worldviews no matter how you twist them, it seems very possible this creates a tension that may be insurmountable to full compatibility.

We covered some of that ground I know in the Islam thread, and my general point there was that a lot of overly broad criticisms of Islam might be better reserved for Wahhabism/Salafism.
But certainly if the timeframe is the last 2,000 years then Christianity can be equally vilified. (Although Islam is younger at 1,300 years).

I understand your argument.

You seem to be working under a thesis that all worldviews are equally plastic in the capacity of their adherents to adapt to environment/circumstance. I question whether this is true. I think the truth is there may be no way to know for sure and neither of us has more than anecdote to support our arguments.

That being said, I suspect Islam will be around long after Western Civilization and its Enlightenment values (eg. pre-eminence of individual liberty and equality) have gone the way of the dodo. So who is to say that Islam's enduring resilience towards reformation is even a negative? Maybe it will turn out to be a positive in the grand scheme of things.

What I meant was that supposed miracles that can be duplicated by magicians are impossible as far as Newtonian physics is concerned and you can't wiggle out of that by invoking quantum physics.

To understand QFT you need to do an undergraduate degree in physics, then a PhD, then research a while. Takes probably 10-15 years supposing you do nothing else seriously.

https://www.aps.org/careers/physicis...files/kaku.cfm

I don't think Einstein did say that. It's a variant of a common quote he never said

I believe he did say "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” Which is somewhat different.

It's more that "Islam" doesn't exist. It's too big to paint with even the broadest brush. You have to break it down into various sects if you're going to treat it, otherwise you'll end up just coming off ignorant. It would be the same if people wanted to start saying that "Christianity is this or that", while ignoring that Catholics, Baptists, 7th day adventists, and Jehovah's witnesses all have radically different approaches to how they practice (or don't practice) their religion.
It isn't that all worldviews are equally plastic. A worldview is a worldview and if your worldview allows for plasticity then it probably wasn't much of a worldview to begin with. Apostates and hypocrites exist in all religions.

I can't even explain to this 7 year old the concept of negative numbers. I tried with a number line. I think it's her and not me.
And don't get me started on the vowel system of English-- teachers should be prosecuted for teaching that English only has 5 vowels. Sometimes kids just want to stay stupid.

For something that doesn't exist, there is a remarkable consistency of values/worldview across a very large group of people who identify as Muslims. Like I had that stat from Wikipedia that there was an AIDS conference and 50+ Muslim countries told LGBT activists they weren't invited.

Anyways, which sect is the one that is for openly supportive of LBGT rights and equality for women and other religious minorities?

In a sane world these would be non-negotiable values the progressive left would demand for. But in this world they are strangely agnostic and uninterested in about all of them as it pertains to the Muslim world (but this is a different argument for perhaps a different day). If there is a branch of Islam that has found a way to legitimately interpret the Koran to allow for these things, which one is it?

Luck, you can do the science discussion and get back on the religious one, no hurries.

I enjoy science talk too.

I mostly just don't want to see this thread locked with the nature vs nurture discussion that I know is coming.

1. Presuppositional Arguments are typically focused on Epistemology.

2. Morality is one of the three main areas of emphasis. The other two are logic and science.

3. TACT (Transcendental Argument for Christian Theism) focuses on how only a Biblical worldview can account the the "preconditions of intelligibility" required for science, morality, etc.

4. Thanks for the Vitamin C advice. Will buy some if i can today.

5. Hopefully later today i will post explaining what i mean by the rather audacious claim of mine that "Science is possible only if the Bible is true."

6. Stay well, y'all! (Too bad i lost completely my Southern accent by the time i was about 9 y/o.)

Thanks. I'm getting more weller.

You know what they say, "half a wit, is better than none."

In this thread, I will be defending the following claim: "Science is possible only if the Bible is true."

Note well, that in this particular thread, I will NOT be defending either of the following two propositions:

1. Science is possible.

2. The Bible is true.

I, of course, DO believe that both of those propositions are true. But, the actual truth-value of those two propositions are not relevant to the specific claim that I will be defending in this thread.

More specifically, NONE of the following propositions are inconsistent with, nor are defeaters for, the thesis that i will be actually defending:

1. Science is not possible.

2. The Bible is not true.

3. Science isn't possible, even though the Bible is true.

Hopefully no later than tomorrow i will commence with the defense of my thesis.