How do you convince people god exists?

smacl · 16-06-2019 5:50pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

'We' don't teach our kids. Some teach their kids some things - according to their belief system. Others, other things.

Your position rests on the 'majority flavour of the moment' (there have been other majority flavour of the moments).

This is turn rests on your belief in the onwards and upwards march of humanity.

As we have seen, that belief (e.g the supposed progress in human rights, whilst we witness Italy taking further steps to ensure those whose rights have been trampled on will drown in the Med) is anything but established.

That 'beliefs ought not be foisted upon other beliefs' only seems to work one way in your world: where it concerns belief you don't share being foisted on beliefs you do share.

This is problematic.

What I find crass is your employing flat earth comparisons with beliefs you don't share when your own dangle from the same set of sky hooks.

By "we" I'm referring to our society rather than any given individuals. In Irish schools we teach our children that it is not ok to discriminate against people based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

You're right, human rights are aspirational and not always achieved in reality and do change over time. The "flavour of the moment" as you so quaintly put it is better than at any previous time and I would hope that it continues to improve.

Where I think your notion of normal falls flat on its face is the failure to recognise and accept society is composed of many diverse groups. In a diverse population you have many normal ranges, not one. This is as true of mathematics as it is of society, so for example given the following numbers {1,2,3,22,21,22,97,98,99} what is normal? We see the exact same with your take on Christianity, in that in your view most Christians aren't 'real' Christians. As such by your logic, you therefore are not a normal Christian. By my logic, you belong to a specific minority group of Christians that is distinct from other groups of Christians who collectively make up Christianity. Should we vilify you because you don't conform the behaviour expressed by the single largest group of Christians?

You might find my references to flat earthers and creationists as crass on the basis that you consider such notions ridiculous, but then I daresay many other Christians would see your take on Christianity as similarly absurd, and as an atheist any theistic belief absurd.

smacl · 16-06-2019 6:08pm

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Better question is why not?

Well, some of those larger magic powers popular with the more recent gods, you know like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.

And maybe any 'god' can make man somewhat in his own image, rather than vice-versa, not that this is important. Modifying DNA isn't such a difficult science afterall.

In your mind you consider a 'god' type entity as an human (constant) imaginative charachter.

Whereas in fact any visitor to Earth from one of the { 40,000,000,000 (x) 1,000,000,000 } I.e. '4E19' habitable '40,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 planets' in the (observable) Universe, (or other dimension), would certainly be conidered 'god-like' by any age of our civilisation including this current modern one.

While there might be any number of habitable planets in the universe, none of them might be reachable from any other one without faster than light travel. So while I agree that there most probably is other intelligent life out there in the universe, the probability of any of it ever being contactable in the limited life time of our species is rather smaller. The probability that it has already happened and this is where we get our notion of gods from is smaller still and to my mind insignificant until such time as supported by some evidence.

4068ac1elhodqr · 16-06-2019 8:10pm

smacl wrote: »

While there might be any number of habitable planets in the universe

Agree, rather alot indeed likely, just from the 4e19 probability.

smacl wrote: »

none of them might be reachable from any other one without faster than light travel.

Fine so it comes boils down to a matter of 'transport'.

Even at or below light speeds suspended animation would come into play, then there's any number of ai-robotics and near light-speed surveillance opportunities. Mix in multi-verses, or future discoveries of tachyons or developments in quantum science (as primitive humans evolve further)

Also ask, if they visited in the past, or if they do in the near-ish future would they wish to make themselves known. Likely not, outside of singular focal point/area of contact, the 'holyland' may well have been the downtown Manhattan of 2k years ago, and it's still backwards war-torn mess now, as it was then.

smacl · 16-06-2019 11:21pm

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Fine so it comes boils down to a matter of 'transport'.

Pretty much. Transport as in energy and time. FTL, tachyons, wormholes, and multiverses are all speculative ideas at this point in time. Without these, to move something from point a to point b takes energy and time. Energy to keep your AI or suspended animation rig running as well as some propultion and navigation. To cover huge distances that take huge amounts of time this takes huge amounts of energy. For interstellar travel this isn't solar energy so where does the energy come from?

I think you're essentially comparing religion with science fiction rather than science here.

4068ac1elhodqr · 16-06-2019 11:42pm

smacl wrote: »

Pretty much. Transport as in energy and time....
...where does the energy come from?

Pretty much indeed. Assuming that is, the current limitations or understanding of energy and time as we as a simple primitive war like civilisation, plagued by poverty, disease and inequality, would currently understand such matters.

Bear in mind we've gone from the 1st ever plane flight (of 18mins) just over 100yrs ago, to landing on the moon 50yrs ago, to NASA considering the X3 ion-propulsion as a means of establising a base on Mars circa 2030. All less time than it takes for a fairly young oak tree to grow.

This week Trump has revealed that the Pentagon briefed him on the surge in UFOs spotted in American skies - This follows recent F15 Navy pilots observering hypersonic craft with no visible engine or infrared exhaust fumes.
The Navy acknowledged a “number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled ranges and designated air space in recent years.”

smacl wrote: »

I think you're essentially comparing religion with science fiction rather than science here.

I think you're essentially disregarding high factors of basic scientific probability, with our limited current understanding, surrounding the matter of 'transport' factors.

smacl · 17-06-2019 8:36am

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

I think you're essentially disregarding high factors of basic scientific probability, with our limited current understanding, surrounding the matter of 'transport' factors.

Perhaps you'd care to quantify some of these high factors of basic scientific probability so, because I'm not aware of anyone in the scientific community talking about a high probability of faster than light travel or manned interstellar travel. These are reasonable aspirations that are being actively researched, but that doesn't mean they will ever come to fruition unless they're inside the bounds of being physically possible with the sum of resources at our disposal. Much like religion, we don't say that something is probably true because we would like it to be true.

And for my money I'd have about as much faith in Trump's UFOs as leprechauns at the bottom of the garden.

4068ac1elhodqr · 17-06-2019 1:28pm

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you'd care to quantify some of these high factors of basic scientific probability so,....

This was in regards to life outside of our planet, which we both have already agreed was 'likely'. Given the sheer amount (4E19) of likely habitable planets.

Sure 'transport' is a limitation, but that's only as we as a primitive civilisation would currently understand it.

smacl wrote: »

And for my money I'd have about as much faith in Trump's UFOs as leprechauns at the bottom of the garden.

They are actually nothing to do with 'Trump', but instead with the Pentagon - who briefed him as routine, following various direct reports from Navy pilots and an increase of activity at various instalations.

AFAIK they (or anyone) haven't submitted any Class A evidence reports on 'Leprechauns', so your garden is indeed not likely to be habited by them

smacl · 17-06-2019 2:23pm

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

This was in regards to life outside of our planet, which we both have already agreed was 'likely'. Given the sheer amount (4E19) of likely habitable planets.

I think your figures are a few orders of magnitude off there. Looking at the list of potentially habitable planets in wikipedia, it states

A potentially habitable planet implies a terrestrial planet within the circumstellar habitable zone and with conditions roughly comparable to those of Earth (i.e. an Earth analog) and thus potentially favourable to Earth-like life.[citation needed] However, the question of what makes a planet habitable is much more complex than having a planet located at the right distance from its host star so that water can be liquid on its surface: various geophysical and geodynamical aspects, the radiation, and the host star's plasma environment can influence the evolution of planets and life, if it originated.[2]

In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][6] 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[7]

A 2015 review concluded that the exoplanets Kepler-62f, Kepler-186f and Kepler-442b were likely the best candidates for being potentially habitable.[8] These are at a distance of 1,200, 490 and 1,120 light-years away, respectively. Of these, Kepler-186f is similar in size to Earth with a 1.2-Earth-radius measure and it is located towards the outer edge of the habitable zone around its red dwarf.

