Biblical Miracles

Obliq

Yes:-) This from Wikipedia: Bell's theorem.....

"Over the years, Bell's theorem has undergone a wide variety of experimental tests. However, various common deficiencies in the testing of the theorem have been identified, including the detection loophole[6] and the communication loophole.[6] Over the years experiments have been gradually improved to better address these loopholes, but no experiment to date has simultaneously fully addressed all of them.[6] However, it is generally considered unreasonable that such an experiment, if conducted, would give results that are inconsistent with the prior experiments. For example, Anthony Leggett has commented:
[While] no single existing experiment has simultaneously blocked all of the so-called ‘‘loopholes’’, each one of those loopholes has been blocked in at least one experiment. Thus, to maintain a local hidden variable theory in the face of the existing experiments would appear to require belief in a very peculiar conspiracy of nature.[7]"

There's that quantum soup, and the spiritual bit, in bold.

endacl

Zombrex wrote: »

Also, if God is observing to universe in order for it to exist how can any particle exist in an unobserved state in lab experiments? Surely if there was a universal observer we would never be able to produce an unobserved particle?

Head now in hoop. Thanks Zombrex. Appreciate it.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Afaik the great Irishman John Bell provided a solution to this by looking at the statistical distribution of particles. Not an expert in his experiment, but from what I read it provides evidence that the particles actual are in this wave form state, something that should be impossible is the universe is being constantly "observed", what ever that means.

Bell provided a mathematical theorem for quantum entanglement which had been baffling physicists for decades (Einstein's "spooky action at a distance"). His theorem was later confirmed by numerous physical experiments. It does not provide a solution to the question of the observer effect which continues to baffle everyone, physicists and laymen included. The observer effect is the primary reason we have dozens of interpretations of QM, none imo any better the the CI which was the earliest.

Perhaps we need a physicist to help here but having read many of the discussions on the physicsforum I have rarely come across two views that agree with each other.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Bell provided a mathematical theorem for quantum entanglement which had been baffling physicists for decades (Einstein's "spooky action at a distance"). His theorem was later confirmed by numerous physical experiments. It does not provide a solution to the question of the observer effect which continues to baffle everyone, physicists and laymen included. The observer effect is the primary reason we have dozens of interpretations of QM, none imo any better the the CI which was the earliest.

Perhaps we need a physicist to help here but having read many of the discussions on the physicsforum I have rarely come across two views that agree with each other.

That doesn't answer any of our questions.

For a start Bell wasn't trying to provide a solution to the observer effect. He was showing, afaik, that particles do actually exist as fuzzy wave functions when isolated in a vacuum, this is a property of reality and not an issue of interpretation.

How is this possible if the entire universe exists through the observation of a deity? Surely then you could never have an unobserved particle.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

That doesn't answer any of our questions.

For a start Bell wasn't trying to provide a solution to the observer effect. He was showing, afaik, that particles do actually exist as fuzzy wave functions when isolated in a vacuum, this is a property of reality and not an issue of interpretation.

How is this possible if the entire universe exists through the observation of a deity? Surely then you could never have an unobserved particle.

I never said it did, I was responding to someone who suggested it did. Bell's theorem has nothing to do with "fuzzy wave functions in a vacuum" whatever that is. Bell's theorem relates to quantum entanglement, or as Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance" where particles after separation appear to remain connected instantaneously through space and time. It is one of the many weird predictions of QM that do not seem reasonable to those from a classical mechanics background. His work was later verified many times by experiment, including demonstrating entanglement between photons over a 50km optical wire and recently between crystal lattices in diamonds.

The observer effect is the strangest effect in QM, which can essentially be summarized as follows: In any experiment involving a subatomic species like a photon or electron (double slit experiment or whatever) when the wave function collapses it collapses to all possible outcomes, the "mixed state". These are determined by probability, Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. When an observer enters the picture is when the final state is reached i.e. the actual position and momentum of the particle. The many interpretations of QM try and explain how this second stage happens, Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Consciousness, etc. Most physicists still support the CI even though it essentially says "its a mystery" or "magic" to most people.

