Is some amount of Spirituality compatible with Atheism.

aurora_borealis

Hey guys, I've been long time reader of boards but today I decided to finally register and ask some of you guys this. Basically, I'm a physics undergraduate, completely and utterly a man of science. Now, I'm sure most of you will look down on me for having any sense of spirituality whatsoever, considering my studies.

I've been thinking alot about this, and I think in practice I'm an Atheist, in that I reject completely organised religion, it is a tool that has been wildly exploited by humans for all of the wrong reasons. I also don't believe in there being a god/ gods who have any direct influence on our lives.

There is so much in the universe that can't be explained, and I think science is beautiful in that it doesn't accept ignorance as an answer to how things work. It harbors that natural curiousity that resides in all of us and encourages us to think and form educated opinions. However, there are some things in science which just cannot be explained. Now I am only a 3rd year undergraduate, so my examples may be idealised situations, in which my lecturers may be sparing me the mathematical heartache's involved in the true answers, but I think the implications remain.

For example, in quantum mechanics we know that everything has an associated wave function, from which we can calculate the probability of this object being in a certain place at a certain time. However, by making measurements or observations, we 'collapse' the wave function right? So that the particle in localised in a certain range of values. And in the case of Schrodingers cat (google the simple thought experiment if you are unfimiliar with it) an observation needs to occur before a particular property can even exist. (ie - before the cat is observed, it is both alive and dead at the same time, as both wave functions exist, however once we look inside the box, one of the wave functions collapses to zero, meaning the cat becomes EITHER alive or dead)

So, the idea of something needing to be observed before it truly exists (in the classical sense of term) has massive implications on our universe doesn't it? Does that not mean that something has to 'observe' our universe for it to truly exist, I'm NOT trying to say there is a deity out there who observed us and made us real, but are our observations enough to make the world around us a true reality (true in the sense that we can make observations and measurements of certain properties to a certain degree of accuracy). I'm not trying to get into a whole philosophical argument here, I'm just saying that there are alot of philosophical implications when quantum mechanical theory is applied to our world.


Maybe this is all fcuking mumbo jumbo, and I just haven't truly been told all of these theories. But I don't see how it's beyond the realms of plausible possibility to see how there may be something beyond our natural idea of 3-dimensional space. Something we don't understand yet.

Also, on a completely unrelated note, is it wrong for me to enjoy going to any religious buildings to relax, I find it easier to relax my mind and feel in peace when I'm in a religious building (regardless of faith) then at home on my own. I can't really describe that, maybe it's just the ambience or some sort of placebo effect from growing up around religious kooks... :pac::pac: I don't subscribe to their belief systems, or agree with their teachings, however I do strangely have a penchant for their buildings. Strange I know..............

Sorry about the long post, I'd enjoy if someone could set me straight.

Naz_st

First off, welcome to boards - good first post!

Second, on the quantum stuff: Quantum mechanics is difficult to grasp as a concept IMHO simply because its fundamental nature is anathema to 200k years of human thinking. Yes, sub-atomic particles can exist in two states simultaneously. Yes, you can't know both the position and the momentum of a sub-atomic particle at the same time. But I don't see what's "unexplained", it's just the way the universe works at the quantum level. And either way, any unexplained phenomenon is not a good basis for a theistic or deistic position (and I'm not sure why you think it's a basis for spirituality specifically?).

Third, to answer your question, I think that spirituality is certainly compatible with atheism (depending on how you define spirituality of course). Spiritual "experiences", such as out-of-body experiences, can come about from deep meditation or certain "chemicals", but it's ultimately a function of our conscious/sub-conscious and physiology and neuro-chemistry. It doesn't make the experience any less meaningful for the one experiencing it though.

Finally, Sam Harris has a good article in this area you might find interesting.

Rev Hellfire

Anything is compatible with atheism as long as it doesn't involve a god or gods. There's only one requirement to be an atheist and that's a disbelief in deities.

Tyler MacDurden

aurora_borealis wrote: »

Maybe this is all fcuking mumbo jumbo, and I just haven't truly been told all of these theories. But I don't see how it's beyond the realms of plausible possibility to see how there may be something beyond our natural idea of 3-dimensional space. Something we don't understand yet.

