Atheist Q and A Watch

garfeeled
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#421
Report 2 years ago
#421
(Original post by Sciatic)
Have any of you had a dream in which religious symbols appeared or were thought of?
Not really a dream but when I was younger I experienced what I thought at the time was a religious experience and I imagine a lot of other people would have thought it was a legions experience as well.
0
quote
reply
leavingthecity
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#422
Report 2 years ago
#422
(Original post by Sciatic)
Have any of you had a dream in which religious symbols appeared or were thought of?
Yes, but many neurologists currently believe that dreams are no more than the brains effort to make sense of random electrical signals that occur during sleep.
0
quote
reply
Scrappy-coco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#423
Report 2 years ago
#423
(Original post by leavingthecity)
Also, in the Quora link, the philosopher describes Schrodinger's Cat as a paradox of some kind when it is not. Pop culture also treats it as some kind of analogy, but it is a genuine, well constructed thought experiment in which all objects are treated as complex quantum systems that become entangled. It is the problem of where indeterminacy ends and where determinacy begins. The cat, he believed, was never in some 'smeared out' state between being alive and being dead. Decoherence has been proposed as a solution to this problem.
I think you misunderstood, he pointed out that one of the reasons behind Schrodinger's thought experiment was to make the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics look nonsensical. It's certainly a common view when people describe the history behind the thought experiment.


(Original post by leavingthecity)
I'm not saying that there is nothing outside of our universe, that's another discussion.

My argument was aimed at those suggesting that the universe was an 'effect' that was preceded by a cause that happened from without. Their assumption is that this external cause is God, and their overall assumption that cause precedes effect is The result of having experienced only simple cause and effect within our universe at the macro level. This person gives examples such as; a switch is flicked, and light is produced. The reproductive system created the baby etc etc.

The problem is that if they are going to talk of physical systems, then they need to acknowledge that cause and effect is a process that must occur within time as it has, by definition, sequence. One process cannot be outside time and the other within. Certainly not if we are talking about everyday day macro cause and effect. I argued that there was an issue in extrapolating ides of simultaneous causation onto the beginning of the universe, or anything for that matter as the idea of simultaneity in physics is highly problematic. Also, using any everyday example of cause and effect is also problematic.

Cause and effect in physics are processes in themselves on the macro level and relate to complex systems. To talk of the weight of a ball (indenting the cushion) as a cause is meaningless. It's mass under acceleration and it's solidity arising out of quantum principles of electron spin would be more meaningful but of course then we are dealing now with a far more complex situation, where simultaneity is not occurring. Again, the idea of simultaneity in our four dimensional world does not exist. The ball on the cushion simply cannot be used in any meaningful way in the context of the creation of the universe. It may be useful elsewhere in philosophy, but not in physics, it's a faulty thought experiment.

Yes, quantum systems certainly interact with and affect each other.I still don't see why we need metaphysics to talk of QM?

I would say that some physicists need skills that require them to think abstractly about their calculations.

Yes I'm familiar to an extent with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, I'm just not sure of the point you are trying to explain? I only have an issue with extrapolating situations that are more analogous than scientific to the particle level/subatomic level/singularity level.


I'm just of the opinion that where physics is lacking, it's not for lacking philosophical interpretation.
Ok I think we are just talking at each other now, rather than addressing points.

My central point about causation was that you simply accept the straight forward direction of causality, and this assumption is a cornerstone in your points. Take this assumption away and it affects your entire argument. The question of causation, as I argued in my previous post, is a metaphysical question. If you want to argue that it's answerable by science then it seems that you restrict yourself essentially to a Humean view of causation, but perhaps you could argue a few more options. It's clear within the contemporary literature that the direction of causality is a live topic.

With regards to philosophy and QM, i can't see how you can even start to address the true physical interpretation of it without answer philosophical questions, such as epistemological and ontological status for example. The point of mentioning Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was to give an example of how such questions of Epistemology and ontology are inherent in quantum mechanics and the question of causation.

Anyway, it's been a good talk but I can't see us talking the same language anytime soon.




Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
chemting
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#424
Report 2 years ago
#424
(Original post by Sciatic)
Have any of you had a dream in which religious symbols appeared or were thought of?
Well once I took LSD and saw dragons... does that prove the plot in Skyrim was real?
3
quote
reply
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#425
Report 2 years ago
#425
(Original post by Racoon)
You do not know that for sure. This is an assumption.
True - I don't know this for sure.

False - It's an assumption.
0
quote
reply
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#426
Report 2 years ago
#426
(Original post by leavingthecity)
To talk of the weight of a ball (indenting the cushion) as a cause is meaningless. It's mass under acceleration and it's solidity arising out of quantum principles of electron spin would be more meaningful but of course then we are dealing now with a far more complex situation.
Yeah but in teh science, if God made a cushion wot he can't sit on then teh porridge would er... be something to do with teh ball. Or so it is according to Abraham or some other geezer. And some sheep.
0
quote
reply
Scrappy-coco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#427
Report 2 years ago
#427
(Original post by Ascend)
Type of trust, not simply "trust in something" as you initially said.