Think about it. We have no clue what reality really is, we can only observe its effects. QM poses unanswerable questions as to the relationship between an observer and an outcome and the observer's role in the outcome, as Bohn put it "we are both actors and spectators". Obviously introducing a deity is speculation but to get to a universe with particles then wave functions have to collapse and this seemingly cannot be completed without an observer (or millions of simultaneously created universes). Obviously physicists are a bit reluctant to introduce God or mysticism as this makes their work pretty irrelevant. In fact the majority of them absolutely hate it.

The evidence increasingly seems to be that there is a quantum vacuum permeating the universe consisting of energy waves with the potential to become matter. Something has to observe them to make a specific material universe, otherwise there would be no material universe, just the probability of matter. I lean towards calling that observer the mind of a creator as I cannot imagine what else it could be.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Also, if God is observing the universe in order for it to exist how can any particle exist in an unobserved state in lab experiments? Surely if there was a universal observer we would never be able to produce an unobserved particle?

All subatomic species are a mixture of a wave and a particle. They all collapse from a wave to a specific particle state through a process we do not understand (magic) but we know involves an observer. Without a conscious observer the situation remains in the mixed state forever and you never get to a particle. If you think about it long and hard enough the universe as we observe it can only be a quantum simulation.

Overheal

Might find this interesting for the thread, an essay I cooked up for an english class last year; it's a research paper about possible grounding in reality for events in the book of exodus (namely the escape from Egypt and journey to Sinai). I even use math!

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

I entirely accept the point you're making, but at the same time, the observer effect also affects the intentions, as as as obviously the actions, of the observer him/herself, since a conscious observer who's conscious of the various effects of non-locality, would necessarily influence the object of the observation.

So if the observer's wave function collapses as a direct or indirect result of the intention of the observer to observe whatever's being observed, then doesn't it make sense to think of this as a collapse of the possibility of intention, and therefore a teleological aspect to the entire observation itself? From this perspective, it seems that QM and teleology are not so much at odds with each other, but operating within entirely separate spheres of influence and each one requiring its own distinct outcome, but nonetheless, still entangled at the QM level.

I'm not sure that I'm explaining this very clearly, but I hope you get where I'm going on this.

I think I follow in that there is no agreed process for how a quantum observation can occur in the brain (how can the observer be in the brain if the observer is the brain?). I am not a physicist myself and have only a partial grasp of quantum mechanics. The way I think about the observer effect is that there is a psychological aspect and a physical aspect to what we call consciousness. What aspect of consciousnes gives rise to the observer effect in QM I really have no idea, other than if you accept most interpretations of QM (other than many worlds) there has to be a large amount of information processing going on to get to a single outcome from a wave function collapse.

As there are no definite outcomes in the QM mathematical equations, only probabilities, it appears a certain threshold of processing has to be attained before a wave function collapse to a particle can occur. In other words for reality as we observe it to occur some sort of consciousness must be acting as a processor.
Now that I read that back I'm not sure I understand it myself.

.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

All subatomic species are a mixture of a wave and a particle. They all collapse from a wave to a specific particle state through a process we do not understand (magic) but we know involves an observer.

We don't know it involves a conscious observer. Since there is no way for us to check the results of any experiment without involving ourselves as a conscious observer we have no way of telling if a conscious observer is or isn't necessary since we cannot eliminate ourselves from the experiment and still check the results.

We can though infer that it probably doesn't involve a conscious observer since there is no reason to introduce the conscious bit (Occam's razor) and since the universe seemed to get on perfectly fine without humans for billions of years without all particles existing as in a state of undetermined probability (as do all the parts of the universe we are not observing at the moment).