40 billion is 40,000,000,000 or 4E11 not 4E19, so your figure there would be out be out by a factor of 100 million. That is number of earth sized planets in the habitable zone, which aren't 'likely habitable' as you put it, but simply can't be ruled out as potentially so. The number of 'likely habitable' is a very small fraction of this figure. So far the list of exoplanets in the optimistic habitable zone observed to date has just 32 entries in it.

smacl · 17-06-2019 2:31pm

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

The Navy acknowledged a “number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled ranges and designated air space in recent years.

Any reason you put this in the smallest font size available, and what exactly makes you think unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft are UFOs or spaceships from another planet? We have all sorts of drones of all shapes and sizes flying all over the place at this point in time. There's no reason to assume an unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft is a UFO.

4068ac1elhodqr · 17-06-2019 2:51pm

smacl wrote: »

40 billion is 40,000,000,000 or 4E11 not 4E19, so your figure there would be out be out by a factor of 100 million. .

That 40bn refers 'only' to the Milky Way, but it's estimated there are '1bn other' 'galaxies' in the observable universe. {Thus multiple 40bnx1bn}. So you've underestimated the factor by x1,000,000,000, by quoting just 40,000,000,000.

smacl wrote: »

Any reason you put this in the smallest font size available, and what exactly makes you think unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft are UFOs or spaceships from another planet? We have all sorts of drones of all shapes and sizes flying all over the place at this point in time. There's no reason to assume an unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft is a UFO.

That was an aside note, to the direct (in-flight, recorded) sightings by numerous Navy pilots, and thus the Pent' breifing to POTUS on those factors. Bear in mind many of these sighting are of hypersonic, irregular movement, and with no heat or know propulsion signatures.

Nevermind the other factor of strategic instalations being approached without the ability of the world's superpower to explain, and importantly, prevent them.

Hedgelayer · 17-06-2019 2:59pm

smacl wrote: »

Any reason you put this in the smallest font size available, and what exactly makes you think unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft are UFOs or spaceships from another planet? We have all sorts of drones of all shapes and sizes flying all over the place at this point in time. There's no reason to assume an unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft is a UFO.

They could be just a phenomenal energy pulse that we're unable to measure at this space and time...

I seen a documentary about these arrow like things flying about caught on a slowed down camera....

Strange things done in the midnight sun

Strazdas · 17-06-2019 3:07pm

mulbot wrote: »

You can't disprove someting that hadn't been proven to exist in the first place. Using that logic, you could literally claim anything to be true without any evidence.

If you could prove that God existed with science, then he / she / it would be very much part of the physical universe and something that could be measured by science.

I would have thought the whole point of a God is that it is something greater than the universe and which doesn't follow the normal rules of science.

smacl · 17-06-2019 3:49pm

All sounds about as plausible as watching a couple of episodes of Ancient Aliens from where I'm sitting.

Hedgelayer · 17-06-2019 8:08pm

smacl wrote: »

All sounds about as plausible as watching a couple of episodes of Ancient Aliens from where I'm sitting.

I haven't watched that,is it worth a look ?

smacl · 17-06-2019 9:00pm

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I haven't watched that,is it worth a look ?

Only skipped past it myself while channel hopping. Could well be entertaining but not even vaguely credible. Listed as a combination of pseudoscience and pseudohistory on Wikipedia.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-06-2019 1:14am

Santino Ancient Disk wrote: »

I could say the opposite. I've yet to see an atheist prove that God doesn't exist.

Do you actually think that (a) it's possible to prove a negative and (b) atheists all claim it to be a fact that no gods exist?

Fourier · 18-06-2019 8:00am

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Pretty much indeed. Assuming that is, the current limitations or understanding of energy and time as we as a simple primitive war like civilisation, plagued by poverty, disease and inequality, would currently understand such matters.

Bear in mind we've gone from the 1st ever plane flight (of 18mins) just over 100yrs ago, to landing on the moon 50yrs ago, to NASA considering the X3 ion-propulsion as a means of establising a base on Mars circa 2030. All less time than it takes for a fairly young oak tree to grow.

As primitive as we are, everything we have observed in the universe over the last 114 years is compatible with Relativity's restriction on speeds. Every star, galaxy, moon, particle obeys it. The sensible thing currently is to think that's probably because it is the case.

Also it should be said that Relativity doesn't so much say that you can't go faster than light, it actually says the entire concept of "Faster than light" doesn't make sense. It's like "a four sided triangle", it's a nonsense concept thrown out by human language from our intuition about how the world is structured.

Fourier · 25-06-2019 5:56pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do you have any evidence Free Will actually does exist though? It is quite the contentious claim these days. It is certainly by no means a given.

I was just wondering about this. Is there more recent evidence beyond Libet's experiments (and variants) in this regard?

What I've read mostly centers around experiments with last second decisions for which there is significant debate about what they establish, from the statistics being incorrect to even the mechanism inferences being incorrect.

I was wondering if there is something more substantial than this.

NIMAN · 26-06-2019 12:53am

I don't get it re: the F15 pilots reporting UFOs and then the Pentagon telling the POTUS about them.

Sure didn't they crash land in the 60s and have been in contact with us ever since?

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-06-2019 7:32am

Fourier wrote: »

I was just wondering about this. Is there more recent evidence beyond Libet's experiments (and variants) in this regard?

In which regard though? Experiments proving the negative? Why should we even be expected to prove the negative? Should it not be for people who say free will DOES exist to evidence that claim? Not the other way around?

So recent evidence that it DOES exist? None that I have heard to be honest no. Other than the strong feeling of agency we all have.

So what I was asking the user above: Given it is somewhat contentious at the moment, I was wondering should they evidence it's existence before using it as evidence for something else?

You are in the area of theoretical physics though right? I think one of your peers over here in Germany is known to speak on the issue of Free Will occasionally. One Sabine Hossenfelder. Perhaps you can contact her for more dialog on the issue

I believe she is quite active in answering queries and emails and comments on her website.

Fourier · 26-06-2019 8:03am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In which regard though? Experiments proving the negative? Why should we even be expected to prove the negative? Should it not be for people who say free will DOES exist to evidence that claim? Not the other way around?

I find this a strange answer given what I asked.

I was just wondering about the literature or recent studies. Scientific investigation can start out neutral and actually find out whether one or the other is true. Not every time one asks a question are they making some kind of assumption, it can just be a question.

It could be the case that there is strong evidence against it or strong evidence for it. If somebody asked is there evidence against a fifth force I would just actually show that there is, rather than just saying it's "up to people claiming it to show that there is". You can actually demonstrate negatives in a scientific fashion. We can just say what the literature shows rather than dividing it into a burden on various parties.

From my previous reading of this question there seemed to be some evidence showing there is and some evidence showing there wasn't and I wondered had that changed.

Genuinely I think you respond to scientific questions in an overly philosophical way that's too geared toward taking down religion or just conventional thought rather than just dealing with science itself neutrally. Instantly launching into meta-concerns of "proving negatives" (something science often does) rather than just talking about recent studies is odd to me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are in the area of theoretical physics though right? I think one of your peers over here in Germany is known to speak on the issue of Free Will occasionally. One Sabine Hossenfelder. Perhaps you can contact her for more dialog on the issue I believe she is quite active in answering queries and emails and comments on her website.