Far from being implausible, the existence of multiple dimensions (up to eleven at the last count!) is postulated by many physicists nowadays. I'm not sure how much coverage M-Theory gets in undergrad courses but it's a fascinating field. I'd recommend Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds as an introduction to this and other cutting edge theories.

Also, I don't think those of a scientific outlook should make excuses for the limits of knowledge or feel burdened by the unknown. On the contrary, we should revel in the possibilities for discovery. Best of luck with the rest of it, and enjoy the endless maths.

aurora_borealis

Naz_st wrote: »

First off, welcome to boards - good first post!

Second, on the quantum stuff: Quantum mechanics is difficult to grasp as a concept IMHO simply because its fundamental nature is anathema to 200k years of human thinking. Yes, sub-atomic particles can exist in two states simultaneously. Yes, you can't know both the position and the momentum of a sub-atomic particle at the same time. But I don't see what's "unexplained", it's just the way the universe works at the quantum level. And either way, any unexplained phenomenon is not a good basis for a theistic or deistic position (and I'm not sure why you think it's a basis for spirituality specifically?).

Third, to answer your question, I think that spirituality is certainly compatible with atheism (depending on how you define spirituality of course). Spiritual "experiences", such as out-of-body experiences, can come about from deep meditation or certain "chemicals", but it's ultimately a function of our conscious/sub-conscious and physiology and neuro-chemistry. It doesn't make the experience any less meaningful for the one experiencing it though.

Finally, Sam Harris has a good article in this area you might find interesting.

Quantum mechanics is not only difficult to grasp because of how unintuitive it is, but because it has profound implications on what we once thought were simple. The idea that making a measurement / observing somehow changes the variable we are trying to observe is crazy.

That article is excellent, it sums up how I feel exactly, I've always loved that sense when you fixate on something in your mind and everything goes blank and it almost seems like you stop 'existing' (almost as if your consciousness is unaware of itself) for a brief period of time.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Anything is compatible with atheism as long as it doesn't involve a god or gods. There's only one requirement to be an atheist and that's a disbelief in deities.

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure because alot of people seem to interchange Spirituality with religious beliefs.

Tyler MacDurden wrote: »

Far from being implausible, the existence of multiple dimensions (up to eleven at the last count!) is postulated by many physicists nowadays. I'm not sure how much coverage M-Theory gets in undergrad courses but it's a fascinating field. I'd recommend Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds as an introduction to this and other cutting edge theories.

Also, I don't think those of a scientific outlook should make excuses for the limits of knowledge or feel burdened by the unknown. On the contrary, we should revel in the possibilities for discovery. Best of luck with the rest of it, and enjoy the endless maths.

I've researched alot on M - Theory and as elegant as it seems, the scientist in me disklikes the idea of not being able to plausibly test a theory for bloody ages. Using current technology, to unearth some of the predictions from string theory, we would need a particle accelerator the size of our solar system..... =P

It would be pretty fascinating if their was some kind of connection between living organisms through a certain consciousness that was explained by such theories. But obviously that is mainly pseudo scientific nonsense that needs to be dismissed, but it's a nice idea in theory.

Zombrex

aurora_borealis wrote: »

So, the idea of something needing to be observed before it truly exists (in the classical sense of term) has massive implications on our universe doesn't it? Does that not mean that something has to 'observe' our universe for it to truly exist, I'm NOT trying to say there is a deity out there who observed us and made us real, but are our observations enough to make the world around us a true reality (true in the sense that we can make observations and measurements of certain properties to a certain degree of accuracy).

If you think about that though it is more of an argument against a deity than an argument for a deity, because things don't exist as a single point when they aren't being observed. The wave function doesn't collapse unless we or something else in this universe collapses it.

So this would imply there isn't anything observing the universe, wouldn't it?

aurora_borealis

Wicknight wrote: »

If you think about that though it is more of an argument against a deity than an argument for a deity, because things don't exist as a single point when they aren't being observed. The wave function doesn't collapse unless we or something else in this universe collapses it.

