Wigner's Friend, the existence of the immaterial soul and death of materialism

Agreed. The whole idea of a cosmic lottery breaks down at every level, but especially at the broadest level. If we “won the lottery”, then who is running it? Lotteries depend on a massive, well-organized government to work.

Again, the meaning of words matters. The words randomness and chance are only coherent in the context of a much larger dictionary, and they only have meaning in the context of a much larger, non-random universe. If everything is random, then the word loses all meaning, just like if everything is meaningless, then this sentence is pointless. Literally. This is not just semantics. This is basic, coherent, logic.

Aya, duty calls. I’ll be mostly MIA for the next couple of days :grin:. Y’all have a great weekend!

I have been thinking about this statement by Mitch. Originally I said he had kinda conceded my point, and in some sense, if what he says is true, he has, but, I want to show a discrepancy between what he says here and the many world’s view of quantum. If consciousness can’t be put into the formalism of quantum theory (which is what I used and what Everett used in his dissertation), then there is no way that Everett could be correct. When the universe splits in two in the Everettian view, it doubles the number of conscious beings, all of whom are duplicated by a quantum process. Here I am closing the jaws of a trap: Mitches view should be published as a strong objection to the Many world’s interpretation of quantum. How can quantum split them if they can’t be described by quantums formalism? Some how, I think it would be rejected in review.

The serious point is that all other views of quantum think that consciousness IS modelable by quantum. That IS the consensus view. Over and over one can see statements that consciousness is a physical process of the brain, subject to the laws of physics. While we may not know the details quantum formalism is said to apply to consciousness. If it doesn’t, then Many Worlds is disproven.

I will have to point you to this Monday (my sisters family is coming this week, to see me.). But I know Matt will like this sequence of quotes from a quantum book:

"Popper describes all such objects, substances and fields as belonging to what he calls ‘world 1’. There are two more ‘worlds’ in Popper’s philosophy. World 2 consists of states of the human mind, conscious or unconscious. These must be considered real for exactly the same reason as were world-1 objects–i.e. they can affect the bahaviour of physical objects. thus a particular state of mind can cause the brain to send a message along the nerve that causes the contraction of a muscle and a movement of a hand or leg, which in turn may cause an undoubted world-1 object such as a football to be propelled through the air.

"Beyond worlds 1 and 2 is world 3. following Popper, world 3 is defined as the products of the human mind. these are not physical objects nor are they merely brain states, but are things such as stories, myths, pieces of music, mathematical theorems, scientific theories etc. these are to be considered real for exactly the same reasons as were applied to worlds 1 and 2. Consider for example a piece of music. what is it? It is certainly not the paper and ink used to write out a copy of the score, neither is it the compact disc on which a particular performance is recorded. It isn’t even the pattern on the disc or the vibrations in the air when the music is played. None of these world-1 objects are the piece of music, but all exist in the form they do because of the music. the music is a world-3 object, a product of the human mind, which is to be considered as ‘real’ because its existence affects the behaviour of large-scale physical objects–the ink and paper of the score, the shape of the grooves in the record, the pattern of vibrations in the air and so on." alastair Rae, Quantum Physics, Cambridge University, 2004, p. 64

**

"Another example of a world 3 object is a mathematical theorem such as ‘The only even prime number is 2’. Everyone who knows any mathematics must agree that this statement is true and it follows that it is ‘real’ if only because world 1 objects such as the paper of this page and the arrangement of the ink on it would have been different otherwise. The reality of scientific theories is real in even more dramatic ways. It is because of the truth of our scientific understanding of the operation of semiconductors that micro-chip-based computers exist in the form they do. Tragically, it was the truth of the scientific theories of nuclear physics that resulted in the development, construction and detonation of a nuclear bomb."

"The reader may well have noticed an important aspect of these world 3 objects. Their reality is established only by the intervention of conscious, human beings. The piece of music or the mathematical theorem results in a particular mental state of a human being (i.e. a world 2 object) which in turn affects the behaviour of world 1. Without human consciousness this interaction would be impossible and the reality of world 3 could not be established. It is this fact that leads Popper and Eccles to extend their argument to the reality of the self-conscious mind itself. Only a self-conscious human being can appreciate the reality of world 3 objects, which are real because their existence can (via human consciousness and brain) affect world 1 objects. It follows that human consciousness itself must be real and different from any physical object, even the brain." Alastair Rae, "Quantum Physics," (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 66

**

I would not. Just the opposite in fact which would be clear if you followed my link posted above to the reasons why I believe.

