Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Stranger]

Haven't looked through this in details but isn't he just using the term 'stuff' to describe 'matter' - indeed he states that 'Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context' and I'm struggling to see where he defines something as being 'stuff', but not 'matter'.

As the quote suggests, matter is some (context dependant) subset of stuff. All matter is stuff but not all stuff is matter. I guess a photon wouldn't normally be regarded as matter, but, as he points out, neither is it energy. Another quote: "All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not."

As I said before, the basic "stuff" of reality, according to GR and QFT, are quantum fields (all particles, whether matter or not, being "ripples" or excitations of said fields) and space-time.

[ProfessorDavey]

As the quote suggests, matter is some (context dependant) subset of stuff. All matter is stuff but not all stuff is matter. I guess a photon wouldn't normally be regarded as matter, but, as he points out, neither is it energy. Another quote: "All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not."

As I said before, the basic "stuff" of reality, according to GR and QFT, are quantum fields (all particles, whether matter or not, being "ripples" or excitations of said fields) and space-time.

Reading a little more - effectively all it means is particles and waves - would be simpler to describe it as such as I think most people understand that concept.

And yes if that is what defines 'stuff', then energy isn't stuff, nor is mass. However energy and mass are properties of stuff (not all stuff has mass, e.g. waves) but all stuff has energy I think. Although you could describe it the other way around - i.e. that particles and waves are manifestations of energy and mass.

[Stranger]

Reading a little more - effectively all it means is particles and waves - would be simpler to describe it as such as I think most people understand that concept.

The blog post I linked to is trying to dispel the popular misconception that energy is some sort of "stuff" that things are can be made of. Seems some people want to cling on to it anyway.

And yes if that is what defines 'stuff', then energy isn't stuff, nor is mass. However energy and mass are properties of stuff (not all stuff has mass, e.g. waves) but all stuff has energy I think. Although you could describe it the other way around - i.e. that particles and waves are manifestations of energy and mass.

But that isn't what the relevant (well tested) theories describe. Why pick on those properties, anyway? It's not as if some particular particle, if it has rest mass anyway, has a fixed amount of energy; energy and momentum get mixed up in relativity just as space and time do. I suspect you wouldn't want to call particles manifestations of momentum. Or maybe you would...?

[Outrider]

straight out of the New Atheist playbook.

Where can I get a copy of that? I'm not sure I'm playing it right. Maybe it'll explain what's 'new' about 'you've not adequately made your case'?

Why, just because I think Douglas Adams was a c*nt?

It's always edifying when someone elevates the level of discourse by disrespecting the deceased...

O.

[jeremyp]

It's always edifying when someone elevates the level of discourse by disrespecting the deceased...

I think Adams  would have appreciated it, coming, as it did, from a rabid theist.

[jeremyp]

And yes if that is what defines 'stuff', then energy isn't stuff, nor is mass. However energy and mass are properties of stuff (not all stuff has mass, e.g. waves) but all stuff has energy I think. Although you could describe it the other way around - i.e. that particles and waves are manifestations of energy and mass.

All humans have height but you wouldn't say humans are manifestations of height.

Energy is a number, an accounting trick. It's an abstract quantity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So I identified the four dishonesties/mistakes you attempted and rather then deal with the problem you went for the ad hom again. Whether the arguments that undid you were from the "New Atheist playbook" (whatever that might be), learned philosophical tomes or the backs of fag packets makes no difference at all to the validity of the arguments themselves.

No, because you think that making that assertion is a legitimate response to an argument he made that falsified a previous one you'd attempted.

Well that and the facts that you either have no understanding of or deliberately misrepresent the science and reasoning you attempt to pray in aid, that you consistently ignore or misrepresent every argument that's put to you, that you're utterly dishonest in all your dealing here, that you routinely play the same card as the pigeon that knocks over the chess pieces, craps on the board and then flies off to claim its "victory", that for some unknown reason you find people replying in good faith to your unremitting trolling to be amusing enough to provoke you to even more of it, that you have no intention actually of discussing anything, that you will never own or learn from your repeated mistakes despite having them explained to you over and over again, that...

...enough?

First of all Physicists do talk in terms of a finely tuned universe
secondly I started by talking about fixed tune
Third, we all know who Adam's was arguing with and what argument they were making. That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.

By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is, is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you''

The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion. 

[Stranger]

That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.

But you haven't argued it, you've just asserted it. Where is the actual reasoning?

By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is, is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you''

I see nobody dodging any gods here. I see no gods to dodge. The question is: do we have any basis at all on which to go further? Nothing you've posted to date provides such a basis, so we just have your assertions and guesswork. I prefer an honest "we don't know" until and unless some further evidence or reasoning can shed further light on the matter.