So this would imply there isn't anything observing the universe, wouldn't it?

No, not necessarily, collapsing of the wave function does not necessarily mean that it particle disappears. For example, a completely free particle has an equal probability of being anywhere in space, thus it's wave function is fully spread across infinity, however, if we somehow confine the particle, and observe, it's wave-function collapses so that it is now localised in a certain range. It no longer has an equal probability of being found anywhere in space, it now has a probability that resembles a bell curve.

In Schrodingers cat, the cat is both alive and dead until we observe it. But once the observation is made, the entire wavefunction collapses (not just the alive or dead components), and when this collapse takes place, one of the components goes to zero. The collapse of a wave function just means that a particle which was initially in a superposition of eigenstates (eg, both alive AND dead) is collapsed so that one of the eigenstates is the remaining one (eg, dead) after an interaction with the outside world (an observation).

Mickeroo

Wasn't Shroedinger joking when i he came up with the cat experiment?

aurora_borealis

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wasn't Shroedinger joking when i he came up with the cat experiment?

Maybe, in that he doesn't condone cruelty to animals. But thought experiments based on the EXACT same idea have been tested and proved to be exactly as predicted. So even though it may be a cruel experiment, when it is done, the cat IS both alive and dead until observed. And you may say 'That's just because we haven't looked, it is definitely either alive or dead, we just don't know because nobodies looked', which isn't true, the cat is actually both alive and dead.

aurora_borealis

I guess it's also important for me to clarify what I mean when I say that it is not 'real' until it is observed. I don't mean that particle or object doesn't exist, but that it is in a superposition of many different states. Thus it is indefinite in what it's existence really is, until it is observed or measured.

Mickeroo

aurora_borealis wrote: »

Maybe, in that he doesn't condone cruelty to animals. But thought experiments based on the EXACT same idea have been tested and proved to be exactly as predicted. So even though it may be a cruel experiment, when it is done, the cat IS both alive and dead until observed. And you may say 'That's just because we haven't looked, it is definitely either alive or dead, we just don't know because nobodies looked', which isn't true, the cat is actually both alive and dead.

As far i know nobody has physically carried out the cat experiment. It was meant as a pradox though right? Its pretty much the same as saying if a tree falls and nobody's around to hear it does it make a sound? There's no way of proving it without observation,but with observation the experiment cant work. I dont think he meant it to be taken literally anyway, things like that are evident at the quantum level but not at our level. Thers always hugh everett's many worlds theory where the cat is both alive and dead but both realitites are seperate from eachother. It's fascinating stuff,but even the experts dont understand quantum mechanics.

aurora_borealis

Mickeroo wrote: »

As far i know nobody has physically carried out the cat experiment. It was meant as a pradox though right? Its pretty much the same as saying if a tree falls and nobody's around to hear it does it make a sound? There's no way of proving it without observation,but with observation the experiment cant work. I dont think he meant it to be taken literally anyway, things like that are evident at the quantum level but not at our level. Thers always hugh everett's many worlds theory where the cat is both alive and dead but both realitites are seperate from eachother. It's fascinating stuff,but even the experts dont understand quantum mechanics.

What are you talking about? Quantum mechanics is arguably the most tested and accurate theory we have in physics. Of course they haven't carried out Schrodingers Cat exact experiment, but they have carried out ones analogous to it that have confirmed the results.

These experiment would involve say a source particle with zero angular momentum, that splits into two particles, and to conserve angular momentum (a fundamental law of the universe), the angular momentum of particle one must be the opposite of the angular momentum of particle tw (for arguments sake lets call it angular momentum up and angular momentum down). They have found, until one of the particles is observed, both particles have angular momentum of up AND down, once on one particle occurs, it becomes either up OR down, for example lets say it becomes up, and then the other instantaneously becomes down. It's the exact same principle, each particle is in the superposition of both angular momentum up AND down until observed, in which case the wave-function collapses and it takes on a definite eigenstate.

Sorry if that got a little too scientific, but that's just a way of showing that the theory has been experimentally tested and confirmed. They have also done it with a radioactive source emitting two photons of opposite polarisation...

