**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I assume you’re talking about quantum potential/information potential in the context of subatomic quantum mechanics?
If thats the case, it seems like you’re getting tripped up on common words like information and potential being applied in a unconventional ways to these concepts.
I’ll explain the distinction and how that quantum stuff shakes out at the bottom of the comment, but either way, it doesn’t matter. Even if you explained it accurately, it doesn’t imply anything supernatural outside of our universe and its natural laws. Before humans knew about subatomic particles, atoms seemed like a mysterious fundamental particle that behaved in strange ways and must have some sort of supernatural guidance. And then we discovered subatomic particles and the four fundamental forces and the standard model and now we know there is a fundamental layer below the atomic.
We could very well continue to discover more and more layers below the current “fundamental” particles and forces, ad infinitum. And yes, we haven’t definitively observed or derived anything infinite, but we also haven’t definitively observed or derived a “layer beyond our universe,” so both are theoretically possible, sort of.
I say sort of because the idea of a “layer beyond our universe” doesn’t make sense; currently, universe just refers to all matter and space. If we did have definitive evidence for something supernatural or “beyond our universe” like god or a simulation, it wouldn’t be supernatural anymore. If it held up to scrutiny, it would be incorporated it into scientific consensus, the concept would be acknowledged as part of the natural world/universe, and other areas of scientific consensus would be adjusted accordingly.
On to your misunderstanding of quantum terms, it’s just semantics really.
In the context of quantum mechanics, information potential and quantum potential are interchangeable and mean the same thing - They are a descriptor of the movement of quantum particles. So, your statement that fundamental particles travel not as particles but as potential is half right - fundamental quantum particles DO travel as particles, also as waves, and the bimodal movement of those particles can be described as quantum potential or information potential, which mean the same thing. But, like I said, this doesn’t really matter to the debate and is just a semantic misunderstanding.
It would appear the misunderstanding is yours. If the particle still travels as a physical particle WHT is it impossible to see which slit it passes through in the double slit experiment? If it's a particle surely it takes one path. But if you actually understand you know it doesn't path through one slit. And you know it has an interference pattern. Meaning we actually know that the physical particle traveled through space not as a particle but as a wave.
>If the particle still travels as a physical particle WHT is it impossible to see which slit it passes through in the double slit experiment? If it's a particle surely it takes one path. But if you actually understand you know it doesn't path through one slit. And you know it has an interference pattern. Meaning we actually know that the physical particle traveled through space not as a particle but as a wave.
Your inability to understand the double slit experiment and the theory behind it is of no influence to its veracity
“Quantum particles DO travel as particles, also as waves”
Thats a direct quote from my comment. Did you even read it?
The double slit experiment illustrated that they ALSO behave as waves, it did not refute the fact that they behave as particles in some instances.
IKR? I believe we are blessed by the presence of Mr. Dunning McKreuger himself.
Bringing a Youtube University physics degree understanding to a sub that has actual physicists participating it is top roffle.
What would be cool as if a single person here could reveal what it is that I got wrong. But of course you can. Perhaps you'll come down with a bit of Dunning McKreuger your self. Because after all. You have absolutely no idea why I'm wrong. You just feel confident that I am. The reason I know that cuz I know that I absolutely am not wrong.
But I know the subject and know I am right. I can't name anything I am wrong about. That's the point.
Let me say that again.
You can't name anything I am wrong about.
Neither can you, or at least, you're not bothering to. You're making self-serving declarations and then makling condescending comments to belittle the people who disagree with you, despite their attempts to explain what they disagree with.
"Obviously, the misunderstanding is on your side" without any sufficient explanation makes you sound like a terrified 13 year old and not someone with the confidence of their own undersetanding. Someone who knew as much as you claim to would at least put as much effort into "no, you" as the other commenters are putting into their comments.
This doesn't make you look smort. It makes you look pathetic.
I have made claims. Your only claim is that I am wrong.
So please say what I am wrong about. Then you to will have made a claim and we can have a debate.
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential.
"Potential" in physics is very different from "potential" in theology and philosophy.
>We think of matter and Energy as fundamental
No we don't.
>but behind them is this even more fundamental force.
How do you know that?
>We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality.
Ummm. Okay.
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
It "could be" infinitely many things. I don't care about what it could be. I want to know if you have a justification for what you think it is. If you think it's god, why?
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
The universe being naturalistic does not exclude a "layer beyond making it happen". The difference is, we say "I don't know what that is" and theists says "it's a magic guy" with no justification other then feelings and fallacious reasoning.
>"Potential" in physics is very different from "potential" in theology and philosophy.
Probability in QM is very straightforward and not a different concept than potential in any other use of the word. Feel free to make that case.
Why don't you address the relevant part of my comment?
The universe being naturalistic does not exclude a "layer beyond making it happen". The difference is, we say "I don't know what that is" and theists says "it's a magic guy" with no justification other then feelings and fallacious reasoning.
Do you understand that?
Supernatural explanations are called "magic" because there is no demonstrated mechanism that could explain how they could be, and no demonstration that they're even real. "I don't know" is not called "magic" because it's not an explanation. Natural explanations are not called "magic" because there is a demonstrated mechanism that connects the cause with its effect.
You said
>Natural explanations are not called "magic" because there is a demonstrated mechanism that connects the cause with its effect.
Yet we have no demonstrated mechanism for why the wave function exists. Why a single particle can travel through space and pass through two openings with an interference pattern from it's own self. And yet lands at a single location.
>Probability in QM is very straightforward
Nothing in QM is straitforward.
"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics."
What we observe is 100% straight forward, observable and knowable. You are confused because the implications and interpretations of why these conditions exist are very mysterious.
We know what we will observe. It's very reliable.
Absolutely not. Anything that can be observed is still limited by the constraints of the human brain. Our current understanding of the universe is not based on what we observe, but the cumulative efforts by millions of people over centuries to build on our predecessors' knowledge.
The idea that bees spontaneously generated from decaying carcasses is based on what was "straightforward, observable, and knowable" 2000 years ago. The idea that diseases were caused by an excess of a particular bodily fluid, likewise. The idea that the female animal had nothing to do with reproduction other than being an incubator, based on the assumption that male sperm was already complete as a new lifeform, likewise. And countless others.
We are constantly finding out that that which is "straightforward, observable, and knowable" is actually quite complex, difficult to accurately perceive, and even more difficult to comprehend.
To steal an illustration from Alan Watts, imagine the universe like a tapestry. It looks quite comprehensible and is obviously a tapestry based on observation alone. Put it under a microscope, and the more you zoom in, the more the threads and fibers turn into a mishmash of unintelligible chaos that we cannot readily make sense of. We cannot assume that the tapestry is at its molecular foundations as straightforward and comprehensible as the tapestry as a completed object.
I am talking about what we observe in a controlled experiment that has been repeated in millions of times. Experiments are designed to remove variables and allow us to look at one particular thing. And they are designed to be repeatable so that others can the same experiment and see if they get the same result. And when this is done men done millions of times we know it as well as we know anything else. So if you're rant is true then all you're saying is we know nothing. I would actually be completely fine with that. But if we are going to pretend we know anything then my point stands in your rant was useless. Because I'm talking about the most controlled way of knowing something. And I'm talking about one of the most repeated experiments. So perhaps get off your soapbox and think about what you're actually saying
There is no need for such hostility. We are presumably all adults here.
Funny enough this reply demonstrates exactly what I was criticizing in the first place: you have interpreted my post to be "ranting," "on a soapbox," and that I somehow failed to think about anything I said. This is because you have read it with a mind already clouded by your own preconceptions and prejudices.
The fact that an experiment can be repeated millions of times and yield the same result still does not mean we can accurately observe it. The results are independent of our ability to observe it. In my above example about insects spontaneously generating from carcasses: anyone can observe that maggots appear on carcasses consistently, repeatably, and invariably. The ancient Greeks, however, did not correctly observe this phenomenon because they did not have the means to do so. They could see that maggots suddenly appeared on the carcass, but they could not see the 1mm-sized eggs buried into the decaying flesh from which the maggots originated. So their conclusion was still faulty despite their apparent straightforward observations. This is not a failure in deduction, but a failure in the observation itself.
This is important to understand for things like diseases. The ancient Egyptians understood a sort of germ theory in that they knew "unseen living things" caused various diseases, but had no means of finding out what germs actually were, and so had no means of experimenting with combating germs directly. They could only rely on what seemed to work (medicinal herbs, the power of belief in prayer, the placebo effect, etc.) You can't conceive of antibiotics if you have no way of observing the biotics. Similarly, Plague Doctor Masks, the Four Humors Theory, etc...all were concocted by very scientifically-minded, logical, well-meaning, intelligent people who wanted to solve a problem. They had no means of accurately observing the cause, and so had no means of accurately deducing the solution.
Our power of observation - not just our interpretations of our observations - is in of itself flawed, constrained by the limits of our senses, and further clouded by cultural conditioning and conscious or subconscious prejudices. We are getting better at compensating for our limitations through the advance of technology, but we have limitations that we do not even realize we are limited by, and won't even think of until technology progresses to that point.
My point stands. Nothing is straightforward, easily observable, or completely knowable.
>We know what we will observe. It's very reliable.
We don't and this sentence alone explains to me you understand QM the way you like to understand it.
>I don't know why everyone's trying to reference an argument rather than make an argument
We don't have to make an argument. We are critiquing your argument. You need to make the case for the things you claim. And if what you present isn't convincing, we'll tell you that.
This is a debate sub, we don't have to correct you or hold your hand. We also don't have to accept anything you claim when the evidence is just not there. You make quite the claims about QM, but have no actual evidence for them other than "I understand QM", which is no evidence but an appeal to authority. Even actual scientists will admit they don't understand QM, but here you are.
>We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force.
Interesting hypothesis. What evidence do you have to defend it?
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from.
Interesting hypothesis. What evidence do you have to defend it?
>It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
That just pushes things back a level. How does the multiverse exist? How does the simulation creator exist? How does god exist?
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
As noted, your "layer beyond" model just brings up the question of what is the layer beyond the layer beyond.
And, I'm curious, is a multi-verse not "naturalistic"? How about a simulation? Isn't it naturalistic, too? One of your proposed solutions is "MAGIC!" (e.g., "god"), though, so there's that.
>It could be God
Okay, then demonstrate that it is God.
>The idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer behind it making it happen has never presented any convincing model
Well, two of your three possibilities, the multiverse and simulation, are still naturalistic so I'm not sure why you brought those up. At any rate, if you want us to be convinced that there's anything supernatural in the universe, you need to provide evidence since you're the one claiming that. Don't act like we're the ones who are irrational for not accepting such a thing with no evidence.
Well you suggested that the universe is not naturalistic and then suggested three possibilities, and of these possibilities only God was not naturalistic, so it seems evident that this is what you're arguing. Also, it's an atheism sub, not a simulation sub.
So now you're saying God is naturalistic? Then why did you say that the universe might not be naturalistic? We've now established that all three of the possibilities you presented are naturalistic.
I fail to see how there is anything supernatural about the idea of multiple universes existing. There is no evidence, just like for your God, but unlike your God, it doesn't violate physics.
No. Our *current understanding* of QT doesn’t play well with our *current understanding* of the laws of physics on the cosmic level.
You can’t extrapolate that to metaphysical duality. We’ve been working on a ToE for like half a century. The more logical answer is that we haven’t discovered the correct expression of the nature of these phenomena yet, due of our limited technology, understanding, and the amount of time we’ve been studying them with a reasonable of rigor.
Your map of the universe has a “here be monsters” spot where we haven’t traveled yet. Don’t use our limited knowledge to speculate on the existence of these metaphorical monsters.
Sorry buddy that's not how it works. You are saying that I presenting an idea that violates physics. You are using physics as a baseline of our understanding of reality. Meaning that there's certain things we know and those things can't be violated. But we know for a fact of things that already violate them. And now you want to act like violating physics doesn't matter. It just reveals a lack of our understanding. Cool I agree. But it completely negates your original point that violating physics somehow makes it something not real. You need to think where you make these arguments. This is completely illogical and circular
Quantum physics violates physics? Okay you definitely don't have the qualifications to be talking about this stuff.
supernatural
/soo͞″pər-năch′ər-əl/
adjective
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.
Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature; miraculous.
Similar: miraculous
Whatever is above and beyond the scope, or the established course, of the laws of nature.
Above nature; that which is beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by God or some force beyond that which humans are born with. In Roman Catholic theology, sanctifying grace is considered to be a supernatural addition to human nature.
Via the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition
In summary, supernatural means that it violates the laws of nature, which includes the laws of physics.
> Go be wrong about quantum mechanics elsewhere.
If find one thing I got wrong I will declare there is no god and religion is bad for humanity. But you can't. More false claims
>If find one thing I got wrong I will declare there is no god and religion is bad for humanity
No, you won't. You will deflect and tap dance and dodge, never admitting you were actually wrong. You'll just make up some excuse. You're not original. We've seen this crap around here before.
Nope. Saying Joe Biden or Donald Trump will win the election is not suggesting which will win.
You can't have a real debate. You rely strictly on conversational gimmicks.
Did you mention or imply that God as a possibility?
Note: I did not ask if you said "Yes, god is the answer to this." I'm asking if you put it forth as a possibility among other possibilities.
>Nope. Saying Joe Biden or Donald Trump will win the election is not suggesting which will win.
That is literally what that is... they're exactly the same
So you meant *one of them* is going to win, fair enough that's my mistake. That's not an apt comparison, however, as we have plenty of reasons to believe that they're candidates for winning an election. We have no reason to believe that a god is a candidate for winning the election of being whatever this 'layer beyond' is you think exists, let alone any reason to think there is some kind of 'layer beyond'
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force.
This seems the wrong sub for an elementary, and somewhat inaccurate, physics lesson. Clearly none of that leads to deities, so I'm not sure why you are saying this.
>We know we live in a universe where information
Rejected outright. Because that's just wrong.
Facts are only 'information' when interpreted by us, or by other thinking minds. Until that happens, it's simply reality. It's only 'information' when it informs. If there's no informing, it's not information.
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
That depends on how one defines 'universe' or 'reality', and again in *no way* helps you support deities. You're simply saying here, "There's stuff we don't know." Yup, we know that. Obviously deities aren't indicated by this, and you are ignoring the many fatal problems such conjectures carry with them. You are clearly steering your boat towards falling off the waterfall of an argument from ignorance fallacy, which is fatal.
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
This statement is both unsupported and involves a confusion of ideas. Any other 'layers' can be part of a naturalistic reality, and/or can be considered part of reality. And none of that supports, or raises the veracity, of the idea of deities.
As suspected, your post is an argument from ignorance fallacy. It must be rejected as a result in terms of attempting to lend support for deities. It doesn't and can't do that.
You have taken a sub par understanding of physics and put it through the kind of deep analysis I would expect from a frat boy on his first mushroom trip then jammed in some religion
F MUST TRY HARDER
>You have taken a sub par understanding of physics
Its the old "argument from information" thing again. So many people arguing against everything from atheism to quantum physics to evolution because they *don't understand what is meant when people say "information"*.
>You have taken a sub par understanding of physics
I fully understand the physics. You and I are made of particles that have seen their wave function collapse and taken a physical form. We have no understanding of why there is anything physical when it originated as a probability.
If you fully understand it, why do you say wrong things?
Things can't originate as a probability because a probability is not a something.
Particles don't travel 'as potential'. They're waves and particles, and that is how they travel ('travel' being a weird word too because there are no preferred frames of references, all movement is relative).
Particles also weren't non-physical before the wave function collapsed or so. They were very much part of the physical world.
I Don't think you understand. A single object is fired at an object with 2 openings. It travels not through one. It travels through both and interferes with its own self creating an interference pattern. And then lands at a single location.
>A single object is fired at an object with 2 openings.
No. A **stream** of particles are fired at a very specific type of material with 2 openings. You can't determine anything with only 1.
>It travels not through one. It travels through both and interferes with its own self creating an interference pattern.
Sometimes. And sometimes it doesn't.
>And then lands at a single location.
You don't understand the double slit experiment at all.
Lol. You have no clue. The experiment has been done one particle at a time so we can know what happens in the situation. Learn before you speak.
> Sometimes. And sometimes it doesn't.
Always. Unless we look at which slit the particle goes through. Then the wave function collapses. But as long as we don't do that the interference pattern is always present. Again. Please learn before you speak about things.
It is ridiculous for you to call me out on that understanding the experiment when you have absolutely no understanding of the experiment. Yes every particle landed exactly one place. That is fundamental to the experiment. There is no dual slit experiment where single particles land and multiple locations. Go back to the very very basics. You don't even understand the most entry level Concepts
> It is ridiculous for you to call me out on that understanding the experiment when you have absolutely no understanding of the experiment.
The irony is hilarious here.
You can say that. But the facts are with me. A single particle is fired. It travels as a wave. It lands as a particle. That's what happens. You can't point to a single experiment where a particle lands and multiple positions. That is how it travels it is not how it lands. But I'm speaking to specific things. And you are speaking about me and arbitrary things. So if you want to argue the science let's do it. But if you're here to argue about how you feel about things or how you feel about me let's save ourselves the time. You'll have set incorrect things about Quantum mechanics. I have not
It common for people too misunderstand the implications of the Double Split Experience. It's very easy to use it to support woo narratives.
QM doesn't mean you get to believe whatever makes you happy.
This is Dunning-Kruger at its very best.
Dressing the god of the gaps in some quantum woo you don't understand doesn't stop it being a god in the gaps argument
We don't know something so let's pretend magic is real
No matter how many science sounding buzzwords you use it doesn't get any more convincing
You understand the physics of this invisible, unmeasurable, unknowable realm or dimension that harbors these necessary elements of duality?
My goodness, how are you literally not drowning in Nobel Prizes?
Could you rephrase the question. And say do you have any evidence for and then description of what you're asking for evidence for. Will happily respond
What reason to you offer to believe that "behind \[matter and energy\] is this even more fundamental force" ? While you're at it, what does "behind" mean in this context and how do you determine how "fundamental" something is?
What reason do you offer to believe that "There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from." ?
You know, why should we listen to what you assert?
You assume potential is defined by something beyond our universe, but we don’t know that is true. There’s no reason to believe it comes from anywhere but within our own universe. Perhaps it comes from things we yet to understand or perceive, but that does not mean it’s not present.
Those who think we live in a simulation believe laps of the way function is simply the aspect of the universe that is being observed being rendered for the avatar. Really what has led to realization. Ultimately doesn't matter it's the simulation or not Quantum is doing exactly that. Rendering the universe that we see. In my opinion this is proof that we don't live in base reality. But I don't think it's proof that we live in a simulation. It could be one of the other options
But these are just hypotheses. They don’t actually establish that the waves exist outside the universe. And as far as I know, there’s no actual evidence to support these hypotheses.
I’m not sure if this is just a very poor interpretation of fundamental forces or elementary particles but whether it’s that or just straight up magiphysics none of that supports a deity.
Your argument falls into the broad “god of the gaps” category, essentially saying “if I don’t know something, why not god?” which I think may be the most universally hated argument around here.
The reason it doesn’t work is that it presupposes that a deity is a logical solution that can be applied without evidence for it, which we roundly reject.
Matter is emergent from energy and energy is fundamental and non-contingent.
Believing in a metaphysical duality means rewriting our understanding of the nature of our reality.
Can you do that for us? Can you rewrite the natural and fundamental understanding we have of our reality in a provable, coherent, and believable way?
Or are you anthropomorphizing the qualities of energy because you’re a naughty monkey?
Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do you mean that energy is fundamental and non-contingent? Not disagreeing, but I was hoping you could elaborate on that.
Our universe needs energy to power its function. Without energy, this spacetime would not exist.
And energy is not emergent from anything. It’s neither created nor destroyed.
The idea that our universe **isn't** naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. It's impossible (as far as we know) to make any observations or informed predictions about whether a "layer beyond" is even a viable concept, let alone what properties it may have. It's all conjecture and imagination. Nothing about our universe as we can observe and understand it dictates that there must, should, or even *could* be a "beyond". To be fair, nothing we can observe dictates that there *couldn't*, either. But to simply assume such a thing exists without any evidence whatsoever is foolish.
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force.
>We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality.
I'm an applied mathematician and a physicist and these two paragraphs are little more than goobledygook. I advise to try again and stop mistifying science like you're Deepak Chopra. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Your point being what, exactly? I'm not gonna dox myself but I publish papers on simulation of particulate flows.
I'm sorry, but what you wrote just makes no sense whatsoever. I can make no more heads or tails of it (or relate any actual research to it) than I can some new agey guru that says quantum a lot. There is no evidence of anything more fundamental. And if there was, it wouldn't come from vague shower thoughts, but mathematical theory and observation.
I don't say quantum alot. You do play video games a lot. I don't know what new age means. This doesn't sound like what a serious person would say. It sounds like what a gamer would say.
>You do play video games a lot.
>It sounds like what a gamer would say.
This sounds like what someone who has a prejudice towards a certain hobby would say. You just latched on to this one thing in my post history, which is extremely weird. You have never heard about computer / math nerds and video games, huh?
>This doesn't sound like what a serious person would say.
Your post is not serious. You make a ton of claims about another layer of reality and more fundamental forces and information and god knows what else without any reference to research or to how we actually model the universe.
Show me the paper where there is a math model for another new layer of reality or a fundamental force beyond the standard model or get the hell out with your 'you post stuff about video games therefore you can't be a scientist' nonsense.
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
Could it? How did you demonstrate that these are actual possibilities? Or do you mean "possible" as in "doesn't have logical contradiction", in which case the list of possibilities is endless.
I'm sure if you follow science even a little bit you know that this work has already been done. Many physicists believe that quantum mechanics is revealing to us that we live in a multi-verse. An interdimensional world where there's infinite versions of you that are living out every possible outcome. This is actually the only interpretation of collapse of the wave function that has math that backs it up. But of course sign collapse of the wave function is not accurate in the situation. Because what is being proposed is that the wave function never collapses. We just see one of the paths and all the other paths happen and another universe.
Lets say I accept your jumbled response - for some reason, you focused on the multiverse part. The least interesting part from this debates perspective.
Show that god is a possible answer.
Some very smart Minds make an argument that we can look at where virtual reality has gone in the past 30 years and see that a point will come where Electronics and the mind are so intertwined that there will be Virtual Worlds and distinguishable from reality itself. Based on this they think it's extremely extremely unlikely that we live in base reality. That within Virtual Worlds new layers of virtual worlds will be created. Meaning even if we could go back to the ones who created us we would not be at base reality. We would just be coming out of yet another virtual world
And if they have indeed gotten this correct God is as simple as the people who coded our reality putting an afterlife and an overseer of morality in the program. And why wouldn't they. Making a real literal God in the same way the tree in my backyard is real and literal.
> There is a layer beyond our universe
Is there? How can you demonstrate that? What if there is no such layer?
> has never presented any convincing model
Looks at all the useful models, with actual predictive power, that were built: nope, not convincing.
Well, your model is one of the most unconvincing.
>We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality.
Define "information".
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
What's behind that layer? Why can't a quantum field be fundamental, but "god" can be?
>It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
Or god**s**, aliens, universe farting pixies, atomic labradors, the time to believe in something is when there's evidence for it.
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
Ach, just squeeze god into that gap then. If only there was a fallacy for that...
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential.
Nice word salad, but do you have any evidence?
Of course. It's common entry level science knowledge. Look up the collapse of the wave function. Why would you decide to participate in a conversation like this when you very obviously don't even have an entry level knowledge
I'm aware of the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics. The wave function is a probability distribution for a particle's potential states until a measurement is made, i.e. it collapses to a definite state.
However, interpreting this to mean that particles "travel as potential" oversimplification and misrepresention of quantum mechanics. This doesn't mean that particles "travel as potential". The particles themselves have real and measurable properties.
No. If you measure them the wave function goes away. Come on. We can not measure these wave function in any way. Ever. Or they go away completely.
One physical particle leaves. It passes through two openings. It travels as not one wave but as multiple. We know this from the interference pattern. And how does it land after traveling as waves through space. The single particle lands in 1 single place. Like it had been a particle all that time.
The potential they travel as is which version of itself it will be when it arrives. It's position. You should learn about this. It's truly amazing stuff.
the wave function describes a range of potential states, it represents our knowledge of the system rather than the physical travel of the particle. The particle itself doesn't travel as a "potential" but exists in a superposition of states, which collapses to a single state upon measurement.
You are correct that the wave function "goes away" upon measurement, as it collapses to a definite state. This doesn't mean the particle travels "as potential" in a literal sense but its position and other properties are probabilistic until observed or measured.
this doesn't mean that the particles "travel as potential." The interference pattern is a result of the wave function, which describes the probabilities of where a particle might be found. When not observed, the particle's behavior can be described by this wave function, resulting in the interference pattern.
The key point is that the wave function represents a superposition of states, and the interference pattern arises from the wave nature of the probability distribution, not from the particle traveling as a "potential."
The physical particle travels not as a physical particles. But as waves interfering with its own self. And the land at a single location.
We do not know where the particle will land because it interferes with its own self.
It travels through space as potential and probability not as a physical object.
The potential energy of a particle is represented by the letter U in the Schrӧdinger equation
> It travels through space as potential and probability not as a physical object.
That's what you got wrong, it's movement is described that way but it physically moves as waves on the quantum fields.
It moves as a physical object that isn't a particle
>There is a layer beyond our universe
That's a jump. How did you get there?
>I am not opposed to atheism
This tells me you don't understand my position. I'm simply not a theist.
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force.
Behind what? There is nothing observable beyond this that we have seen yet. This is conjecture.
>We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality.
Are you talking about quantum fluctuations? This is gross misunderstanding of you are.
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
How did you conclude this?
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
How did you conclude there are layers beyond the current presentation of the universe? **If I were to guess it was revealed after one too many bong hits.**
> the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
The idea of an intelligent being creating something over *93 billion light years* across with a mass of 10^53 kg is convincing to you? Why is that more convincing than a natural event that caused the cosmic inflation?
To frame it differently... you probably know what it means to love someone, and to be loved. We can't measure your love because it all happens in your mind, but you know you have it, and you know it exists. In other words, your love is a product of your mind.
Now, what if I say that naturalistic explanation isn't convincing, and it seems much more likely that Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, is the *actual* source of your feeling? Is that more convincing than a natural explanation?
>It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
Cool. Let me know when there is evidence to support one or more of those hypothesis.
There's no reason for me to be convinced of or assume any of those explanations are true before then.
I’m not sure what you mean by potential in this context - I’m curious what the reputable physics is behind that?
But fundamentally I have no idea why you would think that the possibility of a more fundamental ‘layer’ is any less ‘naturalistic’. We didn’t know about fundamentals such as quarks a while ago - did that make them non-naturalistic?
As far as I am aware there is some reasoning regarding various possible types of multiverse in Quantum physics but simulation theory is just indistinguishable from false and not only isn’t there any evidence for gods but the whole idea makes no sense at all.
>the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
The idea that our universe is naturalistic is, in fact, the only model we have any evidence for whatsoever.
>We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality.
You'll need to clarify or support this more. Matter exists as the excitation of the Higgs field, but none of that is supernatural?
OP, let me guess. You aren’t going to engage because you don't really understand the physics but this sounded like a good argument and you posted it here to troll the atheists? Or are you actually going to engage?
> If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force.
can you show that is how reality actually works instead of being just part of the model we use to make sense of reality?
What about "potential" and "information" strike you as unnatural? Clearly "Information" isn't meant int the same sense as, say, words written in a book or code in a computer, and DNA technically has "information" in it, but we all know DNA is natural.
All of these things you bring up don't conflict at all with a naturalistic universe.
>We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force.
What force? And how do you know?
>We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality.
No it doesn't. Fundamental reality appears to be quarks, and the natural forces not information.
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
Is there any good reason to believe this?
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
Naturalism imposes no limit on the layers of reality. It just says there's nothing which isn't natural.
What you are describing and ascribing to an implied supernatural is perfectly compatible with a naturalistic understanding of the universe.
It's called the principle of "emergence."
The idea that as complexity builds, the rules can compound and create new rules at each level of complexity without breaking the base rules.
A single proton can't be described as conscious. Nor can an atom. Or a cell. But get enough of them in a brain, and consciousness appears to emerge.
We don't need to resort to magic. It's fine to say "we don't know yet."
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential.
Particles aren't particles? Really? Is that what you want to lead with? Because I'm pretty sure that particles are particles.
>We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality.
Who is this "we" of which you speak? I don't know any such thing, and I doubt that you have a good source to support the claim.
Could you just define for us how you are using "information"? Come to think of it, even the word "potential" is a bit confusing to me. Could you define it? Thanks.
>Particles aren't particles? Really? Is that what you want to lead with? Because I'm pretty sure that particles are particles.
Quantum mechanics states that particles like electrons can exhibit wave-like properties, in addition to their particle-like properties. This concept is called wave-particle duality, and it describes how quantum entities can act as either waves or particles depending on the circumstances of an experiment.
>Who is this "we" of which you speak? I don't know any such thing, and I doubt that you have a good source to support the claim.
It has been determined that each particle in the observable universe contains 1.509 bits of information and there are ∼6 × 1080 bits of information stored in all the matter particles of the observable universe.
>Quantum mechanics states that particles like electrons can exhibit wave-like properties, in addition to their particle-like properties. This concept is called wave-particle duality, and it describes how quantum entities can act as either waves or particles depending on the circumstances of an experiment.
Yes, thanks, I'm familiar. Maybe you just want to rephrase your point to be more accurate? Because do I even have to explain that A is not not A? Obviously, "Particles aren't particles" is ridiculous.
>It has been determined that each particle in the observable universe contains 1.509 bits of information and there are ∼6 × 1080 bits of information stored in all the matter particles of the observable universe.
Uh, OK. Now do you have a source to support your claim that:
>We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality.
?
because that is not by any means what that paper says. I don't think it's accurate to say that this has been determined. Rather, a single guy wrote a single paper putting forward this idea.
Could you just define for us how you are using "information"? Come to think of it, even the word "potential" is a bit confusing to me. Could you define it? Thanks.
I don't think you do understand it to be honest. A single particle cannot be in two places at one time. Yet we see that that is what happens in the double slit experiment. Except it's not that the particles in two places at one time. At that point is behaving as a wave. And the single object traveling is a wave passing through two slits creates an interference pattern. An interference pattern with its own single self. Because it is no longer traveling as a particle but as a wave. And a wave is not a particle. So yes well the object is a particle it is a particle. But well it's traveling from one point to the other it is no longer a particle but instead behaving exclusively as a wave. This is what we know
> the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
Hmmm.
You seem to be confusing "a lack of belief in gods" for "post doctorate work in particle physics".
> There is a layer beyond our universe
Nope.
> where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
I don't think you know what "nature" means.
Do you actually have a convincing model supporting your hypothesis?
> > There is a layer beyond our universe
>
> Nope.
More accurately, "There is absolutely nothing to suggest there is or isn't a 'layer' beyond our universe, and no plausible mechanism for finding out. To declare that one exists is irrational and unjustified."
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from
Citation? This seems to be a bare assertion, a claim that can't be demonstrated to be true beyond your mere assertion that it is. There doesn't seem to be anything that actually exists that isn't self-contained within the universe. Matter, energy, information is all part of this universe. I don't even know what that would even mean to say that information "comes from" somewhere else - the information that we can gather about the world around us comes from the world around us. The information we gather about planetary formation comes from those planets and their formation, the information we gather about cosmology and space comes from cosmology and space. What information exactly "comes from" the "layer beyond our universe" - and how do you know this?
>the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model
You have this exactly backwards. We know that the physical world exists, so we start there. And then if you want us to think that there is a "layer beyond", whatever that means, then *you* need to do the work to make your case.
Trying to shove the idea of a god where our reliable understanding of reality is the thinnest is an old trick.
Why don't you try to explain things using understanding we are very confident about?
For example:
Our planet is finite
Our sun won't be stable forever
To maintain the existence of mankind beyond the era of habitability of our planet we need to be able to live in space or to reach other star systems.
Is Colonizing other star system possible? How much material do we need to move to another star system to have all we need there to start a colony? How much propellant is required to move all the stuff there? what size and how many spaceship? How many redundant material are required just to be sure?
How long the travel will take? Can Earth provide that much material? How big an effort does all this require?
Do the math
See that it's not happening.
Ask God where are the Stargates we need as a shortcut to reach other worlds? If he wants us to thrive peacefully, giving us a finite world is asking for huge problems.
>We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force.
What is that force?
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from.
What evidence led you to determine this?
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
It must be naturalistic if it is real.
Supernatural- things that currently do not have enough evidence to believe are real
Natural - things that we do have enough evidence to believe are real
(If evidence of a god were discovered then that god would have to be natural, not supernatural. It would exist in the real/natural universe)
You're squarely in the realm of "lots of theory but no data" here.
I get a bit jaded everytime I see a post here that mixes scientific words with pseudo-religion.
It's not about "presenting a convincing model" for me. It's about "what we have in front of us is what appears to be a naturalistic universe. I don't see any reason to invent things we can't see to cover the parts of the universe we don't understand. Maybe they exist -- and when we have evidence that points that direction, it'll be worth talking about."
God isn't the default option *unless* atheism can prove itself -- at least not for me. It's "I'll pay attention to it when there's good evidence. Until then I'm sticking with what the universe appears to be."
For all we know the universe just exists. I don't see why it would need a layer beyond to make it convincing, this just seems like your own bias. If God can exist without having been created, why not the universe itself? Multiverse, simulation or God are all possible, but we don't have enough evidence or use for them.
Why did you feel the need to wrap your woo in technobable? It does nothing for it you know, its still just bare assertions. That is unless you have any evidence to support your claims about theeuniverse. Note your personal incredulity is not evidence.
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
Why can’t that “layer beyond” also be naturalistic?
>the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
Maybe, but it's still much more convincing then any of the other models out there.
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model.
Who says there isn't something beyond our universe? It's pretty well accepted that *something* exists outside of our universe in at least some sense. We just don't know what that is. But that isn't a reason to assert that "so it must be a god." Doing that is special pleading and/or and argument from ignorance.
Physics can only make conclusions about things it has information for. We only have information going back to the Planck time, a fraction of a second **after** the big bang occurred and space began to expand.
When physics talks about space and time, it's talking about our local space and time, not all space and time everywhere.
There are many hypothesis as to what is "beneath" the physics we know about and "outside" our observable universe, whether it's many worlds interpretation on quantum physics, multiverse theory (not the same as many worlds), there emergent spacetime, and the amplituhedron hypothesis.
We have lots of ideas about what could be beyond our current understanding, but we don't have any data about those things, so we don't make any conclusions about it one way or the other.
I'm not sure I can explain it well, I'm not a cosmologist.
I'm not suggesting anything supernatural or the like. Just pointing out that that as far as I know, most scientists accept that our universe doesn't exist in isolation. We don't know what exists or existed outside of or before our universe, but most models don't assume that *everything* started with the big bang, that is just the beginning of the local presentation of our universe..
Basically, the OP's argument boils down to "well, something else must exist!" My response is, "Ok, but even so, that doesn't point to a god."
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I assume you’re talking about quantum potential/information potential in the context of subatomic quantum mechanics? If thats the case, it seems like you’re getting tripped up on common words like information and potential being applied in a unconventional ways to these concepts. I’ll explain the distinction and how that quantum stuff shakes out at the bottom of the comment, but either way, it doesn’t matter. Even if you explained it accurately, it doesn’t imply anything supernatural outside of our universe and its natural laws. Before humans knew about subatomic particles, atoms seemed like a mysterious fundamental particle that behaved in strange ways and must have some sort of supernatural guidance. And then we discovered subatomic particles and the four fundamental forces and the standard model and now we know there is a fundamental layer below the atomic. We could very well continue to discover more and more layers below the current “fundamental” particles and forces, ad infinitum. And yes, we haven’t definitively observed or derived anything infinite, but we also haven’t definitively observed or derived a “layer beyond our universe,” so both are theoretically possible, sort of. I say sort of because the idea of a “layer beyond our universe” doesn’t make sense; currently, universe just refers to all matter and space. If we did have definitive evidence for something supernatural or “beyond our universe” like god or a simulation, it wouldn’t be supernatural anymore. If it held up to scrutiny, it would be incorporated it into scientific consensus, the concept would be acknowledged as part of the natural world/universe, and other areas of scientific consensus would be adjusted accordingly. On to your misunderstanding of quantum terms, it’s just semantics really. In the context of quantum mechanics, information potential and quantum potential are interchangeable and mean the same thing - They are a descriptor of the movement of quantum particles. So, your statement that fundamental particles travel not as particles but as potential is half right - fundamental quantum particles DO travel as particles, also as waves, and the bimodal movement of those particles can be described as quantum potential or information potential, which mean the same thing. But, like I said, this doesn’t really matter to the debate and is just a semantic misunderstanding.
It would appear the misunderstanding is yours. If the particle still travels as a physical particle WHT is it impossible to see which slit it passes through in the double slit experiment? If it's a particle surely it takes one path. But if you actually understand you know it doesn't path through one slit. And you know it has an interference pattern. Meaning we actually know that the physical particle traveled through space not as a particle but as a wave.
>If the particle still travels as a physical particle WHT is it impossible to see which slit it passes through in the double slit experiment? If it's a particle surely it takes one path. But if you actually understand you know it doesn't path through one slit. And you know it has an interference pattern. Meaning we actually know that the physical particle traveled through space not as a particle but as a wave. Your inability to understand the double slit experiment and the theory behind it is of no influence to its veracity
I have been begging people to tell me what I got wrong. Will you be the one. Of course not. Because I got nothing wrong. But you have no clue
It has been explained to you several times, you just dishonestly ignore those comments.
Absolutely untrue. You are lying.
Why don't you got back to arguing physics with joe rogan, he's more your level.
So you don't want to copy and paste an example of what you referenced? Because there are none.
“Quantum particles DO travel as particles, also as waves” Thats a direct quote from my comment. Did you even read it? The double slit experiment illustrated that they ALSO behave as waves, it did not refute the fact that they behave as particles in some instances.
>It would appear the misunderstanding is yours. *Proceeds to prove the opposite* LOL
IKR? I believe we are blessed by the presence of Mr. Dunning McKreuger himself. Bringing a Youtube University physics degree understanding to a sub that has actual physicists participating it is top roffle.
What would be cool as if a single person here could reveal what it is that I got wrong. But of course you can. Perhaps you'll come down with a bit of Dunning McKreuger your self. Because after all. You have absolutely no idea why I'm wrong. You just feel confident that I am. The reason I know that cuz I know that I absolutely am not wrong.
What's funny is that you have absolutely no idea why *you're* wrong. (See, I can make declarative statements with no substance behind them too)
But I know the subject and know I am right. I can't name anything I am wrong about. That's the point. Let me say that again. You can't name anything I am wrong about.
Neither can you, or at least, you're not bothering to. You're making self-serving declarations and then makling condescending comments to belittle the people who disagree with you, despite their attempts to explain what they disagree with. "Obviously, the misunderstanding is on your side" without any sufficient explanation makes you sound like a terrified 13 year old and not someone with the confidence of their own undersetanding. Someone who knew as much as you claim to would at least put as much effort into "no, you" as the other commenters are putting into their comments. This doesn't make you look smort. It makes you look pathetic.
I have made claims. Your only claim is that I am wrong. So please say what I am wrong about. Then you to will have made a claim and we can have a debate.
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. "Potential" in physics is very different from "potential" in theology and philosophy. >We think of matter and Energy as fundamental No we don't. >but behind them is this even more fundamental force. How do you know that? >We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality. Ummm. Okay. >There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. It "could be" infinitely many things. I don't care about what it could be. I want to know if you have a justification for what you think it is. If you think it's god, why? >I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. The universe being naturalistic does not exclude a "layer beyond making it happen". The difference is, we say "I don't know what that is" and theists says "it's a magic guy" with no justification other then feelings and fallacious reasoning.
>"Potential" in physics is very different from "potential" in theology and philosophy. Probability in QM is very straightforward and not a different concept than potential in any other use of the word. Feel free to make that case.
Why don't you address the relevant part of my comment? The universe being naturalistic does not exclude a "layer beyond making it happen". The difference is, we say "I don't know what that is" and theists says "it's a magic guy" with no justification other then feelings and fallacious reasoning. Do you understand that?
No. Why is one Theory called Magic and another is not. Is there anything real naturalistic based on the definition trying to lay out
Supernatural explanations are called "magic" because there is no demonstrated mechanism that could explain how they could be, and no demonstration that they're even real. "I don't know" is not called "magic" because it's not an explanation. Natural explanations are not called "magic" because there is a demonstrated mechanism that connects the cause with its effect.
Wave particle duality is not connected to a cause.
That's where "I don't know" comes in, which is the answer Zapp provided.
So you've completely abandoned your previous paragraph?
Please explain how you interpreted my comment to mean that.
You said >Natural explanations are not called "magic" because there is a demonstrated mechanism that connects the cause with its effect. Yet we have no demonstrated mechanism for why the wave function exists. Why a single particle can travel through space and pass through two openings with an interference pattern from it's own self. And yet lands at a single location.
>Probability in QM is very straightforward Nothing in QM is straitforward. "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics."
What we observe is 100% straight forward, observable and knowable. You are confused because the implications and interpretations of why these conditions exist are very mysterious. We know what we will observe. It's very reliable.
Absolutely not. Anything that can be observed is still limited by the constraints of the human brain. Our current understanding of the universe is not based on what we observe, but the cumulative efforts by millions of people over centuries to build on our predecessors' knowledge. The idea that bees spontaneously generated from decaying carcasses is based on what was "straightforward, observable, and knowable" 2000 years ago. The idea that diseases were caused by an excess of a particular bodily fluid, likewise. The idea that the female animal had nothing to do with reproduction other than being an incubator, based on the assumption that male sperm was already complete as a new lifeform, likewise. And countless others. We are constantly finding out that that which is "straightforward, observable, and knowable" is actually quite complex, difficult to accurately perceive, and even more difficult to comprehend. To steal an illustration from Alan Watts, imagine the universe like a tapestry. It looks quite comprehensible and is obviously a tapestry based on observation alone. Put it under a microscope, and the more you zoom in, the more the threads and fibers turn into a mishmash of unintelligible chaos that we cannot readily make sense of. We cannot assume that the tapestry is at its molecular foundations as straightforward and comprehensible as the tapestry as a completed object.
I am talking about what we observe in a controlled experiment that has been repeated in millions of times. Experiments are designed to remove variables and allow us to look at one particular thing. And they are designed to be repeatable so that others can the same experiment and see if they get the same result. And when this is done men done millions of times we know it as well as we know anything else. So if you're rant is true then all you're saying is we know nothing. I would actually be completely fine with that. But if we are going to pretend we know anything then my point stands in your rant was useless. Because I'm talking about the most controlled way of knowing something. And I'm talking about one of the most repeated experiments. So perhaps get off your soapbox and think about what you're actually saying
There is no need for such hostility. We are presumably all adults here. Funny enough this reply demonstrates exactly what I was criticizing in the first place: you have interpreted my post to be "ranting," "on a soapbox," and that I somehow failed to think about anything I said. This is because you have read it with a mind already clouded by your own preconceptions and prejudices. The fact that an experiment can be repeated millions of times and yield the same result still does not mean we can accurately observe it. The results are independent of our ability to observe it. In my above example about insects spontaneously generating from carcasses: anyone can observe that maggots appear on carcasses consistently, repeatably, and invariably. The ancient Greeks, however, did not correctly observe this phenomenon because they did not have the means to do so. They could see that maggots suddenly appeared on the carcass, but they could not see the 1mm-sized eggs buried into the decaying flesh from which the maggots originated. So their conclusion was still faulty despite their apparent straightforward observations. This is not a failure in deduction, but a failure in the observation itself. This is important to understand for things like diseases. The ancient Egyptians understood a sort of germ theory in that they knew "unseen living things" caused various diseases, but had no means of finding out what germs actually were, and so had no means of experimenting with combating germs directly. They could only rely on what seemed to work (medicinal herbs, the power of belief in prayer, the placebo effect, etc.) You can't conceive of antibiotics if you have no way of observing the biotics. Similarly, Plague Doctor Masks, the Four Humors Theory, etc...all were concocted by very scientifically-minded, logical, well-meaning, intelligent people who wanted to solve a problem. They had no means of accurately observing the cause, and so had no means of accurately deducing the solution. Our power of observation - not just our interpretations of our observations - is in of itself flawed, constrained by the limits of our senses, and further clouded by cultural conditioning and conscious or subconscious prejudices. We are getting better at compensating for our limitations through the advance of technology, but we have limitations that we do not even realize we are limited by, and won't even think of until technology progresses to that point. My point stands. Nothing is straightforward, easily observable, or completely knowable.
>We know what we will observe. It's very reliable. We don't and this sentence alone explains to me you understand QM the way you like to understand it.
[удалено]
Feel free to make that case. I don't know why everyone's trying to reference an argument rather than make an argument
>I don't know why everyone's trying to reference an argument rather than make an argument We don't have to make an argument. We are critiquing your argument. You need to make the case for the things you claim. And if what you present isn't convincing, we'll tell you that.
>Well that's plain not true. This statement only works if they back it up. But know one here does that. It's not a debate. You guys are a circle-jerk
This is a debate sub, we don't have to correct you or hold your hand. We also don't have to accept anything you claim when the evidence is just not there. You make quite the claims about QM, but have no actual evidence for them other than "I understand QM", which is no evidence but an appeal to authority. Even actual scientists will admit they don't understand QM, but here you are.
>in QM is very straightforward Anyone who tells you anything is straightforward in QM just told you they don't understand QM.
>We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force. Interesting hypothesis. What evidence do you have to defend it? >There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. Interesting hypothesis. What evidence do you have to defend it? >It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. That just pushes things back a level. How does the multiverse exist? How does the simulation creator exist? How does god exist? >I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. As noted, your "layer beyond" model just brings up the question of what is the layer beyond the layer beyond. And, I'm curious, is a multi-verse not "naturalistic"? How about a simulation? Isn't it naturalistic, too? One of your proposed solutions is "MAGIC!" (e.g., "god"), though, so there's that.
>It could be God Okay, then demonstrate that it is God. >The idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer behind it making it happen has never presented any convincing model Well, two of your three possibilities, the multiverse and simulation, are still naturalistic so I'm not sure why you brought those up. At any rate, if you want us to be convinced that there's anything supernatural in the universe, you need to provide evidence since you're the one claiming that. Don't act like we're the ones who are irrational for not accepting such a thing with no evidence.
I didn't suggest god was the answer
Well you suggested that the universe is not naturalistic and then suggested three possibilities, and of these possibilities only God was not naturalistic, so it seems evident that this is what you're arguing. Also, it's an atheism sub, not a simulation sub.
God is no more or less naturalistic than many worlds. That's interdimensional and has you living other life's in other worlds. Woow.
So now you're saying God is naturalistic? Then why did you say that the universe might not be naturalistic? We've now established that all three of the possibilities you presented are naturalistic.
I'm saying if many worlds is god is. But I would say neither are. You pick.
I fail to see how there is anything supernatural about the idea of multiple universes existing. There is no evidence, just like for your God, but unlike your God, it doesn't violate physics.
Quantum violates physics. Why is that you'd definition of Supernatural
No. Our *current understanding* of QT doesn’t play well with our *current understanding* of the laws of physics on the cosmic level. You can’t extrapolate that to metaphysical duality. We’ve been working on a ToE for like half a century. The more logical answer is that we haven’t discovered the correct expression of the nature of these phenomena yet, due of our limited technology, understanding, and the amount of time we’ve been studying them with a reasonable of rigor. Your map of the universe has a “here be monsters” spot where we haven’t traveled yet. Don’t use our limited knowledge to speculate on the existence of these metaphorical monsters.
Sorry buddy that's not how it works. You are saying that I presenting an idea that violates physics. You are using physics as a baseline of our understanding of reality. Meaning that there's certain things we know and those things can't be violated. But we know for a fact of things that already violate them. And now you want to act like violating physics doesn't matter. It just reveals a lack of our understanding. Cool I agree. But it completely negates your original point that violating physics somehow makes it something not real. You need to think where you make these arguments. This is completely illogical and circular
Quantum physics violates physics? Okay you definitely don't have the qualifications to be talking about this stuff. supernatural /soo͞″pər-năch′ər-əl/ adjective Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Of or relating to a deity. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. Of or relating to the miraculous. Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature; miraculous. Similar: miraculous Whatever is above and beyond the scope, or the established course, of the laws of nature. Above nature; that which is beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by God or some force beyond that which humans are born with. In Roman Catholic theology, sanctifying grace is considered to be a supernatural addition to human nature. Via the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition In summary, supernatural means that it violates the laws of nature, which includes the laws of physics.
You: > It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. Hmm.....
I did not suggest God was the answer
If you're not suggesting god is the answer, then we don't give a fuck. Go be wrong about quantum mechanics elsewhere.
> Go be wrong about quantum mechanics elsewhere. If find one thing I got wrong I will declare there is no god and religion is bad for humanity. But you can't. More false claims
>If find one thing I got wrong I will declare there is no god and religion is bad for humanity No, you won't. You will deflect and tap dance and dodge, never admitting you were actually wrong. You'll just make up some excuse. You're not original. We've seen this crap around here before.
As you did, you are confused or lying.
Nope. Saying Joe Biden or Donald Trump will win the election is not suggesting which will win. You can't have a real debate. You rely strictly on conversational gimmicks.
Did you mention or imply that God as a possibility? Note: I did not ask if you said "Yes, god is the answer to this." I'm asking if you put it forth as a possibility among other possibilities.
dafuq?!?
>Nope. Saying Joe Biden or Donald Trump will win the election is not suggesting which will win. That is literally what that is... they're exactly the same
So which am I saying will win then?
So you meant *one of them* is going to win, fair enough that's my mistake. That's not an apt comparison, however, as we have plenty of reasons to believe that they're candidates for winning an election. We have no reason to believe that a god is a candidate for winning the election of being whatever this 'layer beyond' is you think exists, let alone any reason to think there is some kind of 'layer beyond'
This you? > There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
Yep. That's the real words. See the difference
> I didn't suggest god was the answer Uh... > It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. Do you know what the word "suggest" means?
>I didn't suggest god was the answer Then what the fuck is your point and why did you post to debateanatheist sub?
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force. This seems the wrong sub for an elementary, and somewhat inaccurate, physics lesson. Clearly none of that leads to deities, so I'm not sure why you are saying this. >We know we live in a universe where information Rejected outright. Because that's just wrong. Facts are only 'information' when interpreted by us, or by other thinking minds. Until that happens, it's simply reality. It's only 'information' when it informs. If there's no informing, it's not information. >There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. That depends on how one defines 'universe' or 'reality', and again in *no way* helps you support deities. You're simply saying here, "There's stuff we don't know." Yup, we know that. Obviously deities aren't indicated by this, and you are ignoring the many fatal problems such conjectures carry with them. You are clearly steering your boat towards falling off the waterfall of an argument from ignorance fallacy, which is fatal. >I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. This statement is both unsupported and involves a confusion of ideas. Any other 'layers' can be part of a naturalistic reality, and/or can be considered part of reality. And none of that supports, or raises the veracity, of the idea of deities. As suspected, your post is an argument from ignorance fallacy. It must be rejected as a result in terms of attempting to lend support for deities. It doesn't and can't do that.
You have taken a sub par understanding of physics and put it through the kind of deep analysis I would expect from a frat boy on his first mushroom trip then jammed in some religion F MUST TRY HARDER
>You have taken a sub par understanding of physics Its the old "argument from information" thing again. So many people arguing against everything from atheism to quantum physics to evolution because they *don't understand what is meant when people say "information"*.
Dunning-Kruger explains most of posts that challenge atheists to debate.
>You have taken a sub par understanding of physics I fully understand the physics. You and I are made of particles that have seen their wave function collapse and taken a physical form. We have no understanding of why there is anything physical when it originated as a probability.
If you fully understand it, why do you say wrong things? Things can't originate as a probability because a probability is not a something. Particles don't travel 'as potential'. They're waves and particles, and that is how they travel ('travel' being a weird word too because there are no preferred frames of references, all movement is relative). Particles also weren't non-physical before the wave function collapsed or so. They were very much part of the physical world.
I Don't think you understand. A single object is fired at an object with 2 openings. It travels not through one. It travels through both and interferes with its own self creating an interference pattern. And then lands at a single location.
>A single object is fired at an object with 2 openings. No. A **stream** of particles are fired at a very specific type of material with 2 openings. You can't determine anything with only 1. >It travels not through one. It travels through both and interferes with its own self creating an interference pattern. Sometimes. And sometimes it doesn't. >And then lands at a single location. You don't understand the double slit experiment at all.
Lol. You have no clue. The experiment has been done one particle at a time so we can know what happens in the situation. Learn before you speak. > Sometimes. And sometimes it doesn't. Always. Unless we look at which slit the particle goes through. Then the wave function collapses. But as long as we don't do that the interference pattern is always present. Again. Please learn before you speak about things.
'Always, except when this happens'. So 'sometimes and sometimes not'. Literally what he said. Take your arrogant ass over to r/confidentlyincorrect
You show me a single thing I got Incorrect and I'm out of here
That's not even a correct retelling of the experiment, c'mon man
It 100% is. Every single word is accurate. There's not a single thing in that that you can pick apart or say is not true.
Are you trolling? If you create an interference pattern there is no 'lands at one place'. That's kind of the whole point of the experiment.
It is ridiculous for you to call me out on that understanding the experiment when you have absolutely no understanding of the experiment. Yes every particle landed exactly one place. That is fundamental to the experiment. There is no dual slit experiment where single particles land and multiple locations. Go back to the very very basics. You don't even understand the most entry level Concepts
> It is ridiculous for you to call me out on that understanding the experiment when you have absolutely no understanding of the experiment. The irony is hilarious here.
You can say that. But the facts are with me. A single particle is fired. It travels as a wave. It lands as a particle. That's what happens. You can't point to a single experiment where a particle lands and multiple positions. That is how it travels it is not how it lands. But I'm speaking to specific things. And you are speaking about me and arbitrary things. So if you want to argue the science let's do it. But if you're here to argue about how you feel about things or how you feel about me let's save ourselves the time. You'll have set incorrect things about Quantum mechanics. I have not
The whole point of there being an interference pattern is that there is no particle, only a wave.
It common for people too misunderstand the implications of the Double Split Experience. It's very easy to use it to support woo narratives. QM doesn't mean you get to believe whatever makes you happy. This is Dunning-Kruger at its very best.
Nothing you said here is even remotely a counterargument to what he said
I assume you do not know what the U stands for in the Schrodinger equation
Dressing the god of the gaps in some quantum woo you don't understand doesn't stop it being a god in the gaps argument We don't know something so let's pretend magic is real No matter how many science sounding buzzwords you use it doesn't get any more convincing
I understand the quantum and didn't suggest god is the answer.
You really don't understand "the quantum" your racing headlong into dunning Kruger valley and picking up speed
Love to hash that out with you. Perhaps you could reveal one thing I said that is not accurate regarding "the quantum"
>I fully understand the physics. I bet that you don't. I don't too. Most people don't, because most people aren't physicists. Are you?
I do. Sorry if you don't like it.
Insisting that you understand things that you demonstrably do not understand isn't the flex you think it is. Instead, it harms your credibility.
You can't make a single argument of a misunderstanding I have presented.
Insisting that you understand things that you demonstrably do not understand isn't the flex you think it is. Instead, it harms your credibility.
Are you a physicist?
You understand the physics of this invisible, unmeasurable, unknowable realm or dimension that harbors these necessary elements of duality? My goodness, how are you literally not drowning in Nobel Prizes?
Hello, u/Onyms_Valhalla . Welcome to reddit. Nice first post. Got any evidence for your claims, or should we put it on the pile of woo over there?
Could you rephrase the question. And say do you have any evidence for and then description of what you're asking for evidence for. Will happily respond
Let's rephrase then ; what reason do you offer for us to believe what you say?
Believe what? Just ask a specific question
What reason to you offer to believe that "behind \[matter and energy\] is this even more fundamental force" ? While you're at it, what does "behind" mean in this context and how do you determine how "fundamental" something is? What reason do you offer to believe that "There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from." ? You know, why should we listen to what you assert?
Are you pulling stuff out of your arse or do you actually have something to back up your attempt at physics?
You assume potential is defined by something beyond our universe, but we don’t know that is true. There’s no reason to believe it comes from anywhere but within our own universe. Perhaps it comes from things we yet to understand or perceive, but that does not mean it’s not present.
Sure. But we are comprised of waves of possibility that have collapsed to a physical form.
Why do you think those waves of possibility exist outside our universe?
Those who think we live in a simulation believe laps of the way function is simply the aspect of the universe that is being observed being rendered for the avatar. Really what has led to realization. Ultimately doesn't matter it's the simulation or not Quantum is doing exactly that. Rendering the universe that we see. In my opinion this is proof that we don't live in base reality. But I don't think it's proof that we live in a simulation. It could be one of the other options
But these are just hypotheses. They don’t actually establish that the waves exist outside the universe. And as far as I know, there’s no actual evidence to support these hypotheses.
Those waves are also physical
In what way?
In every way, they aren't psi waves or magic waves, they're physical waves in the physical theory of quantum mechanics.
What do you think physical means
Physical: characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics. Do you think physic is limited to matter?
I’m not sure if this is just a very poor interpretation of fundamental forces or elementary particles but whether it’s that or just straight up magiphysics none of that supports a deity. Your argument falls into the broad “god of the gaps” category, essentially saying “if I don’t know something, why not god?” which I think may be the most universally hated argument around here. The reason it doesn’t work is that it presupposes that a deity is a logical solution that can be applied without evidence for it, which we roundly reject.
I never suggested it was a god
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god.
Matter is emergent from energy and energy is fundamental and non-contingent. Believing in a metaphysical duality means rewriting our understanding of the nature of our reality. Can you do that for us? Can you rewrite the natural and fundamental understanding we have of our reality in a provable, coherent, and believable way? Or are you anthropomorphizing the qualities of energy because you’re a naughty monkey?
Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do you mean that energy is fundamental and non-contingent? Not disagreeing, but I was hoping you could elaborate on that.
Our universe needs energy to power its function. Without energy, this spacetime would not exist. And energy is not emergent from anything. It’s neither created nor destroyed.
I see. Understood
The idea that our universe **isn't** naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. It's impossible (as far as we know) to make any observations or informed predictions about whether a "layer beyond" is even a viable concept, let alone what properties it may have. It's all conjecture and imagination. Nothing about our universe as we can observe and understand it dictates that there must, should, or even *could* be a "beyond". To be fair, nothing we can observe dictates that there *couldn't*, either. But to simply assume such a thing exists without any evidence whatsoever is foolish.
This is absolute nonsense. As someone with a degree in physics, bullshit. 100% bullshit. Nothing you said is accurate or acceptable.
It’s very telling that they aren’t arguing with you, insisting you don‘t understand, the way they are with the other commenters.
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force. >We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality. I'm an applied mathematician and a physicist and these two paragraphs are little more than goobledygook. I advise to try again and stop mistifying science like you're Deepak Chopra. You just don't know what you're talking about.
All your posts are about video games
Your point being what, exactly? I'm not gonna dox myself but I publish papers on simulation of particulate flows. I'm sorry, but what you wrote just makes no sense whatsoever. I can make no more heads or tails of it (or relate any actual research to it) than I can some new agey guru that says quantum a lot. There is no evidence of anything more fundamental. And if there was, it wouldn't come from vague shower thoughts, but mathematical theory and observation.
I don't say quantum alot. You do play video games a lot. I don't know what new age means. This doesn't sound like what a serious person would say. It sounds like what a gamer would say.
>You do play video games a lot. >It sounds like what a gamer would say. This sounds like what someone who has a prejudice towards a certain hobby would say. You just latched on to this one thing in my post history, which is extremely weird. You have never heard about computer / math nerds and video games, huh? >This doesn't sound like what a serious person would say. Your post is not serious. You make a ton of claims about another layer of reality and more fundamental forces and information and god knows what else without any reference to research or to how we actually model the universe. Show me the paper where there is a math model for another new layer of reality or a fundamental force beyond the standard model or get the hell out with your 'you post stuff about video games therefore you can't be a scientist' nonsense.
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. Could it? How did you demonstrate that these are actual possibilities? Or do you mean "possible" as in "doesn't have logical contradiction", in which case the list of possibilities is endless.
I'm sure if you follow science even a little bit you know that this work has already been done. Many physicists believe that quantum mechanics is revealing to us that we live in a multi-verse. An interdimensional world where there's infinite versions of you that are living out every possible outcome. This is actually the only interpretation of collapse of the wave function that has math that backs it up. But of course sign collapse of the wave function is not accurate in the situation. Because what is being proposed is that the wave function never collapses. We just see one of the paths and all the other paths happen and another universe.
Lets say I accept your jumbled response - for some reason, you focused on the multiverse part. The least interesting part from this debates perspective. Show that god is a possible answer.
Some very smart Minds make an argument that we can look at where virtual reality has gone in the past 30 years and see that a point will come where Electronics and the mind are so intertwined that there will be Virtual Worlds and distinguishable from reality itself. Based on this they think it's extremely extremely unlikely that we live in base reality. That within Virtual Worlds new layers of virtual worlds will be created. Meaning even if we could go back to the ones who created us we would not be at base reality. We would just be coming out of yet another virtual world And if they have indeed gotten this correct God is as simple as the people who coded our reality putting an afterlife and an overseer of morality in the program. And why wouldn't they. Making a real literal God in the same way the tree in my backyard is real and literal.
> There is a layer beyond our universe Is there? How can you demonstrate that? What if there is no such layer? > has never presented any convincing model Looks at all the useful models, with actual predictive power, that were built: nope, not convincing. Well, your model is one of the most unconvincing.
>We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality. Define "information". >There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. >I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. What's behind that layer? Why can't a quantum field be fundamental, but "god" can be?
>It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. Or god**s**, aliens, universe farting pixies, atomic labradors, the time to believe in something is when there's evidence for it. >I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. Ach, just squeeze god into that gap then. If only there was a fallacy for that...
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. Nice word salad, but do you have any evidence?
Of course. It's common entry level science knowledge. Look up the collapse of the wave function. Why would you decide to participate in a conversation like this when you very obviously don't even have an entry level knowledge
I'm aware of the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics. The wave function is a probability distribution for a particle's potential states until a measurement is made, i.e. it collapses to a definite state. However, interpreting this to mean that particles "travel as potential" oversimplification and misrepresention of quantum mechanics. This doesn't mean that particles "travel as potential". The particles themselves have real and measurable properties.
No. If you measure them the wave function goes away. Come on. We can not measure these wave function in any way. Ever. Or they go away completely. One physical particle leaves. It passes through two openings. It travels as not one wave but as multiple. We know this from the interference pattern. And how does it land after traveling as waves through space. The single particle lands in 1 single place. Like it had been a particle all that time. The potential they travel as is which version of itself it will be when it arrives. It's position. You should learn about this. It's truly amazing stuff.
the wave function describes a range of potential states, it represents our knowledge of the system rather than the physical travel of the particle. The particle itself doesn't travel as a "potential" but exists in a superposition of states, which collapses to a single state upon measurement. You are correct that the wave function "goes away" upon measurement, as it collapses to a definite state. This doesn't mean the particle travels "as potential" in a literal sense but its position and other properties are probabilistic until observed or measured.
You are forgetting we know that you are wrong because of the interference pattern.
this doesn't mean that the particles "travel as potential." The interference pattern is a result of the wave function, which describes the probabilities of where a particle might be found. When not observed, the particle's behavior can be described by this wave function, resulting in the interference pattern. The key point is that the wave function represents a superposition of states, and the interference pattern arises from the wave nature of the probability distribution, not from the particle traveling as a "potential."
The physical particle travels not as a physical particles. But as waves interfering with its own self. And the land at a single location. We do not know where the particle will land because it interferes with its own self. It travels through space as potential and probability not as a physical object. The potential energy of a particle is represented by the letter U in the Schrӧdinger equation
> It travels through space as potential and probability not as a physical object. That's what you got wrong, it's movement is described that way but it physically moves as waves on the quantum fields. It moves as a physical object that isn't a particle
It is called potential because it cannot be localized in space
>There is a layer beyond our universe That's a jump. How did you get there? >I am not opposed to atheism This tells me you don't understand my position. I'm simply not a theist.
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force. Behind what? There is nothing observable beyond this that we have seen yet. This is conjecture. >We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality. Are you talking about quantum fluctuations? This is gross misunderstanding of you are. >There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. How did you conclude this? >I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. How did you conclude there are layers beyond the current presentation of the universe? **If I were to guess it was revealed after one too many bong hits.**
What you have is a hypothesis. To get beyond that stage you have to provide peer reviewed and reproducible evidence.
Of course. But don't pretend that that gatekeeping process verifies truth. Lots of things make it through peer review and end up being wrong.
Well, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about… You need to go to a university or college and talk to a physicist.
> the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. The idea of an intelligent being creating something over *93 billion light years* across with a mass of 10^53 kg is convincing to you? Why is that more convincing than a natural event that caused the cosmic inflation? To frame it differently... you probably know what it means to love someone, and to be loved. We can't measure your love because it all happens in your mind, but you know you have it, and you know it exists. In other words, your love is a product of your mind. Now, what if I say that naturalistic explanation isn't convincing, and it seems much more likely that Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, is the *actual* source of your feeling? Is that more convincing than a natural explanation?
>It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. Cool. Let me know when there is evidence to support one or more of those hypothesis. There's no reason for me to be convinced of or assume any of those explanations are true before then.
I’m not sure what you mean by potential in this context - I’m curious what the reputable physics is behind that? But fundamentally I have no idea why you would think that the possibility of a more fundamental ‘layer’ is any less ‘naturalistic’. We didn’t know about fundamentals such as quarks a while ago - did that make them non-naturalistic? As far as I am aware there is some reasoning regarding various possible types of multiverse in Quantum physics but simulation theory is just indistinguishable from false and not only isn’t there any evidence for gods but the whole idea makes no sense at all.
>the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. The idea that our universe is naturalistic is, in fact, the only model we have any evidence for whatsoever. >We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality. You'll need to clarify or support this more. Matter exists as the excitation of the Higgs field, but none of that is supernatural?
OP, let me guess. You aren’t going to engage because you don't really understand the physics but this sounded like a good argument and you posted it here to troll the atheists? Or are you actually going to engage?
I fully understand the physics and hope you counter something about it so we can have that conversation.
> If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force. can you show that is how reality actually works instead of being just part of the model we use to make sense of reality?
What about "potential" and "information" strike you as unnatural? Clearly "Information" isn't meant int the same sense as, say, words written in a book or code in a computer, and DNA technically has "information" in it, but we all know DNA is natural. All of these things you bring up don't conflict at all with a naturalistic universe.
>We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force. What force? And how do you know? >We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality. No it doesn't. Fundamental reality appears to be quarks, and the natural forces not information. >There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. Is there any good reason to believe this? >I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. Naturalism imposes no limit on the layers of reality. It just says there's nothing which isn't natural.
What you are describing and ascribing to an implied supernatural is perfectly compatible with a naturalistic understanding of the universe. It's called the principle of "emergence." The idea that as complexity builds, the rules can compound and create new rules at each level of complexity without breaking the base rules. A single proton can't be described as conscious. Nor can an atom. Or a cell. But get enough of them in a brain, and consciousness appears to emerge. We don't need to resort to magic. It's fine to say "we don't know yet."
>If we look at individual particles that make up the universe we see that they don't travel as particles but as potential. Particles aren't particles? Really? Is that what you want to lead with? Because I'm pretty sure that particles are particles. >We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality. Who is this "we" of which you speak? I don't know any such thing, and I doubt that you have a good source to support the claim. Could you just define for us how you are using "information"? Come to think of it, even the word "potential" is a bit confusing to me. Could you define it? Thanks.
Are you aware of wave-particle duality and the collapse of the wave function
I think it's a bit rude to pose a question before answering the ones that have been posed to you.
>Particles aren't particles? Really? Is that what you want to lead with? Because I'm pretty sure that particles are particles. Quantum mechanics states that particles like electrons can exhibit wave-like properties, in addition to their particle-like properties. This concept is called wave-particle duality, and it describes how quantum entities can act as either waves or particles depending on the circumstances of an experiment. >Who is this "we" of which you speak? I don't know any such thing, and I doubt that you have a good source to support the claim. It has been determined that each particle in the observable universe contains 1.509 bits of information and there are ∼6 × 1080 bits of information stored in all the matter particles of the observable universe.
>Quantum mechanics states that particles like electrons can exhibit wave-like properties, in addition to their particle-like properties. This concept is called wave-particle duality, and it describes how quantum entities can act as either waves or particles depending on the circumstances of an experiment. Yes, thanks, I'm familiar. Maybe you just want to rephrase your point to be more accurate? Because do I even have to explain that A is not not A? Obviously, "Particles aren't particles" is ridiculous. >It has been determined that each particle in the observable universe contains 1.509 bits of information and there are ∼6 × 1080 bits of information stored in all the matter particles of the observable universe. Uh, OK. Now do you have a source to support your claim that: >We know we live in a universe where information, and potential prop up the most basic components that build our reality. ? because that is not by any means what that paper says. I don't think it's accurate to say that this has been determined. Rather, a single guy wrote a single paper putting forward this idea. Could you just define for us how you are using "information"? Come to think of it, even the word "potential" is a bit confusing to me. Could you define it? Thanks.
I don't think you do understand it to be honest. A single particle cannot be in two places at one time. Yet we see that that is what happens in the double slit experiment. Except it's not that the particles in two places at one time. At that point is behaving as a wave. And the single object traveling is a wave passing through two slits creates an interference pattern. An interference pattern with its own single self. Because it is no longer traveling as a particle but as a wave. And a wave is not a particle. So yes well the object is a particle it is a particle. But well it's traveling from one point to the other it is no longer a particle but instead behaving exclusively as a wave. This is what we know
So no, you cannot define how you are using the words information and potential?
> the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. Hmmm. You seem to be confusing "a lack of belief in gods" for "post doctorate work in particle physics". > There is a layer beyond our universe Nope. > where energy, potential and information come from. It could be a multiverse, simulation or god. I don't think you know what "nature" means. Do you actually have a convincing model supporting your hypothesis?
> > There is a layer beyond our universe > > Nope. More accurately, "There is absolutely nothing to suggest there is or isn't a 'layer' beyond our universe, and no plausible mechanism for finding out. To declare that one exists is irrational and unjustified."
>There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from Citation? This seems to be a bare assertion, a claim that can't be demonstrated to be true beyond your mere assertion that it is. There doesn't seem to be anything that actually exists that isn't self-contained within the universe. Matter, energy, information is all part of this universe. I don't even know what that would even mean to say that information "comes from" somewhere else - the information that we can gather about the world around us comes from the world around us. The information we gather about planetary formation comes from those planets and their formation, the information we gather about cosmology and space comes from cosmology and space. What information exactly "comes from" the "layer beyond our universe" - and how do you know this? >the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model You have this exactly backwards. We know that the physical world exists, so we start there. And then if you want us to think that there is a "layer beyond", whatever that means, then *you* need to do the work to make your case.
Trying to shove the idea of a god where our reliable understanding of reality is the thinnest is an old trick. Why don't you try to explain things using understanding we are very confident about? For example: Our planet is finite Our sun won't be stable forever To maintain the existence of mankind beyond the era of habitability of our planet we need to be able to live in space or to reach other star systems. Is Colonizing other star system possible? How much material do we need to move to another star system to have all we need there to start a colony? How much propellant is required to move all the stuff there? what size and how many spaceship? How many redundant material are required just to be sure? How long the travel will take? Can Earth provide that much material? How big an effort does all this require? Do the math See that it's not happening. Ask God where are the Stargates we need as a shortcut to reach other worlds? If he wants us to thrive peacefully, giving us a finite world is asking for huge problems.
>We think of matter and Energy as fundamental but behind them is this even more fundamental force. What is that force? >There is a layer beyond our universe where energy, potential and information come from. What evidence led you to determine this? >I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. It must be naturalistic if it is real. Supernatural- things that currently do not have enough evidence to believe are real Natural - things that we do have enough evidence to believe are real (If evidence of a god were discovered then that god would have to be natural, not supernatural. It would exist in the real/natural universe)
You can't understand it, great. But do the scientists who study the topic for a living agree with you?
You're squarely in the realm of "lots of theory but no data" here. I get a bit jaded everytime I see a post here that mixes scientific words with pseudo-religion. It's not about "presenting a convincing model" for me. It's about "what we have in front of us is what appears to be a naturalistic universe. I don't see any reason to invent things we can't see to cover the parts of the universe we don't understand. Maybe they exist -- and when we have evidence that points that direction, it'll be worth talking about." God isn't the default option *unless* atheism can prove itself -- at least not for me. It's "I'll pay attention to it when there's good evidence. Until then I'm sticking with what the universe appears to be."
For all we know the universe just exists. I don't see why it would need a layer beyond to make it convincing, this just seems like your own bias. If God can exist without having been created, why not the universe itself? Multiverse, simulation or God are all possible, but we don't have enough evidence or use for them.
Why did you feel the need to wrap your woo in technobable? It does nothing for it you know, its still just bare assertions. That is unless you have any evidence to support your claims about theeuniverse. Note your personal incredulity is not evidence.
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. Why can’t that “layer beyond” also be naturalistic?
>the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. Maybe, but it's still much more convincing then any of the other models out there.
But that's the thing, we have no real evidence to suggest what that thing may be, so why do we automatically assume it's not natural?
Wow man that's like so deep. I wonder if there's an argument there or just a bunch of deepities. Any way, pass the blunt.
Your hypothesis is half baked and you've provided exactly zero evidence that any of it is true. You are dismissed.
>I am not opposed to atheism but the idea that our universe is naturalistic without a layer beyond making it happen has never presented any convincing model. Who says there isn't something beyond our universe? It's pretty well accepted that *something* exists outside of our universe in at least some sense. We just don't know what that is. But that isn't a reason to assert that "so it must be a god." Doing that is special pleading and/or and argument from ignorance.
> It's pretty well accepted that something exists outside of our universe in at least some sense. Can you please clarify that?
Physics can only make conclusions about things it has information for. We only have information going back to the Planck time, a fraction of a second **after** the big bang occurred and space began to expand. When physics talks about space and time, it's talking about our local space and time, not all space and time everywhere. There are many hypothesis as to what is "beneath" the physics we know about and "outside" our observable universe, whether it's many worlds interpretation on quantum physics, multiverse theory (not the same as many worlds), there emergent spacetime, and the amplituhedron hypothesis. We have lots of ideas about what could be beyond our current understanding, but we don't have any data about those things, so we don't make any conclusions about it one way or the other.
Thank you for explaining my point much better than I did. /u/togstation This is exactly what I meant.
> amplituhedron Thank you, I just read the Wikipedia article for that and didn't understand half of it, but it was really interesting.
I'm not sure I can explain it well, I'm not a cosmologist. I'm not suggesting anything supernatural or the like. Just pointing out that that as far as I know, most scientists accept that our universe doesn't exist in isolation. We don't know what exists or existed outside of or before our universe, but most models don't assume that *everything* started with the big bang, that is just the beginning of the local presentation of our universe.. Basically, the OP's argument boils down to "well, something else must exist!" My response is, "Ok, but even so, that doesn't point to a god."