There is undoubtedly a mystery as to why stuff exists and is the way it is but making shit up about some god or other has no basis (that I've seen yet) and doesn't actually answer the question anyway.

The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion.

It's about defending logical thinking and rationality, tentatively believing what evidence can tell us, and resisting the temptation to believe in guesses, myths, or superstitions to "explain" things that we don't have enough evidence or reasoning to draw conclusions about.

[ProfessorDavey]

... rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.

Why should an unconscious process cause chaos Vlad - whether or not is does depends entirely on the energetics of the process, which of course play out in a completely unconscious manner.

I've used this example several times, but will do so again.

If you mix water and amphiphilic phospholipids they will firstly perfectly segregate into the two components (in other words creating the most ordered and least chaotic partitioning) - secondly the phospholipids will self assemble in to the most ordered structures imaginable - including perfect spheres, each made of a perfect bilayer of the phospholipids with the outer layer all in one orientation, the inner layer in the opposite orientation.

This incredibly order and entirely unchaotic arrangement arises entirely unconsciously and is due to the fact that it is the lowest energy stage and any other state requires the input of energy to maintain it. So shake the bottle, and everything mixes, but it will return to the perfectly ordered state as it settles.

Now this is just one example - there are countless examples whether the energetically more advantageous state is highly ordered, systems which are self regulating and self 'optimising' - with the control of those ordering phenomena being entirely 'unconscious' basic physical principles.

No need for a 'conscious' creator to generate perfect bilayer phospholipid vesicles - no need for a 'conscious' creator to generate perfectly ordered and near symmetrical (and unique) snowflakes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake#/media/File:Snowflake_macro_photography_1.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer#/media/File:Phospholipids_aqueous_solution_structures.svg

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should an unconscious process cause chaos Vlad - whether or not is does depends entirely on the energetics of the process, which of course play out in a completely unconscious manner.

I've used this example several times, but will do so again.

If you mix water and amphiphilic phospholipids they will firstly perfectly segregate into the two components (in other words creating the most ordered and least chaotic partitioning) - secondly the phospholipids will self assemble in to the most ordered structures imaginable - including perfect spheres, each made of a perfect bilayer of the phospholipids with the outer layer all in one orientation, the inner layer in the opposite orientation.

This incredibly order and entirely unchaotic arrangement arises entirely unconsciously and is due to the fact that it is the lowest energy stage and any other state requires the input of energy to maintain it. So shake the bottle, and everything mixes, but it will return to the perfectly ordered state as it settles.

Now this is just one example - there are countless examples whether the energetically more advantageous state is highly ordered, systems which are self regulating and self 'optimising' - with the control of those ordering phenomena being entirely 'unconscious' basic physical principles.

No need for a 'conscious' creator to generate perfect bilayer phospholipid vesicles - no need for a 'conscious' creator to generate perfectly ordered and near symmetrical (and unique) snowflakes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake#/media/File:Snowflake_macro_photography_1.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer#/media/File:Phospholipids_aqueous_solution_structures.svg

But it is following laws and those enforced laws ensure order and organisation rather than chaos.
My point is that creation of matter/energy, were it a naturalistic, scientifically penetrable affair would not be a one of affair.

That the universe just is is just an assertion. It seems to me an investigation and thought stopper. Science and the notion of laws which has not been superceded was the notion of theistic scientists. Had the job been left to atheists we would be stuck at 'The universe just is''

[ProfessorDavey]

But it is following laws and those enforced laws ensure order and organisation rather than chaos.

But they require zero conscious action. That's the point - and a further point is that they are self evolving and self regulating. In the same way are our traditional view of species evolution, processes that result in unstable states are unlikely to be maintained - those that result in stable state will be, well, stable and therefore maintained. So there is actually a tendency towards order rather than chaos.

So in cosmic terms if your have a random selection of lumps of rock of differing sizes moving randomly in the vicinity of each other - will they tend towards chaos or order? Most definitely towards order as the smaller entities lose momentum and become captured in the orbits of larger ones. And so from a random 'chaotic' movement of lumps of rock you will end up with a smaller set or highly ordered 'solar system-type' arrangements.

[Outrider]

First of all Physicists do talk in terms of a finely tuned universe

Could you cite a paper in a respectable journal to back that up?

That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.

Why would an unconscious process create 'chaos'?  Firstly, be definition almost, processes cannot create chaos, chaos is the absolute lack of any organisational order which defies the concept of 'process'.  Secondly, we have any number of 'unconscious processes' - evolution, weather - which produce clearly defined, non-chaotic outcomes, so it's obviously not universal or necessary.