And as I also explained above the end of materialism was the discovery of science that everything including matter are just different forms of energy. So the atheists shifted from materialism to naturalism and thus you are beating a dead horse that died more than a century ago.

Thus the far more important point is that this mathematical description which science excels at is not the totality of reality. The atheists LOVE to cast religion into the role of primitive science and so last thing that you want to do is make it look like science has the better handle on the immaterial aspect of reality than religion does. SO it is not about the dead horse of the immaterial nature of reality but about the fact that there is more to reality than what the mathematical equations of physics describe.

Incorrect. It is a demonstrable fact of neuroscience that it most certainly can. Light, math, social values and other immaterial things the brain most certainly has adapted to apprehending them all. AND not only that but computers can do the mathematics even better than we do. If you want people to believe in the value of spirituality then the intellectual realm of mathematics is the completely in the wrong direction to point them in. That can only play into the hands of the naturalists.

Not entirely… Mostly to be sure. But the old hat that mathematics is the universal language is an assumption that we are beginning to have reasons to doubt. The answers are certainly objective but the subjective part is in the questions we choose ask. Thus it is entirely possible that an alien civilization out there may have asked very different questions to get something playing a similar role as mathematics does for us but which is totally different from ours.

Though… this is actually better for your implied attempt to connect math with spirituality. Because the objective has more to do with science/physicality and I think it is rather demonstrable that subjectivity is an inherent part of spirituality.

The problem is that the quantity is too much. I do have other things to do. So, you force me to pick and choose.

Incorrect. I only object to metaphysical assumptions in the theory of truth itself.

I have no idea what you are talking about now. I am working with the definition of metaphysics as the study of the nature of reality, according to which this statement makes no sense.

Correct, which is why I see no reason to believe in any multiverse of any kind. Such ideas and speculations are on no more objective footing than ideas and beliefs about God and angels. I choose God and the angels.

No more, to be sure, than our own choice to explain it by an infinite spiritual deity.

correction… what some atheist naturalist physicists do… This is certainly not an area of accepted science demonstrable fact.

Here I shall simply refer you to an earlier post in this thread. I can also suggest that you look up the discussion of this topic in other threads: such as this one or this one or this one or this one.

Explaining the imagined positions of your characters would be your job as an author of this fictional discussion not mine.

… so you are using the word “metaphysical” as a synonym for some combination of spiritual and fictional…??? it is very confusing.

LOL, in my view you are picking the easy ones to respond to.

Metaphysical dictionary definition is can’t be perceived by our senses. That is all it means. and we can’t perceive the things that are used to void a design argument from the anthropic principle.

So, when you use the word metaphysical in your definition of truth, I simply use what the word means, not any personal definition of that sound.

That’s simple enough to say but at the same time this soul like saying should be measurable. The closest that any of us can get is saying something spooky happens during the observer effect in quantum mechanics. But at the same time that doesn’t lead to positive evidence for the soul because you can get the same affects with just a machine that measures.

It certainly sounds nice to talk about the power of the mind and it makes a lot of sense to use that language but from the aspect of quantum theory and particle physics, there is no evidence for such.

But at the end of the day I have similar beliefs about Christianity and the soul from what you’ve said.

Then perhaps the problem is the dictionary you are using… or how far down the list you go looking for obscure meanings of the word.

Google

met·a·phys·i·cal
/ˌmedəˈfizək(ə)l/
adjective

    1. relating to metaphysics.
      “the essentially metaphysical question of the nature of the mind”

Google

met·a·phys·ics
/ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun

  1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Wikipedia

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality.

Or maybe I am just picking the ones I haven’t already discussed at great length in other threads.

I don’t really know that either. All I can really do is just trust that he does without being able to quantify that. The challenge that I can appreciate is the one that I quoted here which is from a naturalist, Sean Carroll. The physics side of me of course would say yeah that makes a lot of sense that something must be wrong with our equations if we are going to allow for the soul to influence our brain which is made up of electrons.

But that’s just the problem. While one can try to fit God into quantum uncertainties or something like that, the actual particles in our brain will obey equations like the direct equation. I am fine with the idea of chalking this up to divine mystery and obviously agree with your statement that finding evidence of God directly would probably best be done in the quantum realm. However, the effect of the soul or consciousness or of God is so incredibly small if this is the case that it’s practically negligible at every day energies.

Another problem I have is that such a possibility is not the same as scientific evidence. In particular as you introduce this as an overlooked knock out of the park apologetic. I do applaud though your reading and thinking of ways modern science can be consistent with Christian theology (I do the same on many occasions).