Some (which seem to include yourself) explain this away by saying that there must be a universal consciousness that observes everything, but if that was the case then how could we ever isolate a particle in its unobserved state in a vacuum?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Some (which seem to include yourself) explain this away by saying that there must be a universal consciousness that observes everything, but if that was the case then how could we ever isolate a particle in its unobserved state in a vacuum?

Can you explain what you mean by "isolate a particle in its unobserved state in a vacuum". Are you referring to virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations?, which are mathematical concepts. We have to remember that a "vacuum" does not mean "nothing", in physics it means the lowest energy state of any field. It is impossible to create experimentally so when we refer to virtual particles we are talking about something we can only refer to mathematically and that cannot be isolated and studied, only thought about.

As for whether a conscious observer is needed for a wave function collapse, I have read endless discussions on this subject by PhD physics grads on the physicsforum and read quite a bit elsewhere on the subject. As you say the honest answer is we cannot separate ourselves from the question, but the consensus answer from physicists appears to be "what collapses the wave function or even whether the wave function collapses at all may never be answered by science as long as it is scientists asking the question". The whole problem of QM is that the mathematical physics itself does not suggest any concept of an "actual outcome", only probabilities of an outcome, so the question of where does the outcome come from can only be answered by "the scientist asking the question". You don't even have to define any aspect of consciousness or awareness, the mere observing or rather posing the question results in the outcome.

If you look at the double slit experiments, the original Young experiment (in 1801!) and the "delayed-choice" and "delayed-choice quantum eraser" experiments and actually think about the outcomes then all concepts of classical mechanics get blown out the window. Not just reality, locality, causality, continuity and determinism but time itself. It makes no sense whatsoever, it is magic. As Richard Feynmann said "avoid saying to yourself "but how can that be", because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped". Bell's theorem and its experimental proofs are the ultimate example of this, everything you expect from the experiments from any logical standpoint has to be thrown away and you end up having to accept that all the weirdness predicted by QM is true.

As to the universe existing before man observed it (anything we look at is by definition "before" according to our definition of time), we have no way of knowing as our whole concept of time may be wrong. Although it does not answer the mystery of reality the attached American Scholar article by Robert Lanza does a really nice job outlining a different worldview to the classical mechanics one while avoiding the impossible to answer question of whether the universe was created.

http://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-theory-of-the-universe/

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by "isolate a particle in its unobserved state in a vacuum".

Fire a single particle produced by a particle generator through a vacuum to a detector at the other end.

nagirrac wrote: »

As for whether a conscious observer is needed for a wave function collapse, I have read endless discussions on this subject by PhD physics grads on the physicsforum and read quite a bit elsewhere on the subject. As you say the honest answer is we cannot separate ourselves from the question, but the consensus answer from physicists appears to be "what collapses the wave function or even whether the wave function collapses at all may never be answered by science as long as it is scientists asking the question". The whole problem of QM is that the mathematical physics itself does not suggest any concept of an "actual outcome", only probabilities of an outcome, so the question of where does the outcome come from can only be answered by "the scientist asking the question". You don't even have to define any aspect of consciousness or awareness, the mere observing or rather posing the question results in the outcome.

If you look at the double slit experiments, the original Young experiment (in 1801!) and the "delayed-choice" and "delayed-choice quantum eraser" experiments and actually think about the outcomes then all concepts of classical mechanics get blown out the window. Not just reality, locality, causality, continuity and determinism but time itself. It makes no sense whatsoever, it is magic. As Richard Feynmann said "avoid saying to yourself "but how can that be", because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped". Bell's theorem and its experimental proofs are the ultimate example of this, everything you expect from the experiments from any logical standpoint has to be thrown away and you end up having to accept that all the weirdness predicted by QM is true.

All that is true, but you are missing the point of the objection. You are supposing a conscious observer, when in reality there is nothing to suggest this is necessary over simply an observer, ie something that measures the particle.

It is the conscious observer part where you and supporters of this idea diverge from the science into the spiritual. An observer might be an electron detector or simply the other atoms in a molecule.