By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is, is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you"

Except that 'atheists' don't just say that, they say 'it's possible, therefore you still haven't justified gods, let's see what the scientists come up with by following the evidence.'

The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion.

If only someone's motivation made the blindest bit of difference to the validity of the argument they are - or aren't - making...  The argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on your perception of the merits of the motivation of its proponents.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

First of all Physicists do talk in terms of a finely tuned universe

By which they mean that various constants have fixed values, not that there was therefore a “tuner” as you dishonestly imply.
 

…secondly I started by talking about fixed tune

No you didn’t. What you actually said (Reply 310) was “It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created”. What’s the point in quoting your own words back to you if you keep pretending you said something else? 

Third, we all know who Adam's was arguing with and what argument they were making.

You don’t appear to know that at all. What his puddle analogy was actually illustrating (rather brilliantly) is that we are adapted to the universe, not the other way around. As you went straight for the ad hom though you never even got as far as addressing that.

That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.

No, you’re just asserting it with no reasoning to support the assertion. Why would an “unconscious process” produce only chaos? Your attempt at inserting agency into an inanimate process is the same as a child saying “that branch hit me”. 

By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is,

No-one’s stopping speculations at all. You are free to speculate anything you like. What you can’t do though is expect to have those speculations taken seriously when you try to justify them with false reasoning, misunderstandings and misrepresentations. And – so far at least – that’s all you have.

…is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you''

Yet again, you can’t dodge something you’ve been given no sound reason to think exists in the first place. Are you leprechaun dodging? Why not?

The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion.

Then as with pretty much everything else about which you eructate your unqualified opinions, you’re wrong.

[flower girl]

Please forgive my intrusion, and I haven't read through all the posts, but, from what I've read there seems to be a lot of debate about proof of god(s) based-or not-on physical laws. 

If we doubt God because there is no physical evidence, then it seems to me that the evidence on which we rely must be fool proof, irrefutable, right?  And, we have that with Newtonian physics. This representation of reality has served us well giving us a predictable, mechanical world we can count on, well, sort of.

But, then, there is quantum physics, which defies everything we rely upon in the Newtonian world. Newtonian physics promises us precision, the ability to precisely predict outcomes. Quantum Physics defies everything Newtonian Physics has proven with mathematical, well, at best-uncertainty. The electron insists on being mysterious, undefinable, unpredictable, and omnipresent.

I agree that I'm suggesting just another God-of-the-gaps argument, but for me?  I'm very curious about infinite possible realties. 

So, here's where I am.  I believe there is more than me and us and what we perceive as reality.  Do I have proof?  Well, yes.  There is proof that basing everything we believe only on that which we perceive is misguiding. And this is based on the most recent science. 

[Stranger]

Please forgive my intrusion, and I haven't read through all the posts...

The more the merrier...

If we doubt God because there is no physical evidence, then it seems to me that the evidence on which we rely must be fool proof, irrefutable, right?

I think you may have things backwards. I don't accept the existence of any of the thousands of gods humans have and do believe in because of the lack of any evidence or reasoning.

But, then, there is quantum physics, which defies everything we rely upon in the Newtonian world. Newtonian physics promises us precision, the ability to precisely predict outcomes. Quantum Physics defies everything Newtonian Physics has proven with mathematical, well, at best-uncertainty. The electron insists on being mysterious, undefinable, unpredictable, and omnipresent.

Too much pop science. Electrons aren't really omnipresent (unless you manage to do a perfectly accurate measurement of their momentum, which is of course impossible), they are (mathematically) defined, and quantum physics is actually very good at making predictions, that's why it's used so much in engineering, such as the design of semiconductors (most electronic components).

It has radically changed our view of the physical world and it is startlingly counter-intuitive in some respects, but you shouldn't believe everything people say about it. It is solid science. Aspects of quantum field theory count as the best tested in all of science.

I believe there is more than me and us and what we perceive as reality.  Do I have proof?  Well, yes.  There is proof that basing everything we believe only on that which we perceive is misguiding.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "that which we perceive" in this context, and what do you think the "proof" is?

And this is based on the most recent science.

Science has told us that the universe doesn't behave according to our intuitions (and why should it outside of the immediate environment we evolved in?) but it is based entirely on what we perceive in the sense that it is based on experiment and observation.

[Outrider]

Please forgive my intrusion, and I haven't read through all the posts, but, from what I've read there seems to be a lot of debate about proof of god(s) based-or not-on physical laws.