Edited to add: I did like your cartoon, and I will be proud to agree with Eugene Wigner when he said:

“it will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality .” Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, in Eugene Wigner, Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, Springer, 2012, p. 172

maybe Wigner is a hijacker as well. lol if you don’t know who Wigner is, and some might not, go look him up on Wiki

Think about it. The world as we experience it is entirely a construction of our minds. The entire conglomeration of colors, shapes, sounds, feels, etc., that we call “the world” is constructed out of a synthesis of our sensory “input” (so to speak). This is not solipsism and it’s not to say that there is not, somehow, a world “out there”. Just that that’s not what we actually experience. This is simple reflective phenomenology. Think about it. We basically “construct the world from the world” and then project our construction “back out onto the world” and experience this construction as the world. But what we are experiencing is actually just our construction and not the “world itself”. (I owe my expression of this observation to Immanuel Kant via Edmund Husserl, so it’s really nothing new, just the twist I’m giving it.)

OK. So where do we go from there? It means the material world of our everyday experience has really a secondary and, so to speak, derived existence. (Again, this does not mean that the world isn’t real, just that that reality is not what we actually experience.) Long story short. Physics and other scientific paradigms are further (and largely mathematical) derivations from this experience, based on various ways of “enhancing” it through observational equipment and experimentation. But this means that the so-called “physical world” of science is actually a derivation from our sensory construction and so secondary even to it. To me, this makes the concept of “the physical world” as presented by science and, especially, the scientism of contemporary analytical philosophy purely that – such a derivative concept as to hardly form the basis for a coherent philosophical view such as purported “realism”.

1 Like

Sigh, sometimes internet debates get tedious because people don’t remember what they said. Just finding an irrelevant equivocating definition of metaphysics is actually a logical fallacy.

Your definition above is entirely incompatible with the use of the root word metaphysics in the definition of truth YOU posted earlier.

Deflationism - A definition of truth must be devoid of metaphysical claims

If you want to use your Wiki definition of metaphysical for the definition of the word used in YOUR definition of deflationism, then deflationism’s definition would effectively say this:**

A definition of truth must be devoid of claims about the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality*

In other words, this asserts deflationism should be devoid of science. The original definition of metaphysical I used–(can’t be perceived), seemed to capture better what you were trying to say with deflationism, but if you now tell me that deflationism rules out assertions about the nature of reality, then I will believe you. It is your definition.

I think I give up. MarkD may be the only philosopher here.

Of how God’s spirit interacts with the world, Pevaquark said:

[quote=“pevaquark, post:143, topic:40576”]
I don’t really know that either. All I can really do is just trust that he does without being able to quantify that. The challenge that I can appreciate is the one that I quoted here which is from a naturalist, Sean Carroll. The physics side of me of course would say yeah that makes a lot of sense that something must be wrong with our equations if we are going to allow for the soul to influence our brain which is made up of electrons.[/quote]

OK, but if you agree that God’s spirit can influence the world of matter, then why try to claim that a human spirit couldn’t follow suit? And brains are made up of more than electrons, positrons, neutrons, electric and magnetic fields etc. Lots of play in there.

If the effect of God is that small, why should we pray? I don’t know your beliefs on the resurrection or resurrection of Lazarus, or even your views on the resurrected Jesus, who had hands that felt real, but yet, who could walk through walls. If you think those things had even a slight chance of being real, then God’s effect on the world is not small. At least not in those cases.

Thank you, I have done it all my life with varying degrees of success. The atheist has NO qualms about seeing and ensuring that his world view is included in interpretations of science. That is why I gave those quotes by Fred Hoyle. He didn’t like anything that smacked of God or the Bible and he felt science should either. He isn’t embarrassed to stand by his world view, but I find too many Christians in science incredibly embarrassed by the miracles, the bodily resurrection, the soul. I don’t know why?

They say hanging concentrates the mind. I have been told 3 times by doctors that my time was very short, and that has had the effect over the past 16 years (I proved em wrong), of concentrating my mind on what I think is REAL, what I think is IMPORTANT, and what I want to leave behind me.

As I read physics, I see God screaming out of the equations. If we eliminate universes we can’t see as being no better than heaven which we can’t see, then we are stuck with a conundrum of having only one universe with a big bang beginning, and physical constants so finely tuned that the odds against it happening by chance are astronomical. The reason we don’t see it is because guys like Hoyle have sold us the multiverse bill of goods and if you have an infinitude of universes as they say, one universe among all of that infinitude is quite likely to be like ours simply by chance. But if all you have is this one universe and no multiverse out there, the roulette wheel of physical constants has been RIGGED big time in order for humans to exist.