Mickeroo

aurora_borealis wrote: »

What are you talking about? Quantum mechanics is arguably the most tested and accurate theory we have in physics. Of course they haven't carried out Schrodingers Cat exact experiment, but they have carried out ones analogous to it that have confirmed the results.

These experiment would involve say a source particle with zero angular momentum, that splits into two particles, and to conserve angular momentum (a fundamental law of the universe), the angular momentum of particle one must be the opposite of the angular momentum of particle tw (for arguments sake lets call it angular momentum up and angular momentum down). They have found, until one of the particles is observed, both particles have angular momentum of up AND down, once on one particle occurs, it becomes either up OR down, for example lets say it becomes up, and then the other instantaneously becomes down. It's the exact same principle, each particle is in the superposition of both angular momentum up AND down until observed, in which case the wave-function collapses and it takes on a definite eigenstate.

Sorry if that got a little too scientific, but that's just a way of showing that the theory has been experimentally tested and confirmed. They have also done it with a radioactive source emitting two photons of opposite polarisation...

Yea i get you. I know this kind of thing can be proven at the quantum level, but theres still no way of observing the cat in these different states,know what i mean?

Isn't there a saying among quantum physicists? " If you think you understand quantum mechanics,then you dont understand quantum mechanics."

pH

One thing I never quite understood about the Schrodingers cat thing (even as a thought experiment) is why the cat itself isn't a valid observer?

Imagine you take the existing apparatus (yes I know it's a thought experiment), and put another sealed box around it along with a depressed scientist (cat lover) who checks on the cat and kills himself when the cat dies. For the rest of us outside the (outer) box can we claim that that scientist is also in a "dead/not dead" state until we open the outer box?

Is it the fact that the cat dies that matters? is an alive cat a valid "observer" or are cats just fundamentally not smart enough to observe?

And what of God in all this, is he not an observer of everything? Surely if he's watching things then all wave functions collapse right away as they're observed by the almighty? Or do Christians postulate a fundamentally (multidimensional ... oooh!) different way for God to observe? Are there special categories of observers, us who collapse wave functions, as opposed to cats and almighty God who do not?

Zombrex

aurora_borealis wrote: »

No, not necessarily, collapsing of the wave function does not necessarily mean that it particle disappears. For example, a completely free particle has an equal probability of being anywhere in space, thus it's wave function is fully spread across infinity, however, if we somehow confine the particle, and observe, it's wave-function collapses so that it is now localised in a certain range. It no longer has an equal probability of being found anywhere in space, it now has a probability that resembles a bell curve.

That is what I mean.

Collapsing the wave function causes the particle to be in one point, it collapses the probability wave so the probability in one point goes to 1. You can now say the particle is at one point.

This doesn't happen unless something in this universe (you, me, your computer, your hair) interacts (observes) with the particle causing the wave function to collapse. Wouldn't this imply that when nothing in this universe is observing a particle it isn't being observed since it exists as a wave function?

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

One thing I never quite understood about the Schrodingers cat thing (even as a thought experiment) is why the cat itself isn't a valid observer?

That cat is a valid observer (observe really means to interact, your hand is not a wave function because all the particles in your hand are interacting with each other thus collapsing the wave function of each particle, which is why there isn't a chance that some of your hand could be on the other side of the universe).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat#Objective_collapse_theories

Naz_st

aurora_borealis wrote: »

Quantum mechanics is ... difficult to grasp ... because it has profound implications on what we once thought were simple.

Are you implying by this that it is difficult to grasp because of its implications?

The idea that making a measurement / observing somehow changes the variable we are trying to observe is crazy.

Why?
For me, this is one of the more reasonable quantum phenomenon tbh. I think there was a thought experiment to help to rationalise this one which went something along the lines of: To "observe" an object light has to bounce off it. If the object is small enough then the light photon/wave changes the object's trajectory in the act of bouncing off it. That's a pretty loose description from what I recall, but I'm pretty ok with that whole concept of something having either a known position or a known momentum (consider any concept where a "balance" is required and the more of one thing you have the less of another, and the maximum of both is desirable but unobtainable)

Now, an "object" existing in multiple places/states at the same time is pretty crazy!