I've read what she thinks. It's just the usual silliness about there either being "randomness" or "determinism". Which (a) isn't on the kind of lack of "will" usually discussed in neurology and (b) she's treating randomness in a way we no longer really do in quantum theory anymore.

Cabaal · 26-06-2019 8:19am

smacl wrote: »

All sounds about as plausible as watching a couple of episodes of Ancient Aliens from where I'm sitting.

Has to be done :pac:

I enjoy how his hair has evolved

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-06-2019 10:18am

Fourier wrote: »

I find this a strange answer given what I asked.

Probably because it was not an answer. If you observe closely it was a question. A request for clarification on what it was you were actually asking me. So the strangeness likely comes from you treating as an answer, something that was not in fact an answer

As for literature on it, as I said I do not know. That was what I was asking the user I was responding to. I am aware the topic of free will is a contentious enough issue at present so I was asking the user had he any further information on this, since I do not. I notice he did not deign to respond either.

I am fully on page with evidence for and against a contention of course. Like your 5th force. However the moment someone starts using the 5th force as a claim supporting some OTHER claim, this has implications for then burden of proof and proving negatives. I am happy to operate as if Free Will exists, and under the assumption it does. Without any evidence. However the moment Free Will becomes an attribute in an argument for something else, like the existence of a god, I think it right to question that user on whether they have any evidence for Free Will before they use it in this fashion. Otherwise we risk thinking we have evidence for a god that in fact, we do not.

So I am not sure your meta concerns on my approach are all that well founded to be honest. I genuinely do not see anything I am doing wrong.

Fourier wrote: »

I've read what she thinks. It's just the usual silliness about there either being "randomness" or "determinism". Which (a) isn't on the kind of lack of "will" usually discussed in neurology and (b) she's treating randomness in a way we no longer really do in quantum theory anymore.

I look forward to your comments on her blogs then, which as I said she seems to respond to quite openly and with some vigour. It seems a conversation could develop there between both of you that does not develop between her and many of her other readers. Have at it

and let me know when there is something there I can go read

Fourier · 26-06-2019 11:21am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Probably because it was not an answer. If you observe closely it was a question. A request for clarification on what it was you were actually asking me. So the strangeness likely comes from you treating as an answer, something that was not in fact an answer

How far does this rabbit hole go? It was a simple question, I was wondering if there was any more recent evidence against free will.

So I am not sure your meta concerns on my approach are all that well founded to be honest. I genuinely do not see anything I am doing wrong.

Nothing wrong, but more this (although I don't grasp what is a meta about it?):

However the moment Free Will becomes an attribute in an argument for something else, like the existence of a god, I think it right to question that user on whether they have any evidence for Free Will before they use it in this fashion. Otherwise we risk thinking we have evidence for a god that in fact, we do not.

Not everything is a battleground in the "crusade". It was a simple question about neurological research. Given you are interested in neurology I was wondering if you knew anything more. Regardless of how you were speaking to the other person, I don't think it makes much sense in response to me. You've said in previous posts there is evidence against free will. Couldn't you have just mentioned that?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I look forward to your comments on her blogs then, which as I said she seems to respond to quite openly and with some vigour. It seems a conversation could develop there between both of you that does not develop between her and many of her other readers. Have at it and let me know when there is something there I can go read

Why would I? As I said she has an odd view of quantum mechanics that's counter to its common use in theoretical physics and unrelated to what neurologists commonly discuss. Having debates with scientific "mavericks" on their blogs isn't a useful way to learn what's current in science, especially when their views don't seem sensible on a topic I know. Better to just read the literature or talk to somebody who has. Since I stated I found her views pointless why would I comment on her blog.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-06-2019 11:38am

Fourier wrote: »

How far does this rabbit hole go? It was a simple question, I was wondering if there was any more recent evidence against free will.

What rabbit hole? People ask me questions all the time. Sometimes I answer. Sometimes I ask them clarifying questions before I answer if I feel any potential I might not be answering what the person actually asked.

I thought this was 100% normal to adult human conversation? I can not recall in my 40 years on this planet anyone taking issue with it before.

Let alone calling it a rabbit hole.

Fourier wrote: »

Not everything is a battleground in the "crusade".

Nor would I suggest, imply, or even act like it is. However when I reply to a single user on a thread I ALWAYS try to do so in two contexts. The direct context of the user I am replying to AND the context of the thread topic itself as a whole, and how we got to here from there. The context of this thread is about convincing people a god exists. I simply did therefore what I always did.... attempted to reply to your post directly AND keep my reply in the context of the thread topic. So again I am not seeing meta concerns about my general approach to discourse being problematic here.

Fourier wrote: »

You've said in previous posts there is evidence against free will. Couldn't you have just mentioned that?

No what I said in the previous post to which you replied was "Do you have any evidence Free Will actually does exist though? It is quite the contentious claim these days. It is certainly by no means a given.". Nothing more. If you mean posts PREVIOUS to that, or perhaps even previous to this thread then I can not really speak to anything but the positions and claims I hold and espouse currently. I had a user recently go back to posts I wrote ten YEARS ago on a thread for example and suggested I have been rebutted because I use a word today that I did not use 10 years ago. Not sure I can see what his thinking was on THAT score to be honest

My CURRENT position is just that the claim we have free will is one that is quite contentious at the moment and is by no means a given fact.

Fourier wrote: »

Given you are interested in neurology I was wondering if you knew anything more.

Not much, which is the answer I already gave in the previous post. To go back to it a little bit though.... under the context of the thread for the reasons I just explained above.....

Fourier wrote: »

I've read what she thinks. It's just the usual silliness about there either being "randomness" or "determinism".

..... I just did a speed read on some stuff, and some stuff written about her stuff, and I am not getting this "either or" dynamic from it at all. Rather I am getting that she finds nothing in Determinism that allows for free will and the "out" people sometimes think things like randomness might give to that, does not actually seem to do so either.

I myself plead complete ignorance on how "randomness" is treated in the "current theory", or what you feel she is doing wrong with it. But I have a weird feeling any attempts of yours to explain it to me will fail

(a comment about me there, not you, in case that unintentionally comes across wrong or somehow insulting).

But I am not getting why randomness itself in any form would facilitate free will in the first place, regardless of what we mean by it, or not, in QM these days.

Surely if the claim is we have no free will.... hence no real control..... then introducing something we have even LESS control over, like randomness, is not going to do anything but suggest Free Will even less likely to be a real thing?

Put another way I am not seeing why systems showing less possibility for control, are being used by proponents of free will to suggest we have more of it? Or what am I missing? Why does any kind of randomness, real or imagined, work with Free Will to over come the objections some people have to it?

As I said though I am entirely agnostic on the subject of free will. I simply do not know either way. And as I said I do not know of much literature of use on the matter any more than you seem to. You mentioned for example the experiments suggesting our decisions are made at the level of the brain a period of time before we have any conscious awareness of making them.

There is some literature I would have to look up again too, as I can not remember where it was, that show the illusion of agency can be removed by stimulating or hampering certain parts of the brain. You still operate as normal, if I recall the literature correctly, but with all feeling of agency removed. Which kinda supports the suggestion the brain is only giving us the illusion of agency, without any actual agency. Though of course the brain could be doing both, not one or the other, so that literature is not conclusive evidence either!