Welcome

If we doubt God because there is no physical evidence, then it seems to me that the evidence on which we rely must be fool proof, irrefutable, right?  And, we have that with Newtonian physics. This representation of reality has served us well giving us a predictable, mechanical world we can count on, well, sort of.

It's not merely the lack of physical evidence, its the combination of a multiple contradictory claims in favour of multiple religious pantheons, the lack of consistency within most of those religious claims and their lack of compatibility with what we do have evidence for in reality and simply the logical implausibilities that arise if some of the most common claims are actually investigated.

But, then, there is quantum physics, which defies everything we rely upon in the Newtonian world. Newtonian physics promises us precision, the ability to precisely predict outcomes. Quantum Physics defies everything Newtonian Physics has proven with mathematical, well, at best-uncertainty. The electron insists on being mysterious, undefinable, unpredictable, and omnipresent.

Whilst quantum physics does undermine some of what Newtonian physics had sought to establish, that doesn't undermine Newtonian physics' place in life.  The reason Newtonian physics hung around for as long as it did is because for the overwhelming range of 'everyday' situations it works.  Until you get to relative extremes of mass, speed or distance (large or small) Newtonian physics stands up pretty well.  We came across quantum descriptions because we managed to apply Newtonian physics well enough that we over-reached its capacity.

I agree that I'm suggesting just another God-of-the-gaps argument, but for me?  I'm very curious about infinite possible realities.

It's in danger of becoming a 'god of the gaps' argument, but so long as you remain curious and don't fall into the trap of 'science doesn't know, therefore God' you'll be fine.

So, here's where I am.  I believe there is more than me and us and what we perceive as reality.  Do I have proof?  Well, yes.  There is proof that basing everything we believe only on that which we perceive is misguiding. And this is based on the most recent science.

That's only proof that our evolutionary history has geared us to view reality at a particular scale, and favouring certain spectra within ranges of physical phenomena in particular detail.  There's a wealth of electromagnetic waves out there, but we only directly interact with the very small portion of them that are in the visible light spectrum, and we are completely ignorant of (for instance) the constant stream of anti-neutrinos out there.  We struggle - and think that we're 'misguided' - with quantum level realities because we're trying to interpret them with a brain architecture that's evolved to deal with macroscopic phenomena.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's in danger of becoming a 'god of the gaps' argument, but so long as you remain curious and don't fall into the trap of 'science doesn't know, therefore God' you'll be fine.

I think you need to go further than mere curiosity to avoid 'god of the gaps'. You need to understand history.

Effectively if you went back thousands of hundreds of years there were massive gaps in our knowledge - since then some (many many) have been filled - in other words we now understand something we didn't used to. As far as I'm concerned all of those gaps have been filled with knowledge that aligns with our scientific processes, based on evidence. Not one has been filled with 'god', based on evidence.

So compared to hundred or thousands of years ago we have either used science to fill a gap or we remain unclear in our knowedge (a gap remains). Given that I don't think it is reasonable to imply that a gap might be filled with either scientific knowledge, or god - as our experience tells us that as we learn more the gaps are only filled by science, never by god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An argument which proposes God as the provider of the whole universe can’t possibly be a God of the gaps argument.

What a silly idea.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Welcome to this Ship of Fools of an mb Flower Girl.

Please forgive my intrusion, and I haven't read through all the posts, but, from what I've read there seems to be a lot of debate about proof of god(s) based-or not-on physical laws.

You’re not intruding, you’re contributing – and very welcome it is too.

If we doubt God because there is no physical evidence,…

No, the “physical” is superfluous. There are countless speculations – the Christian god, other gods, leprechauns, unicorns, whatever – that conceptually at least are possible (I’m leaving aside for now by the way the definitional problems they all have). The problem for the proponents of these things who claim them to be probable rather than just possible though is that they need to find a method of some kind to distinguish the claim from just guessing. Call that “evidence” if you like, but absent such a method I have no basis to take any such claim more seriously than any other.   

…then it seems to me that the evidence on which we rely must be fool proof, irrefutable, right?

No. Axiomatically evidence has the potential to be wrong. It justifies a belief probabilistically, but that’s not to say the more robust evidence might not be found one day that amends or falsifies the prior evidence and so changes the prevailing paradigm. Science itself rests on this fundamental principle, and that’s why those who claim to be certain about their belief “God” and claim evidence to justify the belief are on a fool’s errand – if you think you have evidence, then you must admit to the possibility of the evidence being wrong. The only way logically to absolute certainty is to have no evidence whatsoever. That way there’s nothing to falsify.

