Part 1: Quote-mining
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA
Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic
Part 7: Evolution and panspermia
ON MATERIALISM VS IDEALISM Part I of 2: Quotes Quotes Quotes
Oct. 30 Non: Our exchange started in response to a comment to Anon, in which you said, “…modern physics has demonstrated that matter is a manifestation of consciousness,” Your evidence for that seems to be in the form of quotes from physicists. Later, when asked to clarify, you said, “the consensus of modern physicists is of no relevance.”
First it needs to be said that it seems utterly reasonable to accept the consensus in areas where one is not very informed (in fact, silly not to), and QM is an area where virtually everyone on earth is pretty clueless—you and I included. Of course that doesn’t mean that we blindly accept matters as “settled” simply by consensus, but it can certainly be valid to appeal to the consensus of experts in a field. Still, if you think consensus is irrelevant, and thus don’t intend these quotes to represent the scientific consensus, I wonder at your purpose for leaning so heavily (in fact, almost exclusively) on them. For example, you quote Planck, a deeply religious man, but you offer no evidence from him beyond his opinion.
Another example: you recommend to me your essay, God is real, in which you say there is no third stance between materialism and idealism (actually the issue is between realism and idealism), so everyone needs to ask, “On which side… do I fall?” Then by way of answer you proceed to quote Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, Arthur Eddington, and James Jeans. You offer no exposition of your own, just quote after quote after quote, followed by the conclusion, “There can be no question on which side of this debate modern physics falls.” If you don’t present these quotes as evidence of a scientific consensus, why are they there?
Maybe you’re appealing to authority rather than consensus. That seems unlikely, since surely you know a bald appeal to authority isn’t enough to establish anything. Besides, most physicists today disagree with the quotes you presented, and these physicists understand QM much better than the pioneers did, so any argument from authority (or consensus) would work against you.
And if you’re quoting Wigner as an authority, you need to explain why you reject his same authority when, later in life, he rejects “consciousness causes collapse.” Does he suddenly stop being an authority because you disagree with him?
Einstein is clearly not talking about idealism. His statement was in response to a question from a young girl who asked if scientists pray (there’s that pesky context again). His response set off a mini firestorm which led him to finally declare that he believed in Spinoza’s god (god-as-nature), not a personal theistic one. He said to call him an agnostic. This quote is content-less with regard to idealism vs realism. (Context context context)
Wigner was an atheist. If the thrust of your article is that modern physics proves idealism, which “discredits” atheism, it is undone by the fact that Wigner was both an idealist and an atheist (it’s not difficult to see how he could be both; one simply needs to have an understanding of the concepts, rather than blindly pulling quotes from apologetics books). And there’s still the pesky fact that he later reversed his views on consciousness causing collapse.
Your quote of Eddington (where he mentions the Logos) is obviously just his opinion. Regardless, given Eddington’s own mysticism, and the fact that Hellenistic ideas of the Logos predated Christianity by a long while and were highly mystic, it’s likely he was using it in the Hellenistic sense. But even if we can’t say that without context, it’s certainly not clear that he was using Logos in the way modern Christians would like to read him. In the end it doesn’t matter; it’s only his opinion either way.
.
Finally, you have a quote from James Jeans. Now his quote seems to make a definite statement about consensus when he says, “There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity,…” but you have wisely declined to appeal to the consensus. After all, that might have been the consensus in 1930, but the realism/idealism pendulum keeps swinging. It’s also problematic to say Jeans’ quote should lead one to God, since it didn’t lead him to God. He was an agnostic.
So this essay, meant to prove that God is real by proving idealism, trots out quotes from eminent men from the past, and boldly concludes “there can be no question on which side of this debate modern physics falls.” Yet of the five men you quote, two were agnostics and one was an atheist, so most of these eminent thinkers weren’t swayed by their own quotes to start believing in God. One was a realist whose quote you miscontextualized (I understand it wasn’t you; you’re just copying from apologetic authors who knew you wouldn’t do any actual research), and one author later reversed his stance on wave-function collapse, which is central to your argument. Furthermore, QM is an incredibly fast-moving field, and your quoted authorities are long dead. “Modern” physics, which you pretend to be representing, tells a different story than it did almost 100 years ago. There is an easy way to find out on which side modern physics falls—we can see if there have been any surveys done recently where elite physical scientists clearly state their position on this question. Would you care to make a small wager on what the results reveal?