There is also some great literature on how patients confabulate free will based explanations for things they have no control over. Which I think is really fun and interesting to read. The kind of thing being the stimulation of a part of the brain that suddenly causes the patient to do something with their arm. You then ask the patient WHY they waved.... knowing full well the reason why was because you caused it to happen..... but the patient will confabulate an explanation. He was.... oh I dunno.... waving to the nurse over at the other side of the room to ask her a question or something. The patient will concoct a narrative to explain why they did what they did of their own volition, even though the action in question was patently NOT of their volition.

But I am happy to make assumptions about any given X in my life until such time as someone uses X to imply Y.... at which point I merely ask how safe we are too assume X in that context? I am good with free will in other words, up to the point where someone is using it as an argument to support something they have zero other arguments for.... like the existence of a god. Then I feel I must question their assumptions. Is that so wrong?

Free will is something I wish I could spend more time reading into and learning about to be honest, but it is down my list at the moment. I certainly enjoy the more philosophical questions on the matter. Such as what implication does it have for morality and our justice system if no free will exists (very little would be my first impression, except on issues of sentencing and rehabilitation)..... what implications does it have on our well being if none exists (it can be quite a lot actually if worked with correctly I believe)........ what implications does it have for why we value other human lives and individuals (I am open on this one, I can see arguments both ways on that).......... or even why would evolution have produced an illusion of free will in the first place if in fact there is no free will at all, what is the benefit of this in natural selection (Jerry Coyne has given a lot of answers to this one for example in the past, but I have yet to hear him give the two I would likely postulate..... which kinda surprises me).

I repeat I am good with free will and assuming we have it.... or at least operating under the rubric that we have it.... but in a thread about god existing I think it valid to question that assumption both in myself AND others in that context. But as I said, the user in question did not deign to bother replying. Alas this tends to be his wont.

Fourier wrote: »

Why would I? As I said she has an odd view of quantum mechanics that's counter to its common use in theoretical physics

I think the answer to the Why would I (as in me myself, not you as I can not presume to know you or your mind) is in the sentence after it. I get the impression her blog is written for a lay audience, not peers. Hence I do not know if her views are "odd" or just dumbed down for people like myself.

So a conversation developing between peers on the matter could be massively informative. And if she is spreading her words to a large audience based on errors, there is potential for such a conversation not to just affect her.... but anyone and everyone who follows her too.

So I guess "Why would I" is better asked "Why MIGHT you" because of course I can not assume the above are motivations for you as they would be for me in an analogous situation with me and my peers. If they are not motivators for you, then of course you would have no interest in such a dialog.

Whats a "maverick" in this context anyway? Scientists that do not agree with you? Scientists that write for Pop-science? Scientists that publish or have been peer reviewed? What makes someone a maverick... like her.... and someone else not.... like yourself? It's a word I do not think I use much or ever, so I am not sure I am in a position to parse it right, or know how you intend it. The definitions the dictionary offer me are ones that would make me more, not less, inclined towards discourse with someone.

Fourier · 26-06-2019 12:03pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What rabbit hole? People ask me questions all the time. Sometimes I answer. Sometimes I ask them clarifying questions before I answer if I feel any potential I might not be answering what the person actually asked.

That's not what you did though. It was a simple question. Clarification would have been "Which of the forms of Free Will?", "What particular kind of studies?" or something like that, i.e. clarification on scientific points. Not talking about "Proving negatives" in an abstract philosophical manner ultimately tied into not giving ground to arguments leading to God.

Seriously how is "Why should we prove a negative? It's up to those who claim..." clarification on the question "Is there more recent experiments..."?

"Why should we prove a negative?" is just a generic philosophical question. Who cares "Why?" if there is an active field of research that in fact looks at proving the negative and positive.

The "woe is me, but hark be this not part of adult discussion, have I not comprehended how adult folk conventionally talk" just indicates to me you're on a wind up.

I just did a speed read on some stuff, and some stuff written about her stuff, and I am not getting this "either or" dynamic from it at all.

You just listed it out. She says there is either determinism, in which case Free Will isn't possible and then she discusses randomness in a 19th century manner as something that doesn't provide a get out clause. So she discusses "Determinism" or 19th Century style views on "Randomness" as the only two options and finds both problematic. Also as I said this is a different kind of "freedom" to the kind investigated by neurologists like Libet. Usually discussions about Free Will there are not questioning neuronal determinism.

But I am not getting why randomness itself in any form would facilitate free will in the first place, regardless of what we mean by it, or not, in QM these days.

Surely if the claim is we have no free will.... hence no real control..... then introducing something we have even LESS control over, like randomness, is not going to do anything but suggest Free Will even less likely to be a real thing?

Put another way I am not seeing why systems showing less possibility for control, are being used by proponents of free will to suggest we have more of it? Or what am I missing? Why does any kind of randomness, real or imagined, work with Free Will to over come the objections some people have to it?

Randomness doesn't imply lack of control. It simply means a lack of predictability to an external agent.

Another example she says:

The most common form of denial that I encounter is to insist that reductionism must be wrong. But we have countless experiments that document humans are made of particles, and that these particles obey our equations

But we already know from theoretical physics (especially quantum field theory) that this isn't true. Several standard textbooks say it. Nothing to do with "disagreeing with me" (which I think was a disingenuous remark), but spinning arguments out of points that are in contradiction with known theory.

Also:

If you try to make room for free will by claiming humans obey other equations (or maybe no equation at all), you are implicitly claiming that particle physics is wrong

Which again is odd, because in the standard view of QM things fundamentally don't obey equations. Seems odd to me.

This is what I meant by "maverick", she just states stuff in contradiction to known theoretical physics and experiments and draws grand conclusions from them while thinking this is unconventional/outsider stuff. Nothing to do with "writing for Pop Science" or "disagreeing with me" or "being published or peer reviewed" (how would the last one make somebody less trustworthy?), although I suspect these were all wind ups.

26-06-2019 12:09pm

How do you convince people god exists?

Get them young and have their primary educators treat it as fact (teachers and parents)

26-06-2019 12:14pm

Beasty wrote: »

Simply show proof. In this case I've never been presented with any proof and hence am not convinced

This one is interesting. I am not a believer in gods, but would ask

What would you regard as acceptable proof?

4068ac1elhodqr · 26-06-2019 2:58pm

(NDE) Story doing the rounds this week:

Woman scrawled ‘it’s real’ in eerie message after she ‘died for 27 minutes and said she saw heaven’.

Tina Hines suffered a heart attack in February 2018 and 'died' for 27 minutes - but when she woke she managed to scrawl 'it's real' after she claims to have seen heaven
She later claimed she saw the figure of Jesus standing in front of the pearly gates with a bright light behind him.

Her Neice even got the tattoo of the scrawling:

One technicality is that she may not have been dead for full entire 27mins if she resuscitated took place x6 (in that duration).
Still interesting story all the same, plenty more similar. Also an unusual 1st thing to do, on final resus.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-06-2019 3:00pm

Fourier wrote: »

That's not what you did though. It was a simple question.

Except yes it is what I did. You asked a question and I asked follow up questions as a precursor to offering you an answer. It is 100% exactly what I did, so it is odd to me to be told that is not what I did.

As for "It was a simple question".... well that is subjective. We are all prone to believing that about our own questions. As the asker of a question, the question often makes sense to ourselves. Your mileage may vary but me personally.... I NEVER make the assumption that a question obvious to me is obvious to the person I am asking it of. And if they seek clarification I will assume they do so in good faith unless past experience gives me reason to assume they are not someone who engages in conversation in good faith. Nor would I assume, like you just did, what clarification THEY should or should not seek. Only they know what they need clarified. You as the asker certainly do not.