The idea that the observer must be conscious is not supported by the science.

nagirrac wrote: »

As to the universe existing before man observed it (anything we look at is by definition "before" according to our definition of time), we have no way of knowing as our whole concept of time may be wrong.

Er, we have a pretty good way of knowing. We noticed the effects of this all the time. All the particles in Mount Everest didn't exist as probability functions before humans came along, if they did how would they interact with each other to form Mount Everest?

nagirrac wrote: »

Although it does not answer the mystery of reality the attached American Scholar article by Robert Lanza does a really nice job outlining a different worldview to the classical mechanics one while avoiding the impossible to answer question of whether the universe was created.

http://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-theory-of-the-universe/

TL;DR ... can you sum up his argument please.

gbee

Just like to add my name to the non watchers.

That is all.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Since there is no way for us to check the results of any experiment without involving ourselves as a conscious observer we have no way of telling if a conscious observer is or isn't necessary since we cannot eliminate ourselves from the experiment and still check the results.

Zombrex wrote: »

You are supposing a conscious observer, when in reality there is nothing to suggest this is necessary over simply an observer, ie something that measures the particle. It is the conscious observer part where you and supporters of this idea diverge from the science into the spiritual. An observer might be an electron detector or simply the other atoms in a molecule. The idea that the observer must be conscious is not supported by the science.

So you went from the first position to the second position in less than 24 hours Hopefully you are beginning to appreciate the mysteries of QM by now. It has nothing to do with spirituality, it has to do with interpretations of how the wave function collapses to a single outcome. Some interpretations involve a conscious observer and some do not, all are thought experiments, none can be experimentally verified at this point. What can be experimentally verified is that the wave function collapses to a mixed state (this can be measured without human intervention), what happens after that is speculation and has to involve a conscious observer. If science understood it there would be one interpretation.

Scientists are obviously very careful in their language to avoid any suggestion of woo, in a field where materialist reductionism (and atheism) is the prevalent worldview. There are careers to think about which is why scientists (and there are many of them, including some of the greatest minds in the field) start to speak in terms of what sounds like woo (to you)after they have left the field for another or have retired. When any question is asked about "why" QM is so strange the typical practicing theoretical physicist holds up his hands and either says "I don't care, I just do math" or "I don't care, that's philosophy". Neither answer bring us any closer to understanding our reality.

There is absoluteky no point saying mainstream science believes this or that on QM, nobody understands the behavior. Physicists can choose to just do the math but there are people who actually wonder about what reality truly is as opposed to how we observe it to be.

nagirrac

Even if you leave aside the issue of the measurement problem or observer effect, QM still makes no sense to us. Everything works perfectly in terms of mathematics but nothing makes sense in terms of classical mechanics.

We are also left with the issues of how the universe emerged, why it emerged with the specific laws to allow life, how life emerged, how consciousness emerged and what it is..

What science seems to be converging on is that quantum mechanics is 100% correct, that entanglement is the norm which means we just have to abandon our existing concept of reality. Reality is an illusion, we are most likely in a high quality simulation running on a quantum computer. If that is true we must consider who programmed the simulation.

Not alone is there no moon when we are not looking at it, there is no moon even when we are looking at it.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

So you went from the first position to the second position in less than 24 hours

They are exactly the same position, so, er yes I did

nagirrac wrote: »

Hopefully you are beginning to appreciate the mysteries of QM by now.

There are plenty of mysteries in QM, which makes it even more comical when people start using QM as an explanation for what ever spiritualistic theory they can come up with, such as saying that all matter is produced by consciousness.

nagirrac wrote: »

It has nothing to do with spirituality, it has to do with interpretations of how the wave function collapses to a single outcome. Some interpretations involve a conscious observer and some do not, all are thought experiments, none can be experimentally verified at this point.