ON MATERIALISM VS IDEALISM Part 2 of 2: YOUTUBE, SCHMUTUBE
The essay offers a myriad more quotes (no surprise there), but as far as I can tell, only offers a YouTube video focusing on the double-slit experiment as anything resembling evidence on behalf of idealism. What the author, InspiringPhilosophy (IP)doesn’t tell you (but acknowledges elsewhere) is that the conclusions and interpretations he presents as solidly established in his video are not at all agreed upon. Physicists have been thinking about these issues for almost a century, but have only recently gained the technology to actually test them via experimentation, and the implications of the experiments are still being debated. There are dozens of different interpretations of QM, and scores of sub-interpretations. IP presents this specific sub-interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI)–an interpretation of an interpretation–as a scientific fact, ignoring all the other interpretations and the problems with CI (all interpretations have their strong and weak points).
At a recent meeting of physicists, a poll was taken of which interpretation these experts in the field subscribed to. There were three or four front-runners, but no interpretation achieved majority acceptance among the attendees. In a few years, as more experimental data comes in, one of the existing interpretations (or maybe a new one altogether) may gain general acceptance , but for now QM is still in its infancy and there is very little that is “settled.” Most physicists loudly proclaim that there is a lot to learn before we can make many confident claims about many of the details of QM.
This, of course, is where the non-physicist apologists (and woo woo hucksters like Chopra and sellers of Quantum Crystals) appear, counting on the public’s misunderstanding of some key concepts to squeeze God into the admitted gaps in our knowledge. For example, in QM, the “observer” does not mean a conscious person; it more accurately refers to a measurement device. When you’re measuring things like electrons, a single photon used to measure/observe the position or momentum of the particle is enough to collapse the wave function. It’s like measuring the position of a bowling ball by seeing how a baseball bounces off it; the act of measurement affects the property you’re trying to measure. It must be said that most of the blame for the confusion of terms lies at the feet of the physicists. They love to concoct thought experiments and analogies about cats to illustrate their points, but after all this time they haven’t learned that they should stop giving new meanings to old words (like observer) because it only increases confusion.
You also say, “This points to an immaterial mind that is responsible for the production of physical reality (read: God).” It doesn’t, but I’d like to see if you can clarify your position. Are you saying there is no such thing as matter, that we’re all immaterial minds that produce the illusion of matter? Or are you saying there ismatter, but it doesn’t exist until a conscious mind produces it? (Or is there a third option?) If God’s mind “produces” matter, why does the double-slit experiment give the results it does, if there is an omnipresent consciousness to observe all things? Does God cover His eyes while we do these experiments?
Though you seem unable to articulate your ontological position as one of dualistic idealism, you clearly said you were not a monist, and you’re arguing against materialism, so there’s probably a 99% chance that you’re a dualistic idealist. However, there’s a problem with this: The YT video you link actually argues formonistic idealism, and against dualism. If you want anyone to accept the arguments from the video as valid in favor of your dualistic idealism, you need to explain why they’re not valid arguments in favor of monistic idealism (or, specifically, for IP’s weak panentheism). The logic and arguments are the same, so if you’re going to accept them when you think they establish idealism, but reject them when they likewise establish monism, you need to explain the blatant inconsistency on your part.
The author of that video is making some far-out theological claims, which you ignore completely while presenting the video, as a whole, as evidence favoring your position. This gives the impression that either you a) agree with his theology (though you say you don’t) or b) didn’t understand the material well enough to comprehend that by “endorsing” it you were undermining your own theological position.