Again, Christians in science are far too often embarrassed by this kind of thinking. I am not.

Above, I quoted an argument from Popper, who was agnostic and even he, without using quantum, felt that man’s consciousness was immaterial. If an agnostic can stand up and say that what the heck is wrong with us Christians who claim our souls will be in heaven after we die?

William Pennat, I couldn’t agree with you more. This was one of the things I learned in my one year of grad school in philosophy. No one actually disproved 19th century idealism, they just decided to do other things, like Wittgensteinian analysis.

It’s more of a belief and not anything that can be justified by uncertainty in Physics.

It’s not that “God is so small” but that such uncertainties in the results of Physics are small, i.e. its not that science provides a great apologetic. I don’t have a great reason for ‘why should we pray’ in an empirical way but offer just the faith I have for this question.

I understand though quotes are particularly meaningless to me.

I’m not so sure the fine-tuning approach is the best to go with though do ascribe to a general ‘first-cause’ type of argument. You don’t actually know the ‘chance’ of anything regarding physical constants unless you have independently developed a sufficient theory (string theory?) that can account for actual probabilities.

Again I’m not so sure this makes much sense in light of what physicists mean when they talk about fine-tuning.

They are? Or if they have reservations, why do they have such when you, as a non-expert, do not?

What exactly are you referring to here (citation preferred)?

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here but a philosopher of science’s feelings don’t exactly mean much.

1 Like

gbob

William Pennat, I couldn’t agree with you more. This was one of the things I learned in my one year of grad school in philosophy. No one actually disproved 19th century idealism, they just decided to do other things, like Wittgensteinian analysis.

Thanks. I do have a fundamentally idealist perspective, I think, though I’m still working out the details. My observations above don’t necessarily entail idealism (I don’t think). But they kind of clear the way for it.

The understanding by us of the world has been the subject of many thinkers, and I am inclined to the view that we as Christians may idealise existence from the fact that we base our outlook on the ultimate ideal, Christ, and we contemplate attributes such as total goodness, faith, love, etc., as a way we comprehend God.

Often however, philosophers consider things that are opposed, such as idealism vs materialism (or realism). This summary (found on the web) is useful for this:

Idealism in general refers to any philosophy that argues that reality is somehow dependent upon the mind rather than independent of it. More extreme versions will deny that the “world” even exists outside of our minds. Slight versions argue that our understanding of reality reflects the workings of our mind first and leading that the properties of objects have no standing independent of minds perceiving them. In Western civilization, Idealism is the philosophy which maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is ideal or based upon ideas, values and essences and that the so-called external or real world is inseparable from consciousness, perception, mind, intellect, and reason in the sense of precise science. It is also a tradition in Western thought which represents things in an ideal form, or as they ought to be rather than as they really are, in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. Some forms of idealism, like that of Berkeley, are often contrasted with materialism. Some idealists, like Spinoza, are monists as opposed to dualist, again like Descartes, or pluralist ontologies. Plato is called an idealist because of his theory of Forms or doctrine of Ideas, which are “ideal” in the dictionary sense. Most interpreters, ancient and modern, hold that Plato does not describe the Forms as being in any mind, instead he describes them as having ………

That is not even coherent. The theory of truth is not about what can be true but about what it means to be true. Saying that your theory of truth should be devoid of metaphysical claims is not the same as saying that metaphysical claims cannot be true.

Talking about science and how it works is not the same as talking about what science has discovered.
Talking about what is life is not the same as talking about all the things which are alive.
Talking about love is not the same as having love for someone.
Talking about computers is not the same as using computers.
Talking about what it means to be true is not the same as talking about what is true.

Your reasoning was like equating a claim that computers don’t use food to a claim that computers cannot be used in food industry. Or like equating a claim that religion has no role in scientific inquiry to a claim that science cannot study religion.

Maybe you need to look up theory of truth and deflationism yourself. Because I am at my limit. Figure it out for yourself.

It’s not that “God is so small” but that such uncertainties in the results of Physics are small, i.e. its not that science provides a great apologetic. I don’t have a great reason for ‘why should we pray’ in an empirical way but offer just the faith I have for this question.

At some point, I am going to start another thread to tell the story of my prayer for a Turkish translator. It was the one answered prayer that I couldn’t reject when I was struggling with atheism for 10 years. That one prayer allowed me to hang on long enough for the doubts to resolve.

I would agree that apologetics must be done where they match science and that is the problem with the yecs (young earthers). Nothing they say matches science. And ID tries to ignore that evolution can create the structures they use as examples. So, yeah, there is a sordid history out there. It doesn’t follow that all our arguments are wrong or that we shouldn’t try.