Which is where the spirituality comes in, some people (despite not being able to support this) start to us QM as a justification for believe in things like consciousness being a force.

nagirrac wrote: »

What can be experimentally verified is that the wave function collapses to a mixed state (this can be measured without human intervention), what happens after that is speculation and has to involve a conscious observer.

Why does it have to involve a conscious observer?

nagirrac wrote: »

Scientists are obviously very careful in their language to avoid any suggestion of woo, in a field where materialist reductionism (and atheism) is the prevalent worldview. There are careers to think about which is why scientists (and there are many of them, including some of the greatest minds in the field) start to speak in terms of what sounds like woo (to you)after they have left the field for another or have retired. When any question is asked about "why" QM is so strange the typical practicing theoretical physicist holds up his hands and either says "I don't care, I just do math" or "I don't care, that's philosophy". Neither answer bring us any closer to understanding our reality.

The strangeness of QM is not the issue here. The unsupported conclusions some people make, using the strangeness of QM as a justification, is the issue.

QM does not support the conclusion that consciousness produces matter, the universe, or anything. QM does not support the conclusion that consciousness is anything special in the universe, ie anything more than something local to the human brain.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

They are exactly the same position, so, er yes I did

Sorry, they are not and the fact you think they are just means you have not thought about the measurement problem enough. Find a good source for all the double slit experiments and reflect long and hard about what is observed. Your first statement was 100% correct, that we cannot know whether a "conscious observer" is necessary as we cannot separate ourselves from the experiment, your second statement is an interpretation as you are now removing the "conscious" part of the observer. The attached article outlines the measurement problem on the first page and then goes on to an excellent description in layman's terms of Bell's theorem and the experiments that followed.

http://www-f1.ijs.si/~ramsak/km1/mermin.moon.pdf

The only way you get around the observer effect is the "many worlds" interpretation which says there is no wave function collapse at all and the universe we individually observe is only one of zillions or perhaps an infinite number. Everything that could possibly happen has happened including what happened in our individual memory. The "many worlds" interpretation is increasingly the preferred interpretation by modern theoretical physicists, which is what brings you eventually to a quantum universe interpretation and a simulation conclusion.

My head hurts

Whatever about understanding QM and the actual reality of the universe, we are nowhere yet on understanding consciousness. QM is kindergarten compared to consciousness.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, they are not and the fact you think they are just means you have not thought about the measurement problem enough.

They are the same statement. We can never know if consciousness is or isn't required but there is no reason to suppose it is.

Likewise you could say that we can never know if gravity on Earth is 9.8m/s/s only to humans since the only people who have ever measured it are human. But that is not a reason to suppose it is different if some non-human measured it.

The problem is not with QM, it is with people drawing unsupported conclusions and then justifying/excusing them by saying "Well we don't know how QM works, so crazy theory X might be true". People like Depak Chropra make a living doing this.

Repeatably telling me that we don't understand QM as if that some how supports your assertions about consciousness, the mind and matter is rather ridiculous. It is like Christians saying we can't know anything about the nature of God and then proceeding to list the sexual things we know he doesn't like.

nagirrac wrote: »

Find a good source for all the double slit experiments and reflect long and hard about what is observed. Your first statement was 100% correct, that we cannot know whether a "conscious observer" is necessary as we cannot separate ourselves from the experiment, your second statement is an interpretation as you are now removing the "conscious" part of the observer.

Er, no I'm not, read it again.

nagirrac wrote: »

The only way you get around the observer effect is the "many worlds" interpretation which says there is no wave function collapse at all and the universe we individually observe is only one of zillions or perhaps an infinite number.

Firstly that isn't true and secondly it is utterly irrelevant to what we are discussing.

What is the evidence that the observer has to be conscious?

nagirrac wrote: »

Whatever about understanding QM and the actual reality of the universe, we are nowhere yet on understanding consciousness. QM is kindergarten compared to consciousness.

Odd then that people seem so confident in proclaiming things like saying the mind is separate from the body, isn't it.