Regardless, it should be stressed that the biggest problem with your appeal to this video is that the author is presenting one interpretation of many as a scientific fact when it is far from it. The jury is still out—heck, the jury hasn’t even heard much of the evidence yet, and IP is trying to render a verdict. He knows better, but he’s pitching his woo woo panentheism and isn’t going to let little things like facts distract him.
Nov. 1 Scott: I will copy and paste your comments in italics and respond below:
NC: Your evidence for that seems to be in the form of quotes from physicists. Later, when asked to clarify, you said, “the consensus of modern physicists is of no relevance.”
No, my evidence is not quotes from physicists. Modern physics has shown that there is no physical reality independent of a conscious observer. This indicates that the physical world is the product of a conscious mind. I cited the double-slit experiment as evidence of this.
—
NC: Another example: you recommend to me your essay, God is real, in which you say there is no third stance between materialism and idealism (actually the issue is between realism and idealism), so everyone needs to ask, “On which side… do I fall?” Then by way of answer you proceed to quote Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, Arthur Eddington, and James Jeans. You offer no exposition of your own, just quote after quote after quote, followed by the conclusion, “There can be no question on which side of this debate modern physics falls.” If you don’t present these quotes as evidence of a scientific consensus, why are they there?
NC: Another example: you recommend to me your essay, God is real, in which you say there is no third stance between materialism and idealism (actually the issue is between realism and idealism), so everyone needs to ask, “On which side… do I fall?” Then by way of answer you proceed to quote Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, Arthur Eddington, and James Jeans. You offer no exposition of your own, just quote after quote after quote, followed by the conclusion, “There can be no question on which side of this debate modern physics falls.” If you don’t present these quotes as evidence of a scientific consensus, why are they there?
Yes I do offer an exposition of my own. Until the wave function is collapsed by a conscious observer, particles exist only as a probability wave, not as actual physical objects. Therefore, the observation of a conscious observer is necessary for the production of physical reality. This indicates that the physical world is the result of a conscious and intelligent mind (read: God). I did not write this argument out in my essay, but this is the argument presented in the two videos that I linked to.
—-
NC: Maybe you’re appealing to authority rather than consensus. That seems unlikely, since surely you know a bald appeal to authority isn’t enough to establish anything. Besides, most physicists today disagree with the quotes you presented, and these physicists understand QM much better than the pioneers did, so any argument from authority (or consensus) would work against you.
And if you’re quoting Wigner as an authority, you need to explain why you reject his same authority when, later in life, he rejects “consciousness causes collapse.” Does he suddenly stop being an authority because you disagree with him?
Non Credenti, all human beings (whether they are a Nobel Prize winning physicist, or a homeless person) believe things for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons are logical and some of them are other-than-logical….such as psychological and ideological reasons. Probably the biggest motivator of atheism is the psychological need to be free from having to answer to a higher power for one’s actions.
I do not know if Wigner was an atheist or not. But if he was, you must cite his LOGICAL reasons for being an atheist. Anytime that you cite an authority’s opinion as evidence for something—-without also citing the LOGICAL REASONS behind that opinion——you are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. I do not commit this logical fallacy because I cite the following LOGICAL reason to support my citation of him:
Until the wave function is collapsed by a conscious observer, particles exist only as a probability wave, not as actual physical objects. Therefore, the observation of a conscious observer is necessary for the production of physical reality. This indicates that the physical world is the result of a conscious and intelligent mind (read: God).
—
NC: Wigner was an atheist. If the thrust of your article is that modern physics proves idealism, which “discredits” atheism, it is undone by the fact that Wigner was both an idealist and an atheist (it’s not difficult to see how he could be both; one simply needs to have an understanding of the concepts, rather than blindly pulling quotes from apologetics books). And there’s still the pesky fact that he later reversed his views on consciousness causing collapse.
Please explain how one can be an idealist and an atheist. Where do ideas come from if not minds? Further, you are clearly not an idealist. Rather, you are a materialist. Forgive me if I am wrong, but your arguments are very materialist. How do you support your materialism considering the insights of modern physics? In the video by Inspiring Philosophy, he cites Wigner as saying that materialism is NOT compatible with modern physics.