Fourier wrote: »

just indicates to me you're on a wind up.

I have a long history of posting on this forum and I rarely get accused of anything approximating trolling. Most people, even those who disagree with me strongly, seem to assume I am engaging in conversation in good faith. If you think I am trolling or am not responding in good faith then by all means do not reply to me or take it up with the moderators through the report system. But I am not about to entertain any personal slights further than that to be honest. Suffice to say you quoted me asking QUESTIONS and called it me giving an ANSWER. Which it was not. So the error was not mine in that equation.

Fourier wrote: »

She says there is either determinism, in which case Free Will isn't possible and then she discusses randomness in a 19th century manner as something that doesn't provide a get out clause. So she discusses "Determinism" or 19th Century style views on "Randomness" as the only two options and finds both problematic.

I think I was unclear. At least I think the fault is with me. I just mean I do not think she is saying it is either, or. Rather either, or, or both. In other words as I read her, and as a few other people like Jerry Coyne appear to have read her, is that she sees nothing in determinism that allows for the Free Will most people think they have most of the time. And she sees nothing that introducing, including, or solely moving to any kind of randomness does to correct for that. Randomness does not seem to be the caveat that determinism needs to get to Free Will in other words.

That is all I really get from her directly or through second hand interpretations of her on the subject to be honest. But as I said if I say her in conversation with a peer rather than see her dumbing stuff down for a lay audience, I might get something different from it. I take it from your response YOU get nothing from such conversations, but I over the years on many topics have gotten substance of use from conversations between peers when until that point I only say conversations between that person or people and lay persons.

Fourier wrote: »

Randomness doesn't imply lack of control. It simply means a lack of predictability to an external agent.

Even without implying lack of control..... though I am not seeing how something being random is not at least partly indicating we as humans had no control over it............. it certainly is not implying control. So even 100% accepting your sentence "Randomness doesn't imply lack of control" the question I ask in my post still remains as is. How is it's introduction serving the people who wish to evidence the existence of free will? I am not seeing what utility it offers them.

Fourier wrote: »

(which I think was a disingenuous remark)

Again I made no such remark. It was once again a QUESTION I was asking. I am hoping this does not become a pattern. Two incidents is not a pattern for sure, but lets not make it one if we are going to continue to talk shall we? If I use a question mark.... if I ask a question..... this is a very specific thing to do. Let's stop treating questions as if they were answers, or questions as if they are personal remarks. Especially when the question was one of a LIST of options, only one of which you have decided to respond to emotionally while ignoring the others. That is not good faith discourse at all and seems to be just your own confirmation bias to support your "wind up" narrative you have decided to peg me with.

On a more friendly side note however, have you ever had the pleasure to be linked up to one of those boxes that predicts which button you are going to press and when, before you are aware of having made the decision? It is a remarkable, and at times insanely frustrating, experience. Hard to describe it until you actually feel it happening. And like a Chinese finger trap the more you struggle against it the more intense and frustrating and weird the experience of it becomes.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-06-2019 3:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This one is interesting. I am not a believer in gods, but would ask

What would you regard as acceptable proof?

That is a question I tend to refuse to answer myself for a few reasons.

The first is kinda obvious, but basically I am of the position that a person making a claim should present their evidence that THEY think is evidence. Not what I or WE think is. For example if you were in a court of law would you as the prosecution say "I believe the accused did it, now would you kind people of the jury each tell me what would convince YOU?".

The second is similar but a little less obvious. My fear if I pre-define what I think the evidence should be or might be..... is that this makes me slightly more close minded. Because the risk is that I will ignore, reject, or simply miss the ACTUAL evidence when it arrives. I do not want to take that risk. I want to ALWAYS start from the position that the evidence someone claims is evidence, might actually be evidence. So by not pre-defining what I will accept, I will not risk that starting position.

That said though, we can offer constraints on what we will accept as evidence I am sure. For example we are not likely to accept, at least I am not, anything that violates the known list of fallacies. I will also not accept evidence for god that only becomes evidence for god if you presuppose there is a god. That is.... if the evidence for a conclusion is only evidence for the conclusion if you pre-suppose the conclusion to be true... there is a problem there. That is in fact how I often define the word "faith".

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-06-2019 3:03pm

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

(NDE) Story doing the rounds this week

Had a quick look over that story recently myself. Do not see anything remarkable about it, or anything that stands out from all other NDE stories. NDE in general is about as unconvincing as "evidence" for an after life gets. Even the NDE story written into book form by an actual Neurosurgeon was rife with errors, weird assumptions, and leaps of logic.

If there is something in particular interesting about this NDE however that I might have missed, do let me know!

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Her Neice even got the tattoo of the scrawling:

On a barely related note have you ever had the pleasure of doing "automatic writing" with people and getting them to scrawl stuff and then interpret the results retrospectively? You can get some very powerful and interesting effects from it. To the point that quite a lot of magicians, Derren Brown being a popular example, use it as part of their act.

4068ac1elhodqr · 26-06-2019 3:14pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Had a quick look over that story recently myself. Do not see anything remarkable about it, or anything that stands out from all other NDE stories. NDE in general is about as unconvincing as "evidence" for an after life gets. Even the NDE story written into book form by an actual Neurosurgeon was rife with errors, weird assumptions, and leaps of logic.

If there is something in particular interesting about this NDE however that I might have missed, do let me know!

Generally any NDE of interest, would have to contain messages or information retreived, that would otherwise not be known. Think some chap wrote a book with hundreds of testimonies some with conveyed messages from beyond, that presented data not known.

Of course folks would argue this is hard to verfiy or that it info was already sub-conciously known.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

On a barely related note have you ever had the pleasure of doing "automatic writing" with people and getting them to scrawl stuff and then interpret the results retrospectively? You can get some very powerful and interesting effects from it. To the point that quite a lot of magicians, Derren Brown being a popular example, use it as part of their act.

Not sure that applies to this case, the lady became conscious and thus actively scribbled the note (she also asked for pen and something to write on), no motive to perform a party trick.

Fourier · 26-06-2019 3:31pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except yes it is what I did. You asked a question and I asked follow up questions as a precursor to offering you an answer. It is 100% exactly what I did, so it is odd to me to be told that is not what I did.

What was the question? What was the follow up question you were trying to ask here:

Why should we even be expected to prove the negative? Should it not be for people who say free will DOES exist to evidence that claim? Not the other way around?

What have these to do with my question? I was asking about actual experimental work. These are all philosophical points about proving negatives and who the burden is on. How are they clarification on a question about actual experiments. What was their purpose?

Rather either, or, or both. In other words as I read her, and as a few other people like Jerry Coyne appear to have read her, is that she sees nothing in determinism that allows for the Free Will most people think they have most of the time. And she sees nothing that introducing, including, or solely moving to any kind of randomness does to correct for that. Randomness does not seem to be the caveat that determinism needs to get to Free Will in other words.

Yes, she discusses Randomness (in the 19th century sense) and Determinism as I said. I'm not going to get into the precise use of "OR".

though I am not seeing how something being random is not at least partly indicating we as humans had no control over it

If an external agent cannot predict you it doesn't mean you lack control, i.e. that an external agent can only apply probability theory to your actions does not mean you lack control. Randomness isn't complete arbitrariness.