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

Odd then that people seem so confident in proclaiming things like saying the mind is separate from the body [...]

A philosophical position known as Cartesian Dualism which was once very popular, but now largely relegated to the history books since it lacks supporting evidence.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

They are the same statement. We can never know if consciousness is or isn't required but there is no reason to suppose it is.

Let's see if we can agree on anything relating to QM as I think we are dealing with a language issue.

1. Quantum mechanics is a a set of equations that describe the outcome of a physical process.

2. The physical process under investigation and the measurement device are entangled.

3. Nobody understands QM in terms if what it tells us about reality. Theoretical physicsts actively working in this field of science generally avoid this question (and for good reason).

4. All attempts to understand and interpret it involve a conscious observer who is also entangled with the physical process

I agree with your statement that we cannot know (at least currently) whether consciousness is or isn't required and I would add everything in terms of interpretations of QM is speculation. As Leggett famously said "it may be dangerous to try and explain something we do not understand very well (QM) by invoking something we do not understand at all (consciousness).

robindch

^^^ Plagiarism isn't appropriate in A+A:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness139.html

Journal of Cosmology wrote:

Quantum mechanics is a statistical theory that determines the probabilities for the outcome of a physical process when its initial state has been determined. A fundamental quantity in this theory is the wavefunction [...]

nagirrac wrote:

Quantum mechanics is a statistical theory that determines the probabilities of the outcome of a physical process when its initial state has been established. A fundamental quantity of the theory is the wavefunction [...]

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Plagiarism isn't appropriate in A+A:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness139.html

Apologies, should have given the citation (which I normally do, see later in the post you referenced). I would argue though that it is not plagiarism but free use. I did not content scrape or paraphrase anything else in the article, the definition of quantum mechanics given in the sentence I used is pretty generic and literally the same description can be found in hundreds of sources, to me that's fair use (although admittedly lazy). In addition, plagiarism involves personal gain, what personal gain could possibly be involved here?

Just out of curiosity, what is the position of A&A in general on content scraping and paraphrasing other's work?

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

A philosophical position known as Cartesian Dualism which was once very popular, but now largely relegated to the history books since it lacks supporting evidence.

While Cartesian Dualism may have fallen out of favor, the debate between the various flavors of dualists and monists is still as lively as it was in Descartes' time, perhaps even livelier. A short visit to the www.closertotruth.com website where some of the leading philosophers of today are interviewed is the evidence for the above statement.

As we have very limited understanding of mind and don't even truly know if matter exists, its a little early to declare victory for materialism.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

As we have very limited understanding of mind and don't even truly know if matter exists, its a little early to declare victory for materialism.

Yet it is early enough for you to declare it's failed entirely.

Another glaringly contradictory statement you've made.
You really should read what you write...

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Yet it is early enough for you to declare it's failed entirely.

Another glaringly contradictory statement you've made.
You really should read what you write...

I have never stated that materialism has failed entirely, nor do I believe that. I have stated that materialism is one way of looking at reality, as is dualism, as is non-material monism. When it comes to consciousness there is no definitive evidence from a philosophical standpoint. If there is perhaps you can provide it so we have something to discuss?

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

I have never stated that materialism has failed entirely, nor do I believe that. I have stated that materialism is one way of looking at reality, as is dualism, as is non-material monism. When it comes to consciousness there is no definitive evidence from a philosophical standpoint. If there is perhaps you can provide it so we have something to discuss?

But you have repeatedly said that materialism cannot ever provide the answers you are looking for, hence you are forced to rely on silly supernatural ones.

If materialistic science could possibly go on to answer the questions you are asking, why then do you assert that a supernatural explanation is better or can provide those answers?
Using occams razor, which you were so keen on until you found out you were miss using it, a materialistic answer we have just not yet discovered is the more likely explanation.