Please explain in detail how the wave function is collapsed without a conscious observer.
——
NC: Your quote of Eddington (where he mentions the Logos) is obviously just his opinion. Regardless, given Eddington’s own mysticism, and the fact that Hellenistic ideas of the Logos predated Christianity by a long while and were highly mystic, it’s likely he was using it in the Hellenistic sense. But even if we can’t say that without context, it’s certainly not clear that he was using Logos in the way modern Christians would like to read him. In the end it doesn’t matter; it’s only his opinion either way.
NC: Your quote of Eddington (where he mentions the Logos) is obviously just his opinion. Regardless, given Eddington’s own mysticism, and the fact that Hellenistic ideas of the Logos predated Christianity by a long while and were highly mystic, it’s likely he was using it in the Hellenistic sense. But even if we can’t say that without context, it’s certainly not clear that he was using Logos in the way modern Christians would like to read him. In the end it doesn’t matter; it’s only his opinion either way.
Finally, you have a quote from James Jeans. Now his quote seems to make a definite statement about consensus when he says, “There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity,…” but you have wisely declined to appeal to the consensus. After all, that might have been the consensus in 1930, but the realism/idealism pendulum keeps swinging. It’s also problematic to say Jeans’ quote should lead one to God, since it didn’t lead him to God. He was an agnostic.
So this essay, meant to prove that God is real by proving idealism, trots out quotes from eminent men from the past, and boldly concludes “there can be no question on which side of this debate modern physics falls.” Yet of the five men you quote, two were agnostics and one was an atheist, so most of these eminent thinkers weren’t swayed by their own quotes to start believing in God. One was a realist whose quote you miscontextualized (I understand it wasn’t you; you’re just copying from apologetic authors who knew you wouldn’t do any actual research), and one author later reversed his stance on wave-function collapse, which is central to your argument.
Once again, all human beings hold their beliefs for a variety of reasons…some of which are logical and some of which are psychological or ideological. Every time that you cite the views of an authority without citing the LOGICAL REASONS behind those views, you are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
—
NC: Furthermore, QM is an incredibly fast-moving field, and your quoted authorities are long dead. “Modern” physics, which you pretend to be representing, tells a different story than it did almost 100 years ago. There is an easy way to find out on which side modern physics falls—we can see if there have been any surveys done recently where elite physical scientists clearly state their position on this question. Would you care to make a small wager on what the results reveal?
At a recent meeting of physicists, a poll was taken of which interpretation these experts in the field subscribed to. There were three or four front-runners, but no interpretation achieved majority acceptance among the attendees. In a few years, as more experimental data comes in, one of the existing interpretations (or maybe a new one altogether) may gain general acceptance , but for now QM is still in its infancy and there is very little that is “settled.” Most physicists loudly proclaim that there is a lot to learn before we can make many confident claims about many of the details of QM.
This is AGAIN, the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Logical arguments consist of logic, not of opinion polls. The psychological need to be free of having to answer to a higher power is just as prevalent (perhaps more prevalent) in scientific circles. For example, Sir Arthur Eddington famously said that “the notion of a beginning [of the universe] is repugnant to me.” This is because accepting that the universe had a beginning forced him to recognize that a beginning requires a Beginner (read: God). The same is the case with Einstein, who adopted a fudge factor (known as a “cosmological constant”) in order to sweep the beginning of the universe under the rug. He later admitted that this was the biggest mistake of his career and said, “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”
Unless you provide a LOGICAL ARGUMENT to back up the religious/philosophical beliefs of authority figures, you are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. We cannot merely assume that an authority believes something for purely logical reasons.
Physicist Richard Conn Henry explains why people (such as many scientists) cling to materialism/naturalism despite the fact that it has been completely discredited by modern physics:
“Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.” ["Solipsism" is defined as "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."]
I have little doubt that many scientists will “cling with…ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality, ” as Henry puts it…for psychological and ideological reasons.