That is why I gave those quotes by Fred Hoyle.

They shouldn’t be because when they design science to match their atheist view, then we all feel compelled to believe them. Im going to try again with argument that got really sidetracked with Mitch.

Let’s ask it this way, Is physics about things we can’t observe? It didn’t used to be. In fact physicists were the preeminent empiricalists–if we can’t see it, sense it, it is in the realm of faeries, gods and other nonsense. So, let’s look at the logical consequences of two different answers to that question.

Case 1: Is physics about things we can’t observe? NO.
Then in this case, all we can refer to in our scientific explanations are things that we can observe. We can observe a beginning to the universe. Which of course raises unanswerable questions about what was before, how did it start–questions which can’t be answered without referring to things we cant observe–science hits theology at this point.

We can also observe the fine tuning of the universe which is so fine tuned that we get the feeling that the game is rigged in favor of our existence. But without referring to things we can’t observe we have no idea how this fine tuning got here. Again, science hits the wall of theology and while the answers are outside of science, it is perfectly acceptable then in this case where only empiracle things are allowed, to say God rigged the game and caused the beginning.


Case 2 Is physics about things we can’t observe? YES
In this option, we can look at the beginning and like Hoyle, if we don’t like hits of God being there, we can come up with inflation where an infinitude of universes are spawned each moment can’t say through all time but can say through whatever the higher dimensional analogue to time is. In this case we have an unobserved and unobservable inflaton field creating universe after universe and therefore, the big bang doesn’t smell of God.

Oh, and the fine tuning? Well, now, if we don’t like the idea of the stink of god on the physical constants, we can create an infinitude of unobserved universes whose constants are created by chance. and how on earth would we know if the constants are varied by chance processes or perchance our constants are fixed for all universes—we can’t know either case because it is all fiction We can’t see any of this other world out there, but if we play like it exists, then our universe isn’t special. It is just one of many and by chance we got very very very lucky in the choice of our physical constants.

We Christians are allowing them to play sleight of hand games on us–whereby they substitute their metaphysics and wrap it in a mantle of impervious science, while we cower, afraid to call cow patties, cow patties.

I’m not so sure the fine-tuning approach is the best to go with though do ascribe to a general ‘first-cause’ type of argument. You don’t actually know the ‘chance’ of anything regarding physical constants unless you have independently developed a sufficient theory (string theory?) that can account for actual probabilities.

See above, NEITHER DO THOSE USING SCIENCE TO ADVANCE THEIR ATHEISM KNOW THIS!!! But they claim it because if you have an infinitude of actual universes, and add the slick assumption that they know the constants vary with chance,(which they can’t possibly know), then they sound so scientific, when in fact they are peddling their philosophy.

Again I’m not so sure this makes much sense in light of what physicists mean when they talk about fine-tuning.

So those physicists are the only ones who can set the rules, when I think you re a physicist and I know I am one? As Feynmann said:

Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), p. 307

What we have today, and what your faith in those physicists shows, is that “Science is the organized belief in experts.”

GRM: Above, I quoted an argument from Popper, who was agnostic and even he, without using quantum, felt that man’s consciousness was immaterial. If an agnostic can stand up and say that what the heck is wrong with us Christians who claim our souls will be in heaven after we die?

Philosophers don’t work on ‘feelings’ they work off of logic. That is the same basis upon which science is supposed to work. And logic is as good a way to get a handle on the nature of reality as is experiment. You should try to understand the logic in Popper’s argument for the existence of the soul. It is really a scientific argument because he starts with what we observe and draws conclusions–that is what a theoretician in physics does.

sigh,
Of course it isn’t coherent. That was precisely my point. I was pointing out that the definition you chose for metaphysics, when tied to your definition of deflationism leads to bad things. That is what is called a reduction to absurdity argument. Go look it up. It uses the assumptions of the other side and shows it leads to a contradiction. People really don’t understand this extremely powerful tool of logic, the reduction to a contradiction.

What your truth definition means by ‘metaphysics’ is unperceived objects–ie. let’s not talk about God when we discuss truth. Your definition of deflationism only works if it uses the dictionary definition of metaphysical which I provided–ruling out things that are not perceived by physical senses.

And then where I was going with the bigger argument was the 2 cases outlined to Pevaquark above. If you rule out the unseen multiverse, then the fine tuning argument is an excellent argument for design. atheists only exit from it is to say we won the lottery by buying only one ticket, or to have an infinity of attempts and one of them worked to create our universe.