Let's stop treating questions as if they were answers, or questions as if they are personal remarks. Especially when the question was one of a LIST of options, only one of which you have decided to respond to emotionally while ignoring the others. That is not good faith discourse at all and seems to be just your own confirmation bias to support your "wind up" narrative you have decided to peg me with.

Having something like "somebody who disagrees with me" in a list of options seems pointed to me. If you were asking it as a genuine question then I apologize, but surely you can see how it seems out of place on your list. It's hard to imagine somebody expecting me to seriously answer "Yes people who disagree with me are mavericks". Did you expect this as a possible answer genuinely?

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-06-2019 3:33pm

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Generally any NDE of interest, would have to contain messages or information retreived, that would otherwise not be known.

That is a useful standard for sure, but a very difficult one to do with any useful methodology. How can you know the data could otherwise not be known? You would have to control for that somehow!

I am aware of books with lists of such testimonies. However aside from the ASSERTION the data could not have been known, there was ZERO controls showing this to actually be the case. We just have the assurances of the people involved that they could not have known it.

Worse, there is also the problem of interviewer bias. Sometimes while interviewing someone you can ask questions in such a way as to make them remember.... or at least think they remember..... things they actually don't. Like this is a tongue in cheek extreme example, but just to give you the idea of what I mean I will invent this dialog:

Patient 1: I am sure I heard you and the Doctor talking!
Nurse: Not possibly you were clinically dead!
Patient 1: No I really did!
Nurse: Wow, well I asked the doctor out on a date did you here that?
Patient 1: Oh yes! That is exactly what I heard!
Nurse: Oh wow! And there is no way you could possibly have known that!!!!

Ok comical extreme example, but you get the idea. Depending on how you ask the questions you can implant the memory that you then later are convinced the patient could not have had!

SOME studies of NDE and OBE have been done with such controls in place however! And guess what? All of the ones I am aware of so far showed zero results. Not low results or poor results, but literally no results.

One example is Sam Parnia who studied OBE by, in a double blind controlled way, placed unmissable totally incongruant objects in places you would only see them during OBE.

Guess how many OBE patients interviewed spotted one of the items? ZERO that I have seen reported, unless Sam has published something I am not aware of.

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Not sure that applies to this case, the lady became conscious and thus actively scribbled the note (she also asked for pen and something to write on), no motive to perform a party trick.

No no that's why I wrote "barely related note". I realise it does not apply in this case. In this case she just woke up and scrawled something, likely with some intentional goal as to what she wanted to write.

But it just put me in the mind of what happens when you get people to scrawl with no intentions, and even while distracted. You can get some funny results.

Sir Guy who smiles · 26-06-2019 3:35pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Evolution etc.

You're getting too technical for me.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-06-2019 3:41pm

Fourier wrote: »

What was the question? What was the follow up question you were trying to ask here:

So I have to keep up with the conversation for you? And I am meant to be the one on the wind up? Fair enough I guess. You asked: "Is there more recent evidence beyond Libet's experiments (and variants) in this regard?".

At which point I wanted to clarify in WHAT regard exactly. For Free Will? Against it (proving the negative)? Either or? Both? Or maybe something else entirely I am not considering?

It was an attempt to clarify, before answering, that I understood exactly what you were asking.

Fourier wrote: »

If an external agent cannot predict you it doesn't mean you lack control

Which external agent do we mean however? If I am thinking of me and only me, and I am sitting here trying to ascertain if I have free will or not, and I look at all the texts related to determinism and I find nothing there that suggests I do........ how does my introducing the topic of randomness give me a useful caveat here? What can I learn from QM or randomness that is going to help me in this regard?

Can I be viewed as the external agent also in that dynamic? Am I both the external observer and the observed in the dynamic you construct here? Or do you mean it another way?

Fourier wrote: »

Having something like "somebody who disagrees with me" in a list of options seems pointed to me.

Fair enough, then I can do little more than assure you the only relevant words in that sentence that I can find are the last two and say no more about it because as I said, if we are getting into the general area of accusing someone of trolling (or wind up as you put it) then I am out of that area of the conversation. I shall entertain it no further, and you can take it up with the mods if you genuinely believe this way. Aside from two users I can think of who genuinely seem to hate me on a rather consistent basis

accusations of being a bad faith communicator on this site are somewhere between rare and none. The only accusation I tend to ever get, with some consistency alas, is I write too much

But I usually tell such people that if they genuinely think that.... they should try to have a conversation with the user OldrnWisr sometime

If I am merely verbose.... he is at minimum a god.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-06-2019 3:48pm

Christ Fourier for any (few to be honest) failings I might see in you, you are always an engaging person to talk to. I always lose track of time. I wanted to go home at 1600 and now its 1647. It is currently 38oC here in Germany and I am going to the Freibad

See you tomorrow.

Fourier · 26-06-2019 4:07pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I have to keep up with the conversation for you? And I am meant to be the one on the wind up? Fair enough I guess. You asked: "Is there more recent evidence beyond Libet's experiments (and variants) in this regard?".

At which point I wanted to clarify in WHAT regard exactly. For Free Will? Against it (proving the negative)? Either or? Both? Or maybe something else entirely I am not considering?

It's not so much that I need you to keep track of it, but more I still think the original response would naturally seem odd. Half of it does do what you said and if it had just been that I wouldn't have thought it odd. The rest of it however about the "Burden of Proof" and "Why should you prove a negative?" doesn't really read that way to me as it has little to do with experimental science. I know now that wasn't your intent, but I still don't think it's that unusual for me to have read it that way. Similarly with the "Disagree with me" point from the list, I think many would see it that way even it's not your intent.

Basically I think you write in an unusually precise way (I mean this in a positive sense, it is a good way to write) and I misread it because most of the time when people write certain aspects of your post they are on the wind up, though I now see you are not. Being overly technical this is my prior being wrong rather than my sampling, in relation to "confirmation bias" you mentioned. Confirmation bias relates to sampling. (Though I am generally skeptical about these biases as often referenced as they can always be recast as alternate priors or utility functions rather than biases) Less technically I'm not misjudging your post by cherry picking aspects of it, I'm misjudging it from past experience. Which I don't think is a form of confirmation bias.

However I don't think I was being particular emotional in response, incorrectly suspicious more so. That said I was wrong in my suspicions.

For a proper answer to the maverick thing, it's in quotes to indicate I don't agree with her. She often presents herself as an outsider who holds unaccepted views or as opposing the consensus. This would be an actual maverick say. However most often she's just uninformed or plain wrong, not presenting an consistent though unorthodox view. A very plain example of being flat out wrong is this:

But we have countless experiments that document humans are made of particles, and that these particles obey our equations

Quantum Field Theory, supported by tests at CERN, says particles don't exist so it is hard to see how this is documented or how humans are made of particles. This is present throughout her blog where she displays almost 19th century physical ideas.

Let us discuss Free Will itself now.

Which external agent do we mean however? If I am thinking of me and only me, and I am sitting here trying to ascertain if I have free will or not, and I look at all the texts related to determinism and I find nothing there that suggests I do........ how does my introducing the topic of randomness give me a useful caveat here? What can I learn from QM or randomness that is going to help me in this regard?

This is on a different level to neurological discussions of Free Will.

In neurology experiments they usually try to determine if your actions are part of the conscious or unconscious parts of your brain. Loosely did "you" perform the action or did subconscious processes. This is a separate issue to whether the "you" component of your brain is neuronally determined.

So determinism in the absolute physical sense might be true without it being true in the typical neuological sense, i.e. my actions might be predetermined but it's still me doing it not my unconscious mind.

However to answer your original question:

Can I be viewed as the external agent also in that dynamic? Am I both the external observer and the observed in the dynamic you construct here? Or do you mean it another way?

You don't model yourself in probability theory, only others do. You can't be an external agent to yourself (in probability theory, I don't mean it in the tautological way). So your actions being random means that other agents cannot predict what you might do. Basically an "agent" is an unanalysed primitive in probability theory.

What QM might add to this is that this unpredictability is not ignorance of an underlying mechanism, unlike in regular probability. So agents are not able to predict your actions because they are not being achieved via some mechanical or algorithmic means. You'll see this kind of tension in things like the "Free Will" theorem.

So the randomness other agents encounter in modelling you does not represent some "force" outside of your control but their epistemic position regarding you.

Earthsnotflat · 26-06-2019 4:29pm

I wander why would anyone try to convince someone about existence of God. I mean you must believe and if someone does not there's no way you can convince him. It's a belief thing.. it's dangerous thing trying to change someone's beliefs against their will.. If someone, on the other hand, wants to be convinced, then he's inclined to believe and, in such a case, there is a lot of evidence.. everyone believes something or someone, all is belief

4068ac1elhodqr · 26-06-2019 7:01pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a useful standard for sure, but a very difficult one to do with any useful methodology. How can you know the data could otherwise not be known? You would have to control for that somehow!

Unless you suggestion the control environment of ending life for the purpose of a 'study', with the hope of 50/50 retreival, it's illogical to suggest such a test in any practicality. Even then, a positive example of any experience would still be classed at best only as a testimony, outside of the individual.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ok comical extreme example, but you get the idea.

Nope, only get the idea of a purposefully 'extreme and comical' example that you suggested. Hard to see anything as weak as your example worthy of making it to to any book anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

what happens when you get people to scrawl with no intentions, and even while distracted. You can get some funny results.

Sorry, but clutching at straws now.
Whether there is any substance to the womans event, she did consciously (with intent) write that note, having asked for paper and pen prior, then verified it with her family afterwards, one of whom even got it as a tattoo.

Still, would be nice to scrawl the winning Euromills numbers (with no intention), sure you'd be winning it every week.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2019 10:44am

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Unless you suggestion the control environment of ending life for the purpose of a 'study', with the hope of 50/50 retreival, it's illogical to suggest such a test in any practicality.

No, it really is not. I think you just are not applying any imagination to the issue. For example I already described the format Sam Parnia used to experiment on OBE. This did not AT ALL require ending life for the purpose of the study. It just required preparing the environment in which lives were, on occasion, expected to require medical resuscitation.

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Even then, a positive example of any experience would still be classed at best only as a testimony, outside of the individual.

Not really. Had OBE patients in the Sam Parnia experiment come back saying "I was above my body!" and Parnia, who also did not know what objects were in the room because it was double blind, asked "Did you see anything weird or unusual up there?".

If such a patient came back and said "You know this sounds crazy but on top of that cupboard there, there is a large digital read out no one else can see and it has the number 56567 on it for some reason" or "Do you know, youll think me crazy, but I am sure I say an artifical bonzai tree made entirely out of luminous pink dildo sex toys over there".

And then Parnia upon checking found that item actually was there.....

That would say something. That would say something very powerful. Here observer and interviewer bias is accounted for. There is genuinely an item there the patient could not have known about. Nor could the doctors, the nurses, or the person examining the OBE patient AFTER the event.

But as I say.... each and every time we put such controls in place..... we start getting zero results. And I think if we are both honest, we both know why.

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Nope, only get the idea of a purposefully 'extreme and comical' example that you suggested. Hard to see anything as weak as your example worthy of making it to to any book anyway.

Nor did I even remotely suggest it would. The example is just to show you what I MEAN when I am talking about interviewer influence. The way interviewer influence works in the real world is much more subtle and insidious than that. But my example serves to show you what I am talking about. Nothing more.

There are real world examples less ridiculous than my imaginary one. My imaginary one serves a specific purpose. But if you want real ones, there are articles on a scandal of sex abuse occurring in, if I recall a Kindergarten. There was even convictions I think. It turned out later on however that it was how the children were interviewed that fabricated abuse that we now suspect never even happened.

There is a reason there is a kind of a meme joke you might have heard in the past that goes "Show me on the doll where the man touched you". A slightly similar meme joke is that of "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Sorry, but clutching at straws now.

No problem, I forgive you. Especially as you are honest about doing so. Most people would not be.

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Whether there is any substance to the womans event, she did consciously (with intent) write that note, having asked for paper and pen prior, then verified it with her family afterwards, one of whom even got it as a tattoo.

Errrr yes? That is what I said and agreed with? I am not sure where you think our disagreement lies?

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Still, would be nice to scrawl the winning Euromills numbers (with no intention), sure you'd be winning it every week.

It is great fun making people think they HAVE done this. Derren Brown does it. There is a user on boards.ie actually who studies a lot of the same things as Derren Brown and I have seen him do it too. Basically YOU know the winning numbers from yesterday, but the target does not. You do this kind of "subconcious writing" with them then you help find numbers in what they wrote.

THEN you produce the morning news paper and show them that they just wrote, without knowing it, the numbers that had won the lottery the night before. And it seriously messes with their mind.

It is easier with words than numbers though from what I have observed, you get to convince people they predicted the headlines and stories in a news paper they have not themselves even seen.

Beats me how they actually do it of course.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2019 10:47am

Earthsnotflat wrote: »

I wander why would anyone try to convince someone about existence of God

I think there are MANY answers to that which are possible. I will give but a few random examples that careen into consciousness:

1) Some religions make it a point of order, that righteousness and holyness and so forth lie in the conversion of others. They are pretty much ordered to do so by their religion, the purveyors of that religion, followers of that religion, or all of the above.

2) We are a meme machine as humans. We genuinely want to make others think like us and act like us quite often. Not just in religion. When you watch a show on Netflix you absolutely loved like Breaking Bad..... you can feel strongly compelled to go tell others about it and get them to watch it too.

3) If you genuinely believe the claims of some religions you would be motivated by your mere humanity to want to convince others of it. For example if you genuinely believed people of other religions were going to suffer eternal torment in hell...... how could you NOT want to save them from that? I can barely help myself from saving humans in the here and now from mild discomfort if I see the chance to do so. But ETERNAL and ongoing TORMENT????

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2019 10:47am

Fourier wrote: »

It's not so much that I need you to keep track of it, but more I still think the original response would naturally seem odd.

If you say so, seeking clarification for questions before answering them has served me very well for over 20 years now. I am not about to change it now due to one unfortunate break down in communication. I will note the event and if such events occur in future I will re-evalauate my rhetorical approaches. Anything other than that at this point would have us beating a dead horse together, which just sounds kinky but not helpful to the thread and its users.

Fourier wrote: »

She often presents herself as an outsider who holds unaccepted views or as opposing the consensus.

Reminds me a little of Lynn Margulis. Unfortunately for us, and her, she was absolutely right about one thing she was hammered for being wrong on and had to spend decades convincing the science community of this. Alas I think she, or more so her followers, used this fact to lend credence to her other more nonsense ideas. In a kinda "Well she was right about THAT so you should treat THIS credible" kinda way which is more befitting the approach of conspiracy theorists.