Further, you are committing the logical fallacy of Argument From Ignorance when you say, “In a few years, as more experimental data comes in, one of the existing interpretations (or maybe a new one altogether) may gain general acceptance.” You are basically arguing that what we DON’T know about quantum physics will some day vindicate your materialism, despite the fact that what we DO know about quantum physics already invalidates materialism.
—
NC: For example, in QM, the “observer” does not mean a conscious person; it more accurately refers to a measurement device. When you’re measuring things like electrons, a single photon used to measure/observe the position or momentum of the particle is enough to collapse the wave function. It’s like measuring the position of a bowling ball by seeing how a baseball bounces off it; the act of measurement affects the property you’re trying to measure.
NC: For example, in QM, the “observer” does not mean a conscious person; it more accurately refers to a measurement device. When you’re measuring things like electrons, a single photon used to measure/observe the position or momentum of the particle is enough to collapse the wave function. It’s like measuring the position of a bowling ball by seeing how a baseball bounces off it; the act of measurement affects the property you’re trying to measure.
No, the idea that the collapse of the wave function can be performed by a measurement device was debunked by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment. Go to about 6:10 into the video titled Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism by Inspiring Philosophy (on YouTube).
Please read the following paper about this experiment:http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm
A copy and paste of a crucial excerpt from this paper:
“Comment: This is key. There is no which-path information for the signal photons when they initially arrive at D0. Which-path information for those signal photons is obtained only later, when the twin idler photon is later detected at D3 or D4 (and not obtained if the twin idler photon is detected at D1 or D2).”
“As discussed below, the experimental setup ensures that this which-path information for the signal photons is obtained or erased only after the signal photon has been detected and the information is winging its way toward the Coincidence Circuit.”
Another crucial excerpt (basically the last two paragraphs from the paper):
“Time 6. Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment.”
“The position of a photon at detector D0 has been registered and scanned. Yet the actual position of the photon arriving at D0 will be at one place if we later learn more information; and the actual position will be at another place if we do not.”
Non Credenti, review the last sentence above: The measuring apparatus cannot be responsible for the collapse of the wave function because “the actual position of the photon arriving at D0 will be at one place if we later learn more information; and the actual position will be at another place if we do not.” Only an OBSERVATION OF A CONSCIOUS OBSERVER can learn information…not the presence of a measuring apparatus.
Non Credenti, atheism is rooted in the materialist worldview which says that ultimate reality (which can be simply defined as “the something-from-which-everything-else-comes”) is mindless matter. But this worldview is COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH MODERN PHYSICS…as Wigner famously said.
But if we assume that physical reality is a construct of consciousness (idealism/theism), then it is immediately clear why an observer collapses the wave function. The observer effect validates idealism/theism. As Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory put it:
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Or as the Nobel Prize winning physicist Erwin Shroedinger put it:
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
Non Credenti, you suggest that the wave function can be collapsed by “a single photon.” PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW A PARTICLE CAN CAUSE THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE FUNCTION. If the fundamental substratum of the universe is consciousness (as in theism and modern physics), it is immediately clear how an observation collapses the wave function. But how can “a single photon” collapse the wave function? By emitting some ethereal radiation?! PLEASE EXPLAIN!
By suggesting that a particle causes the wave function collapse, you are suggesting that a physical object (a particle) is acting on a non-physical entity (a wave function). PLEASE EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM BY WHICH A PHYSICAL PARTICLE CAUSES THE COLLAPSE OF A NON-PHYSICAL WAVE FUNCTION!!
Again, this notion was debunked by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment.
I cite Bruce Gordon, who holds a PhD in the history and philosophy of physics, for a more thorough explanation of why materialism/naturalism is completely incompatible with modern physics.
A copy and paste from his article:
….the ground has now been laid to summarize an argument showing not only that quantum theory does not support materialism but also that it is incompatible with materialism. The argument can be formulated in terms of the following premises and conclusion:
P1. Materialism is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever supervenes causally upon them.
P2. The explanatory resources of materialism are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes.
P3. Neither nonlocal quantum correlations nor (in light of nonlocalizability) the identity of the fundamental constituents of material reality can be explained or characterized if the explanatory constraints of materialism are preserved.