But my point is that it's only "crazy" because our minds are geared towards non-quantum thinking and this is because throughout our evolution we have never seen any situations in the macroworld that behave “quantumly". Our entire basis for reasoning and understanding the world is based on some fundamental axioms, which things at the quantum level don't obey. For example, one of the most fundamental axioms of classical logic is that something can't be both "P" and "not P" at the same time. And this is not true when talking about quantum mechanics. But just because there are a different set of rules for quantum level objects, it doesn't mean they can't be understood. They just can't be easily rationalised based on non-quantum thinking (which is "human thinking", broadly).

Anyway, the vagaries of quantum mechanics aside - I was just was interested in why you linked the inexplicable at the forefront of modern quantum physics to the "spiritual" self? Personally, if I were to link something inexplicable to spirituality it would be the lack of understanding of the human mind and the many ill-understood areas in neuroscience.

...almost as if your consciousness is unaware of itself...

Great phrase!

Professor_Fink

Since I was asked to comment, I'll chime in with my thoughts.

Quantum mechanics has been verified to a higher degree than any other theory in physics, so we can be pretty certain that it is close to reality. Further experiments have confirmed violation of Bell's inequality, which rules out the possibility of a local hidden variables model of quantum mechanics. This means that it is really true that there is no way for particles (like Schroedinger's hypothetical cat) to have "hidden" structure that dictates the measurement outcome.

aurora_borealis wrote: »

The idea that making a measurement / observing somehow changes the variable we are trying to observe is crazy.

You are missing something quite important here. All of this argument is based on what happens when we make a measurement. The Copenahgen interpretation tends to heavily influence the way quantum mechanics is thaught, since historically it came first and influenced the thinking of many of the founders of the field. This interpretation distinguishes between non-measurement events and measurements, which follow different sets of rules. This opens a philosophical can of worms as regards what constitutes a measurement, and is the cause of much of the nonsense claimed about how you think being able to influence reality. This is all rubbish, and comes from not really understanding that any irreversible operation acts identically to a measurement, which generally means whenever a quantum system interacts with the environment is behaves exactly as if it has been measured and consciousness has no role in the process.

All of this misses the point, however, since it turns out that measurements don't have to be special. You can treat everything on the same footing, with all operations being unitary (i.e. no meassurements). This makes quantum mechanics completely deterministic, since a system prepared in one state will evolve to another state in a predictable manner. This is called the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, and to many of us in the field seems by far the more reasonable explanation. It turns out that since we only percieve classical states (essentially due to the way we interact with the environment) we see probabilistic outcomes to measurements, but as is the case in the Schroedinger's cat experiment, the observer is put into a superposition (with half of the superposition seeing the cat alive and half seeing it dead). This interpretation is mathematically identical to the Copenhagen interpretation, and it is impossible to distinguish these two interpretations by experiment, but the second version gives a formalism completely free from the observer/measurement baggage.

aurora_borealis wrote: »

It would be pretty fascinating if their was some kind of connection between living organisms through a certain consciousness that was explained by such theories. But obviously that is mainly pseudo scientific nonsense that needs to be dismissed, but it's a nice idea in theory.

There isn't. It's all just a consequence of misunderstanding (/abusing) the Copenhagan interpretation. Quantum mechanics has absolutely no dependence on consciousness.

Valmont

Half way through The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin and my head just imploded reading the last few posts here. :pac:

Húrin

Atheism doesn't require naturalism, but naturalism requires atheism.

Rev Hellfire

Húrin wrote: »

Atheism doesn't require naturalism, but naturalism requires atheism.

You're correct in as far as naturalism also requires philatelism.

eZe^

Professor_Fink wrote: »

This is all rubbish, and comes from not really understanding that any irreversible operation acts identically to a measurement, which generally means whenever a quantum system interacts with the environment is behaves exactly as if it has been measured and consciousness has no role in the process.e.


There isn't. It's all just a consequence of misunderstanding (/abusing) the Copenhagan interpretation. Quantum mechanics has absolutely no dependence on consciousness.