It always has been before when people like yourself declared the latest mystery was magic.
People said that the ultraviolet catastrophe couldn't be explained by materialism. They said that there'd never be an explanation for the failure of the Michaelson Morley experiment.
They said that they'd never find a materialistic explanation for disease so therefore it must be demons....

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I have never stated that materialism has failed entirely, nor do I believe that. I have stated that materialism is one way of looking at reality, as is dualism, as is non-material monism. When it comes to consciousness there is no definitive evidence from a philosophical standpoint. If there is perhaps you can provide it so we have something to discuss?

The point you are spectacularly missing is that without evidence something isn't happening (evidence the mind isn't seperate from the body) you are proposing that is a reason think it is, or that it is likely it is.

The idea that the mind is seperate from the body is a human invention. There is no evidence to support it. It stands to reason that it is not seriously considered.

Its like saying fairies exist and then demanding something prove they don't in order to reject that idea. You don't have to prove they don't exist, you can simply say humans made up fairies, there is no evidence they are real, so why believe in them.

Let me put it another way, what other than human pondering, suggests even a little bit that the human mind is independent to the human brain?

Saying well QM is confusing is not an answer. Saying it could be, we can't tell it isn't, is not an answer. You are supporting a positive assertion merely by asserting negatives (we can't prove it isn't), or asserting gap theory (we don't understand X).

This is really nothing to do with consciousness, or quantum mechanics, it is a simple question of assertions about the natural world, how you make them and how they are supported, we could be talking about anything.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

But you have repeatedly said that materialism cannot ever provide the answers you are looking for, hence you are forced to rely on silly supernatural ones.

People who look at evidence, including their own subjective experience, and lean towards materialism, dualism, non-material monism or some position in between are not silly and do not have to believe or disbelieve in anything supernatural. That is both an irrational and insulting statement but unfortunately is rather typical of your closed minded worldview.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

People who look at evidence, including their own subjective experience, and lean towards materialism, dualism, non-material monism or some position in between are not silly and do not have to believe or disbelieve in anything supernatural. That is both an irrational and insulting statement but unfortunately is rather typical of your closed minded worldview.

None of this addresses the point I made.
I said that your supernatural explanation is silly. It is silly because you can't defend it, know you can't, yet pretend it's valid anyway. Then get offened and go into a huff when you're called on it.
This is the behaviour of a child, not "someone who looks at the evidence".

You said (despite what you have earlier posted) that you do not believe that material science cannot possibly answer the questions you want answered.
Therefore, if it is possible that it can supply the answer, then the assumption of a supernatural explanation is a violation of occams razor.

You position relies on the idea that material science cannot provide the answers to your question being true. Again, contradicting yourself, you said that no one can conclude that.

So therefore your position has no logical basis and you have argued yourself into a loop.
Your position is no different to the position of the people who claimed that illness is caused by demons because material science couldn't explain it.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Your position is no different to the position of the people who claimed that illness is caused by demons because material science couldn't explain it.

Hogwash. My position as it refers to our understanding of reality (what is out there and we are a part of, as opposed to what we observe and conclude is out there) is to have an open mind and accept that we have been wrong before on the nature of reality, are currently in a "don't understand it" state, and who knows what the future will bring. As long as the question remains "why is there something rather than nothing" science simply cannot provide all the answers.

Of course I sometimes contradict myself when I write, everyone does, its called language. Most disagreements are due to people not understanding each other, even when speaking supposedly the same language.

The only people who are dogmatic in their view of reality are religious fundamentalists and strong atheists, both in my (humble) opinion are positions of arrogant ignorance.

..and just for clarity I'm not in the slightest offended, getting offended by an anonymous poster on an Internet forum is the ultimate stupidity. You are confused again by language, I said your statement was insulting, but as to my personal reaction to it I really don't give a toss.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

H As long as the question remains "why is there something rather than nothing" science simply cannot provide all the answers.

How do you know that materialism cannot provide an answer for this.
You said that you could not conclude this, yet here you are contradicting yourself.

You contradict yourself because your position hollow sophistry.