Because, again, the type of trust where faith typically goes (complete, certain, especially without evidence or proof) is very different to the type of trust we put in other things that is based on evidence, being conditional on the veracity of the evidence and therefore tentative and not absolutely fixed. This is the point. They are complete opposites in that regard.
Yes that's right. You're being pedantic.

Well I like that you at least qualified that faith typically seems to be coupled with certainty. Of course, there will be people that argue they have the conditional trust that you describe as being completely opposite.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
N-R-G
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#428
Report 2 years ago
#428
(Original post by leavingthecity)
I'm an atheist

Will we one day live in a secular world do you think?
No I don't I think religion and mysticism is too much of an integral part of our society for it to become completely secularist. We all have a mystic side and that is expressed in peoples belief in god. After all why didn't the communists in Russia not pull down every cathedral?
0
quote
reply
champ_mc99
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#429
Report 2 years ago
#429
(Original post by leavingthecity)
It's not your bet to place. There are well defined probabilities, as Plantagenet Crown says, very unlikely things happen all the time.
Yes I know but I'm just saying I would think there's more chance of it going extinct at first.

(Original post by leavingthecity)
Start from QED, all things follow, is what I am saying.
Yeah I see what you mean cheers.
0
quote
reply
leavingthecity
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#430
Report 2 years ago
#430
(Original post by frankieboy)
Yeah but in teh science, if God made a cushion wot he can't sit on then teh porridge would er... be something to do with teh ball. Or so it is according to Abraham or some other geezer. And some sheep.
Exact conversation I was held hostage to yesterday for an hour by two Christians handing out leaflets on a street corner.....

I thought it was atheists who were the rude ones, but I was accused of all sorts of idiocy and laughed at when I said that I wasn't a 'sinner'......
0
quote
reply
leavingthecity
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#431
Report 2 years ago
#431
(Original post by champ_mc99)
Yes I know but I'm just saying I would think there's more chance of it going extinct at first.



Yeah I see what you mean cheers.
No probs, the author is a great teacher.
0
quote
reply
leavingthecity
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#432
Report 2 years ago
#432
(Original post by Scrappy-coco)
I think you misunderstood, he pointed out that one of the reasons behind Schrodinger's thought experiment was to make the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics look nonsensical. It's certainly a common view when people describe the history behind the thought experiment.




Ok I think we are just talking at each other now, rather than addressing points.

My central point about causation was that you simply accept the straight forward direction of causality, and this assumption is a cornerstone in your points. Take this assumption away and it affects your entire argument. The question of causation, as I argued in my previous post, is a metaphysical question. If you want to argue that it's answerable by science then it seems that you restrict yourself essentially to a Humean view of causation, but perhaps you could argue a few more options. It's clear within the contemporary literature that the direction of causality is a live topic.

With regards to philosophy and QM, i can't see how you can even start to address the true physical interpretation of it without answer philosophical questions, such as epistemological and ontological status for example. The point of mentioning Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was to give an example of how such questions of Epistemology and ontology are inherent in quantum mechanics and the question of causation.

Anyway, it's been a good talk but I can't see us talking the same language anytime soon.




Posted from TSR Mobile
I think this is just a classic example of the friction between scientists and philosophers.Yes, I agree then that Schrodinger challenged the CI with this thought experiment. But I still see actual science as the road to one day having an intuitive understanding of what appears to be uncertainty as opposed to a purely mathematical one.


I promise, I do not misunderstand you, nor do I deal in assumptions that can be switched in and out of the theories I have mentioned. I am also not talking at you, I genuinely disagree with some things you say and also think that you may have a misunderstanding of the physics and therefore it's compatibility with philosophy.

I have the issues;

1. Philosophers talk of simultaneity. It does not exist. It is observer dependant.

2. Philosophers discuss the possibility/concept of effect before cause. They casually extrapolate this thought experiment where it doesn't belong. It doesn't belong anywhere in science strictly speaking.

You keep comparing me to Hume, but is it not obvious that I am a Wittgenstein fan?

In physics, for every inertial observer there is no event that can affect past events. Causal influences cannot transfer information faster that the speed of light in spacetime because timelike intervals separate the two in spacetime. So it is always cause then effect. However as I've already said, labelling anything as such is hugely problematic. This is the problem philosophers are doomed to have. Physicists see processes of interaction, in time and so the labels become redundant.Therefore ideas of effect before cause in philosophy are only loosely based on real physics.

This is all very non Hume like, from the way you describe him.