These points are the most important imo. People look at quantum mechanics and expect that it is the reason behind conscious thought and how alot of complex neuroscience can be explained. But the point is that an observation does not mean in anyway that the observer needs to be conscious, it could just be the interaction between the particle and a wall.

The bad thing about Quantum mechanics is how it allows crackpot pseudoscientists to phrase particular aspects of the theory in a way where they can manipulate the layman with fancy phrases like 'it explains consciousness and may be the key to proving there is a god'. Or all those people who try and use it to explain telepathy and telekinesis. Apparently there are some scientists going around proclaiming that the brain works on quantum entanglement, and that this will eventually explain how we think and act......


Damn you Copenhagen interpretation and the ease at which you can be exploited!!! :P

ChocolateSauce

aurora_borealis wrote: »

Hey guys, I've been long time reader of boards but today I decided to finally register and ask some of you guys this. Basically, I'm a physics undergraduate, completely and utterly a man of science. Now, I'm sure most of you will look down on me for having any sense of spirituality whatsoever, considering my studies.

I've been thinking alot about this, and I think in practice I'm an Atheist, in that I reject completely organised religion, it is a tool that has been wildly exploited by humans for all of the wrong reasons. I also don't believe in there being a god/ gods who have any direct influence on our lives.

There is so much in the universe that can't be explained, and I think science is beautiful in that it doesn't accept ignorance as an answer to how things work. It harbors that natural curiousity that resides in all of us and encourages us to think and form educated opinions. However, there are some things in science which just cannot be explained. Now I am only a 3rd year undergraduate, so my examples may be idealised situations, in which my lecturers may be sparing me the mathematical heartache's involved in the true answers, but I think the implications remain.

For example, in quantum mechanics we know that everything has an associated wave function, from which we can calculate the probability of this object being in a certain place at a certain time. However, by making measurements or observations, we 'collapse' the wave function right? So that the particle in localised in a certain range of values. And in the case of Schrodingers cat (google the simple thought experiment if you are unfimiliar with it) an observation needs to occur before a particular property can even exist. (ie - before the cat is observed, it is both alive and dead at the same time, as both wave functions exist, however once we look inside the box, one of the wave functions collapses to zero, meaning the cat becomes EITHER alive or dead)

So, the idea of something needing to be observed before it truly exists (in the classical sense of term) has massive implications on our universe doesn't it? Does that not mean that something has to 'observe' our universe for it to truly exist, I'm NOT trying to say there is a deity out there who observed us and made us real, but are our observations enough to make the world around us a true reality (true in the sense that we can make observations and measurements of certain properties to a certain degree of accuracy). I'm not trying to get into a whole philosophical argument here, I'm just saying that there are alot of philosophical implications when quantum mechanical theory is applied to our world.


Maybe this is all fcuking mumbo jumbo, and I just haven't truly been told all of these theories. But I don't see how it's beyond the realms of plausible possibility to see how there may be something beyond our natural idea of 3-dimensional space. Something we don't understand yet.

Also, on a completely unrelated note, is it wrong for me to enjoy going to any religious buildings to relax, I find it easier to relax my mind and feel in peace when I'm in a religious building (regardless of faith) then at home on my own. I can't really describe that, maybe it's just the ambience or some sort of placebo effect from growing up around religious kooks... :pac::pac: I don't subscribe to their belief systems, or agree with their teachings, however I do strangely have a penchant for their buildings. Strange I know..............

Sorry about the long post, I'd enjoy if someone could set me straight.

Well you know what they say, if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics.

If by spirituality you mean the hidden secrets of the universe which may in unseen (or possibly unseeable) ways affect us on some level, maybe by connecting humans' minds with the fabric of space or with some undercurrent of energy which runs throughout the dimensions....then I would say it isn't incompatible, just so long as you never claim to know some kind of truth. It's a big bloody question mark whichis fun to think about, but we'll probably never know.

For me, the important part of my atheism isn't the persuit of some truth or equation, but the counter-influence it has to earthly religions. I'm only an atheist in resepct to what people think they know; with respect to "the truth", I'm agnostic.