P4. These quantum phenomena require an explanation.
C Therefore, materialism/naturalism/physicalism is irremediably deficient as a worldview, and consequently should be rejected as false and inadequate.
The first two premises of this argument are uncontroversial: the first is just a definition and the second is a consequence of this definition. The key premises of the argument are thus the third and fourth; once these are established, the conclusion follows directly. Let’s focus our attention, therefore, on justifying the claims in premises three and four.
In order for a particle to be a material individual, it must possess one or more well-defined and uniquely identifying properties. The prime example of such a property is spatio-temporal location. In order for something to exist as an individual material object, it must occupy a certain volume of space at a certain time. If it does not, then whatever it is – if it’s anything at all – it’s not a material object. The problem for the materialist is that the particles of relativistic quantum mechanics are not so localizable.
Stated roughly, Gerhard Hegerfeldt and David Malament have shown that if one assumes (quite reasonably) that an individual particle can neither serve as an infinite source of energy nor be in two places at once, then that particle has zero probability of being found in any bounded spatial region, no matter how large! In short, the “particle” doesn’t exist anywhere in space, and so, to be honest, it doesn’t really exist at all. Hans Halvorson and Robert Clifton have extended these results and closed some loopholes by showing that the Hegerfeldt-Malament proof still works under conditions that are even more general. In particular, they’ve shown that once relativity is taken into account, there can be no intelligible notion of microscopic material objects. Particle talk has pragmatic utility in relation to macroscopic appearances, but it has no basis in microphysical reality (and this is the rock-bottom reality for the materialist).
The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
—
NC: You also say, “This points to an immaterial mind that is responsible for the production of physical reality (read: God).” It doesn’t, but I’d like to see if you can clarify your position. Are you saying there is no such thing as matter, that we’re all immaterial minds that produce the illusion of matter? Or are you saying there is matter, but it doesn’t exist until a conscious mind produces it? (Or is there a third option?) If God’s mind “produces” matter, why does the double-slit experiment give the results it does, if there is an omnipresent consciousness to observe all things? Does God cover His eyes while we do these experiments?
Though you seem unable to articulate your ontological position as one of dualistic idealism, you clearly said you were not a monist, and you’re arguing against materialism, so there’s probably a 99% chance that you’re a dualistic idealist. However, there’s a problem with this: The YT video you link actually argues for monistic idealism, and against dualism.If you want anyone to accept the arguments from the video as valid in favor of your dualistic idealism, you need to explain why they’re not valid arguments in favor of monistic idealism (or, specifically, for IP’s weak panentheism). The logic and arguments are the same, so if you’re going to accept them when you think they establish idealism, but reject them when they likewise establish monism, you need to explain the blatant inconsistency on your part.
Regarding your above question, please reference my above citation of Bruce Gordon, PhD. A copy and paste of a crucial excerpt:
“Stated roughly, Gerhard Hegerfeldt and David Malament have shown that if one assumes (quite reasonably) that an individual particle can neither serve as an infinite source of energy nor be in two places at once, then that particle has zero probability of being found in any bounded spatial region, no matter how large! In short, the “particle” doesn’t exist anywhere in space, and so, to be honest, it doesn’t really exist at all.”
Please explain why the video by Inspiring Philosophy supports monistic idealism. This is ridiculous. Please go to 14:00 into the video and review the commentary by the physicist Michio Kaku. Watch from this point all the way to the end. At 15:29, the author of the video (J. Ratz) says, “our mind doesn’t create reality, it only participates in it.”
But perhaps most importantly, I have to call you out for another red herring (an attempt to distract attention from the important points in order to cover up for the inadequacy of your logic). HOW CAN ATHEISM BE COMPATIBLE WITH EITHER MONISTIC OR DUALISTIC IDEALISM?
You want to start a debate about different forms of idealism in order to distract attention from the fact that your materialism is incompatible with modern physics.
Part 1: Quote-mining Part 3: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
No comments:
Post a Comment