Effect before cause only has mathematical application in areas such as interpreting the implications of E^2 in Einstein's mass energy equivalence equation and it's implication of antimatter, or in understanding abstract spaces like closed timelike curves.Causality and the philosophy thereof is barely useful in understanding physics.
0
quote
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#433
Report 2 years ago
#433
(Original post by leavingthecity)
I'm an atheist

Will we one day live in a secular world do you think?
Just seen someone quote this post above. I'm intrigued as to whether other atheists might be as pessimistic as I am. But when I look at the world, I see the countries where atheism and secularism are present undergoing demographic declines. Whereas there seems to be a demographic explosion occurring in the more religious nations. Plus with the spread of more extreme interpretations of Christianity and Islam on the rise, I can only seeing things regressing and is something that is currently taking place right now.
0
quote
reply
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#434
Report 2 years ago
#434
No one ****ing cares, you pretentious pseudo-intellectual narcissists.
0
quote
reply
leavingthecity
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#435
Report 2 years ago
#435
(Original post by Life_peer)
No one ****ing cares, you pretentious pseudo-intellectual narcissists.
Haha

Right, p1ssoff.
0
quote
reply
leavingthecity
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#436
Report 2 years ago
#436
(Original post by The Epicurean)
Just seen someone quote this post above. I'm intrigued as to whether other atheists might be as pessimistic as I am. But when I look at the world, I see the countries where atheism and secularism are present undergoing demographic declines. Whereas there seems to be a demographic explosion occurring in the more religious nations. Plus with the spread of more extreme interpretations of Christianity and Islam on the rise, I can only seeing things regressing and is something that is currently taking place right now.
Yeah, I'm not hopeful at all. Sometimes I imagine people of the future shaking their heads saying "can you believe there was a time when a few people convinced themselves that there was no God?!".....
0
quote
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#437
Report 2 years ago
#437
(Original post by leavingthecity)
Yeah, I'm not hopeful at all. Sometimes I imagine people of the future shaking their heads saying "can you believe there was a time when a few people convinced themselves that there was no God?!".....
When atheism is a punishable crime (which carries the death sentence) in possibly some 13 countries and illegal in many more countries, it is a sad state of affairs to say that such views are probably already held by many people. I remember there being outrage when people heard a few years back false reports that Angola had become the first country to make Islam illegal. The sad fact is that a religion becoming illegal seems to cause moral outrage while the fact that atheism is effectively illegal in a number of countries gets overlooked and ignored.
0
quote
reply
champ_mc99
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#438
Report 2 years ago
#438
leavingthecity


Lol, I can see you've taken over the OP in this thread
0
quote
reply
Scrappy-coco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#439
Report 2 years ago
#439
(Original post by leavingthecity)
I think this is just a classic example of the friction between scientists and philosophers.Yes, I agree then that Schrodinger challenged the CI with this thought experiment. But I still see actual science as the road to one day having an intuitive understanding of what appears to be uncertainty as opposed to a purely mathematical one.


I promise, I do not misunderstand you, nor do I deal in assumptions that can be switched in and out of the theories I have mentioned. I am also not talking at you, I genuinely disagree with some things you say and also think that you may have a misunderstanding of the physics and therefore it's compatibility with philosophy.

I have the issues;

1. Philosophers talk of simultaneity. It does not exist. It is observer dependant.

2. Philosophers discuss the possibility/concept of effect before cause. They casually extrapolate this thought experiment where it doesn't belong. It doesn't belong anywhere in science strictly speaking.

You keep comparing me to Hume, but is it not obvious that I am a Wittgenstein fan?

In physics, for every inertial observer there is no event that can affect past events. Causal influences cannot transfer information faster that the speed of light in spacetime because timelike intervals separate the two in spacetime. So it is always cause then effect. However as I've already said, labelling anything as such is hugely problematic. This is the problem philosophers are doomed to have. Physicists see processes of interaction, in time and so the labels become redundant.Therefore ideas of effect before cause in philosophy are only loosely based on real physics.

This is all very non Hume like, from the way you describe him.

Effect before cause only has mathematical application in areas such as interpreting the implications of E^2 in Einstein's mass energy equivalence equation and it's implication of antimatter, or in understanding abstract spaces like closed timelike curves.Causality and the philosophy thereof is barely useful in understanding physics.
As I said, I don't think you are really addressing any of the points that I have made, bar theories on cause and effect, which you have repeatedly argued for the general direction of causality. Although I will point out that you seem to be wrong when you said the possibility of other directions of causation don't 'belong anywhere in science strictly speaking'. Physics was actually one argument in the 20th century for backward causation. Wheeler-Feynman theory of radiation, Feynman's tachyon theory and his theory of positrons as electrons moving backwards in time, and de Beauregard's “quantum handshake” explanation of the violation of the Bell inequalities. There's where all used as examples of what could be backward causation. Today, they have little credence in supporting backward causation. But I'm not arguing they are true, but to let you know that philosophical discussions on causation certainly have been involved in science.

As a side note, I think everything you described would still perfectly fit within the parameters of Hume's argument. Though I'm certainly not going to tell you what you philosophical views are. I know little of Wittgenstein I'm afraid! Anyway, I have enjoyed the discussion.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
Scrappy-coco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#440
Report 2 years ago
#440
(Original post by The Epicurean)
Just seen someone quote this post above. I'm intrigued as to whether other atheists might be as pessimistic as I am. But when I look at the world, I see the countries where atheism and secularism are present undergoing demographic declines. Whereas there seems to be a demographic explosion occurring in the more religious nations. Plus with the spread of more extreme interpretations of Christianity and Islam on the rise, I can only seeing things regressing and is something that is currently taking place right now.
I couldn't agree more. Non religion is growing more than it ever has, but seems to more forecast to shrink in relation to the demographic boom of the religious.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (192)
27.79%
No (499)
72.21%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise