Go Back   AFA Forums > Science, Logic and Reason > Ask a scientist

Ask a scientist Not up to speed with science jargon but have a sciency question?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 26th February 2014, 04:08 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,941
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

Two things:

1. In what sense are you using the word "caused"?

2.
Quote:
AgentSCI said View Post
... atoms are made of what are normally waves ...
That's an error. Waves, as we visualise/usually understand them, are a "classical" phenomenon, distinguishable from, say, particles. Waves are an imperfect analogy for quantum phenomena. Certainly, there are some similarities, some of the time. But the map is not the territory! See my previous post.
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 26th February 2014 at 04:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 26th February 2014, 04:14 PM
workmx's Avatar
workmx workmx is offline
Feminazi and semi-professional inconoclast
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canberra
Posts: 6,024
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

Quote:
Blue Lightning said View Post
Footnote:
* Sociology is a "classical" science.
BL - Thanks. I would go one step further: sociology is not and can never be a science, as it cannot be based on methodological naturalism.

The meanings that humans give to their lives and actions and those of others cannot be measured or understood in the same way as natural phenomena.

As for "classical" it is less than two hundred years old. Unless you are referring to the methodological approaches preferred in sociology.
__________________
Forgive me, I'm a sociologist and high horse slut! Twitter Blogger

Last edited by workmx; 26th February 2014 at 04:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 26th February 2014, 04:48 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,194
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

Quote:
AgentSCI said View Post
All this stuff is really interesting but if observation is not the cause then what is the cause for our consciousness? The point still stands that consciousness comes from brains, brains are made of atoms and atoms are made of what are normally waves. So how are we really conscious?
A thing can be more than the sum of its parts. HTH.
Secondly, what caused god? [If you want to go the "causal" route, then do it fairly].
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 26th February 2014, 04:50 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,941
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

Quote:
workmx said View Post
BL - Thanks. I would go one step further: sociology is not and can never be a science, as it cannot be based on methodological naturalism.
I'm interested in your reasoning concerning this. I'll post in the social sciences part of the forum.

Quote:
workmx said View Post
The meanings that humans give to their lives and actions and those of others cannot be measured or understood in the same way as natural phenomena.
I'm genuinely unsure about that, but interested.

Quote:
workmx said View Post
As for "classical" it is less than two hundred years old. Unless you are referring to the methodological approaches preferred in sociology.
It was an aside, but …

"Classical", in physics-speak and as I was using it, means non-quantum and non-relativitistic science. It includes, as I understand it, among other things, all non-quantum non-relativitistic statistical analyses in science.

I'll start a new thread.

*end of de-rail*
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 26th February 2014, 05:33 PM
wearestardust's Avatar
wearestardust wearestardust is offline
What me socialist?
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: not telling
Posts: 8,485
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

Because I am feeling a touch pedantic, I might quibble at the idea that the meanings that people give to their lives etc are not natural phenomena.

I presume the point being made is that human interior dispositions are complex and difficult to obtain reliable information about. It is not clear to me how that scotches methodological naturalism, or indeed empirical observation generally.

It seems to me that our theist friends have a tendency to construe 'science' in an excessibely narrow and straw-mannish fashion; we should beware of doing the same.
__________________
If you need to wonder what would drive somebody to instruct lawyers, you may already be close to trouble.
- the Hircine Reverend
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 26th February 2014, 08:48 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,819
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

Quote:
AgentSCI said View Post
All this stuff is really interesting but if observation is not the cause then what is the cause for our consciousness? The point still stands that consciousness comes from brains, brains are made of atoms and atoms are made of what are normally waves. So how are we really conscious?
Science doesn't propose to have all the answers, in fact it doesn't ever propose to have all the answers, this does not automatically make a hole for god/gods.

If you ask what is the cause of our consciousness then you have to propose a cause for gods consciousness, further, if, as you have done, you propose that gods consciousness was the result of a natural phenomena, the big bang, then natural phenomena are all we need for our consciousness, wherefore the need for god at all?

This is just another argument for the universe as god, doesn't hold water I am afraid.
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 26th February 2014, 10:12 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is online now
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,164
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

Quote:
AgentSCI said View Post
All this stuff is really interesting but if observation is not the cause then what is the cause for our consciousness? The point still stands that consciousness comes from brains, brains are made of atoms and atoms are made of what are normally waves. So how are we really conscious?
Atoms cannot be accurately described as 'normally waves'.

The behaviour of fundamental particles can be mathematically modelled as wave functions, which "collapse" when "observed", but "observed", as noted above by DBD could be more accurately rendered as "interacted with", and doesn't require anything to do with conciousness.

This is a problem that arises often with regard to technical parlance which is easily misunderstood. Another example is "Uncertainty Principle", which would be more accurately rendered "Indeterminacy" - although that one is down to a dodgy translation. "Big Bang" is another, a term which was coined in derision by someone opposed to the hypothesis, but which ended up being adopted, despite its tendency for the ignorant to radically misunderstand it.

The real problem, of course, is abject fucking ignorance and the Dunning-Kruger effect, wherein someone is utterly clueless on a subject but is so fucking clueless that they can mistake themselves for someone with even a fundamental grasp, and go onto discussion forums full of vastly more informed people and make unwitting arses of themselves by spouting bullshit on subjects they patently know nothing about.

I'm sorry, I'll speak more slolwly:

You. Obviously. Have. Less. Than. An. Undergraduate. Understanding. Of. Quantum. Theory. So. Stop. Embarrassing. Yourself.

ETA:

How are we really conscious? No-one, so far as I am aware, has adequately demonstrated that 'really conscious' is a phrase that really means anything. Ans I'll bet you fifty bucks that you don't have enough understanding of it to do so either - which you will need to do in order to demonstrate that your question is not the impotent offspring of overconfidence buttfucking ignorance.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3


Last edited by Goldenmane; 26th February 2014 at 10:22 PM. Reason: Further...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 26th February 2014, 10:43 PM
Logic please's Avatar
Logic please Logic please is offline
Wonder if the beer tastes as good?
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Melb (capital of The Nanny State!!!)
Posts: 16,200
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

Quote:
AgentSCI said View Post
According to quantum physics, particles are waves until observed by a consciousness. As consciousness as a result of our brains, doesn't that mean that in theory, a super consciousness must be observing some parts of the universe for our brains at least to have evolved?.
Well, this might be relevant:

Quantum Flip-Floppers: Photon Findings Add to Mystery of Wave-Particle Duality
Quote:
Quantum objects are notoriously shifty. Take the photon, for example. The quantum of light can act as a particle one moment, following a well-defined path like a tiny projectile, and a wave the next, overlapping with its ilk to produce interference patterns, much like a ripple on the water.
Wave–particle duality is a key feature of quantum mechanics, one not easily understood in the intuitive terms of everyday experience. But the dual nature of quantum entities gets stranger still. New experiments demonstrate that photons not only switch from wave to particle and back again but can actually harbor both wave and particle tendencies at the same time. In fact, a photon can run through a complex optical apparatus and disappear for good into a detector without having decided on an identity—assuming a wave or particle nature only after it has been destroyed.
Physicists have shown in recent years that a photon "chooses" whether to act as a wave or a particle only when forced. If, for instance, a photon is steered by a beam splitter (a kind of fork in the optical road) onto one of two paths, each leading to a photon detector, the photon will appear at one or the other detector with equal probability. In other words, the photon simply chooses one of the routes and follows it to the end, like a marble rolling through a tube. But if the split paths recombine before the detectors, allowing the contents of the two channels to interfere like waves flowing around a pillar to meet on the other side, the photon demonstrates wavelike interference effects, having essentially traversed both paths at once. In other words, measure a photon like a particle, and it behaves like a particle. Measure a photon like a wave, and it acts like one.
Quote:
AgentSCI said View Post
All this stuff is really interesting but if observation is not the cause then what is the cause for our consciousness? The point still stands that consciousness comes from brains, brains are made of atoms and atoms are made of what are normally waves. So how are we really conscious?
How about backing up the truck a bit, and explaining exactly where the "quantum-consciousness" assumed link underlying your questions is coming from? What evidence is it based on?
__________________
*Gods* are not only a legal fiction, but a fiction in every way. Just ask the nearest hippie...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 26th February 2014, 10:50 PM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,393
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

Quote:
AgentSCI said View Post
All this stuff is really interesting but if observation is not the cause then what is the cause for our consciousness? The point still stands that consciousness comes from brains, brains are made of atoms and atoms are made of what are normally waves. So how are we really conscious?
Read almost any book by Daniel Dennett.

Consciousness is an emergent property. It exists when you have a large assembly of atoms in a particular structure to create neuronal connections. They fire and supres firing in patterns based on structure and experience and are nothing more than little, unconscious robots. Their combined behaviour is the very conscious you.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 26th February 2014, 10:55 PM
wearestardust's Avatar
wearestardust wearestardust is offline
What me socialist?
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: not telling
Posts: 8,485
Default Re: Isn't a god theoretically forced (quantum physics)?

True, you won't find consciousness in the atoms of a brain.

Then again, you won't find internal combustion disassembling an engine, either.
__________________
If you need to wonder what would drive somebody to instruct lawyers, you may already be close to trouble.
- the Hircine Reverend
Reply With Quote
Like Spearthrower liked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 10:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.