And, we have that with Newtonian physics. This representation of reality has served us well giving us a predictable, mechanical world we can count on, well, sort of.

Not sort of – for practical purposes, actually. Newtonian physics breaks down at the scales of the very large and the very small, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t work perfectly well in between.

But, then, there is quantum physics, which defies everything we rely upon in the Newtonian world. Newtonian physics promises us precision, the ability to precisely predict outcomes. Quantum Physics defies everything Newtonian Physics has proven with mathematical, well, at best-uncertainty. The electron insists on being mysterious, undefinable, unpredictable, and omnipresent.

Others more versed than I am in the quantum have answered this already, but just to note that we use our understanding of it with quite astonishing levels of accuracy – someone once described the margin of error as akin to the width of a human hair when measuring the distance from London to San Francisco.

I agree that I'm suggesting just another God-of-the-gaps argument, but for me?  I'm very curious about infinite possible realties.

Which is fine, but you can populate that space equally with gods, leprechauns and Jack Frost if you want to. The challenge though is to find a way to demonstrate any of them to be more than just possibilities.   

So, here's where I am.  I believe there is more than me and us and what we perceive as reality.  Do I have proof?  Well, yes.  There is proof that basing everything we believe only on that which we perceive is misguiding. And this is based on the most recent science.

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that there’s a great deal more to learn about “us” (and indeed about the universe in general) then I agree – that’s why people keep doing science to chip away at what that “more” actually is.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you need to go further than mere curiosity to avoid 'god of the gaps'. You need to understand history.

Effectively if you went back thousands of hundreds of years there were massive gaps in our knowledge - since then some (many many) have been filled - in other words we now understand something we didn't used to. As far as I'm concerned all of those gaps have been filled with knowledge that aligns with our scientific processes, based on evidence. Not one has been filled with 'god', based on evidence.

So compared to hundred or thousands of years ago we have either used science to fill a gap or we remain unclear in our knowedge (a gap remains). Given that I don't think it is reasonable to imply that a gap might be filled with either scientific knowledge, or god - as our experience tells us that as we learn more the gaps are only filled by science, never by god.

Science only fills in gaps in scientific knowledge. Just remember that.

[Outrider]

An argument which proposes God as the provider of the whole universe can’t possibly be a God of the gaps argument.

The 'god of the gaps' argument isn't regarding the nature of the god that it's arguing for, it's a description of the method of argument being used to justify it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Welcome to this Ship of Fools of an mb Flower Girl.

You’re not intruding, you’re contributing – and very welcome it is too.

No, the “physical” is superfluous. There are countless speculations – the Christian god, other gods, leprechauns, unicorns, whatever – that conceptually at least are possible (I’m leaving aside for now by the way the definitional problems they all have). The problem for the proponents of these things who claim them to be probable rather than just possible though is that they need to find a method of some kind to distinguish the claim from just guessing. Call that “evidence” if you like, but absent such a method I have no basis to take any such claim more seriously than any other.   

No. Axiomatically evidence has the potential to be wrong. It justifies a belief probabilistically, but that’s not to say the more robust evidence might not be found one day that amends or falsifies the prior evidence and so changes the prevailing paradigm. Science itself rests on this fundamental principle, and that’s why those who claim to be certain about their belief “God” and claim evidence to justify the belief are on a fool’s errand – if you think you have evidence, then you must admit to the possibility of the evidence being wrong. The only way logically to absolute certainty is to have no evidence whatsoever. That way there’s nothing to falsify.

Not sort of – for practical purposes, actually. Newtonian physics breaks down at the scales of the very large and the very small, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t work perfectly well in between.

Others more versed than I am in the quantum have answered this already, but just to note that we use our understanding of it with quite astonishing levels of accuracy – someone once described the margin of error as akin to the width of a human hair when measuring the distance from London to San Francisco.

Which is fine, but you can populate that space equally with gods, leprechauns and Jack Frost if you want to. The challenge though is to find a way to demonstrate any of them to be more than just possibilities.   

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that there’s a great deal more to learn about “us” (and indeed about the universe in general) then I agree – that’s why people keep doing science to chip away at what that “more” actually is.

Shear unadulterated scientism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

An argument which proposes God as the provider of the whole universe can’t possibly be a God of the gaps argument.

What a silly idea.

The "god of the gaps" refers to gaps in understanding, not to physical gaps. Add face palm here...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Shear unadulterated scientism.

Stop lying.

[jeremyp]

An argument which proposes God as the provider of the whole universe can’t possibly be a God of the gaps argument.

What a silly idea.

That's true. When are you going to present such an argument?