As I keep saying, the level of physics is beyond my pay grade. I do view myself as being more informed on physics, perhaps even significantly so, than the average Joe on the street. But I know my limits and when a teacher on an internet forum is telling me established and known names like Krauss and Hossenfelder are communicating out of an orifice not normally associated with communication (hehe I love that phrase) I am not in a position.... though this is as much due to time constraints as it is education) to evaluate that.

Hell I can not even really at this time evaluate your claim that some of what Deepak Chopra says makes sense

Though I do intend to do this as it happens as there is a book on my list you might know of. Some theoretical physicist called Leonard Mlodinow conforonted Chopra for his wanton misuse of Physics Terminology at a talk once. Chopra insisted they meet afterwards. Suddenly, not long later, they wrote a book together where Leonard Mlodinow was MUCH more sympathetic to Chopras views and positions.

I am dying to read the book to see if it contains any reasons why. After all a Guru so rich he puts diamonds in his glasses suddenly changing the public opinion of a relatively underpaid scientist is wont to arouse all levels of suspicions. So I am genuinely curious what the book in question contains. Is Leonard Mlodinow, like Hossenfelder, a name you have already heard before? He wrote books with Hawking and son on, so I am assuming you have.

Fourier wrote: »

This is on a different level to neurological discussions of Free Will. In neurology experiments they usually try to determine if your actions are part of the conscious or unconscious parts of your brain. Loosely did "you" perform the action or did subconscious processes. This is a separate issue to whether the "you" component of your brain is neuronally determined.

I think, and a multi country study seems to confirm this, that most people discussing free will are discussing the concept that you genuinely could, given the universe in the exact state it was in at the time, have done other than you did. That is the kind of "Free Will" most people seem to think they have most of the time. After all, by necessity ALL our evaluations of our free will are retrospective. We look back at a choice or action made and assume we could have done other than we did at that time. We can not really look FORWARD at free will because even if we try to predict a choice we might make tomorrow (such as if I tell you tomorrow is chicken or veg, and you decide you will choose veg) is itself then a retrospective evaluation of the choice we just pre-made.

Fourier wrote: »

You don't model yourself in probability theory, only others do.

That is what I thought, I just asked to be sure. But that still leaves the philosophical side of the question as it was. How does an individual such as myself, sitting here in a chair asking "Do I have free will" go about answering that question? The way you are framing it seems to suggest, though perhaps not intentionally, that it is a question that by definition can never be answered really.

Bannasidhe · 27-06-2019 11:06am

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

(NDE) Story doing the rounds this week:

Woman scrawled ‘it’s real’ in eerie message after she ‘died for 27 minutes and said she saw heaven’.

Tina Hines suffered a heart attack in February 2018 and 'died' for 27 minutes - but when she woke she managed to scrawl 'it's real' after she claims to have seen heaven
She later claimed she saw the figure of Jesus standing in front of the pearly gates with a bright light behind him.

Her Neice even got the tattoo of the scrawling:

One technicality is that she may not have been dead for full entire 27mins if she resuscitated took place x6 (in that duration).
Still interesting story all the same, plenty more similar. Also an unusual 1st thing to do, on final resus.

I died twice - once in 1983 after being queer bashed by 5 young men wielding nunchucks (died on a London street that time) and once in 2009 after doing something very stupid following surgery (died in an ambulance in Cork on the way to the South Infirmary hospital). Full on emergency in both cases with paramedics, ambulances, actual consultants in attendance in the A&E.
In each case there was a great deal of pain. Then absolutely nothing until I "came back" to bright lights in the ceiling, the sound of machines that go ping and the general hubbub of very professional people doing their job.
I was officially dead but I got better.
I can remember the seconds before dying and after I was resuscitated.
The bit between the two is a void.
No Jesus.
No lights.
Nothing.

It was pain. Nothing. More pain.

robindch · 27-06-2019 11:13am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was officially dead but I got better.

You're looking well - welcome back

Fourier · 27-06-2019 11:31am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you say so, seeking clarification for questions before answering them has served me very well for over 20 years now. I am not about to change it now due to one unfortunate break down in communication.

To be clear the issue is not with seeking clarification for questions. I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. It was more that half of the questions seemed out of place. Specifically the ones about the burden of proof.
A simple example is this part of your response to Dean Broad Mound:

Dean Broad Mound wrote:

Sorry, but clutching at straws now.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

No problem, I forgive you. Especially as you are honest about doing so. Most people would not be.

Most people I think would read this as a smartass response, not to say that it is. For future discussions, did you actually think Dean Broad Mound was referring to themselves here?

But I know my limits and when a teacher on an internet forum is telling me established and known names like Krauss and Hossenfelder are communicating out of an orifice not normally associated with communication (hehe I love that phrase) I am not in a position.... though this is as much due to time constraints as it is education) to evaluate that.

It's unfortunate, but some who write pop science use it to push their own ideas which don't have as much standing academically as they claim. There are many popularizers of physics not like this. Lee Smolin is a good example. If you ever want to verify it I can provide quotes from multiple textbooks contradicting both of their claims.

Hell I can not even really at this time evaluate your claim that some of what Deepak Chopra says makes sense

Well I don't want to sell him too much. Some of what he says is correct, though not in the way he puts it altogether. For example QM does have the observer as crucially important aspect and none of the variables are "real" without the observer's intervention. However this is not for the mystical reasons he claims.

Though I do intend to do this as it happens as there is a book on my list you might know of. Some theoretical physicist called Leonard Mlodinow conforonted Chopra for his wanton misuse of Physics Terminology at a talk once. Chopra insisted they meet afterwards. Suddenly, not long later, they wrote a book together where Leonard Mlodinow was MUCH more sympathetic to Chopras views and positions.

Some of what Chopra writes is a mystified version of the standard view of QM, I think he came to appreciate that its a mystic view of QM rather than utterly wrong QM if I remember right. Though as I said the mystical reading is wrong.

I am dying to read the book to see if it contains any reasons why. After all a Guru so rich he puts diamonds in his glasses suddenly changing the public opinion of a relatively underpaid scientist is wont to arouse all levels of suspicions. So I am genuinely curious what the book in question contains. Is Leonard Mlodinow, like Hossenfelder, a name you have already heard before? He wrote books with Hawking and son on, so I am assuming you have.

I've heard of him, but not much. This is the problem. Often times a person's standing or renown as a public scientist is detached from their standing as a scientist academically. For example Robert Spekkens, Chris Fuchs and Lucien Hardy are the world experts on the meaning of quantum theory, but I think Fuchs has only appeared for a minute in one documentary.

I think, and a multi country study seems to confirm this, that most people discussing free will are discussing the concept that you genuinely could, given the universe in the exact state it was in at the time, have done other than you did

That is what I thought, I just asked to be sure. But that still leaves the philosophical side of the question as it was. How does an individual such as myself, sitting here in a chair asking "Do I have free will" go about answering that question? The way you are framing it seems to suggest, though perhaps not intentionally, that it is a question that by definition can never be answered really.

That's funny the studies I read suggested the opposite. That people mean they act without external coercion. I'll have to look into it.
It's hard to answer because of what determinism and randomness mean in modern scientific conception. In modern physics there is no such thing as "the state of the universe" so it's very hard to phrase that way.

In probability theory one simply has an agent's epistemic position. This actually ties into biases of agent's in an interesting way and is related to why it is hard to established if anybody is actually biased to a certain degree.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2019 11:55am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

wielding nunchucks

Well if you are going to get offed by homicidal scum wielding weaponry..... at least you get to look back and tell the story about some pretty cool weaponry. That's a hell of a lot more street cred than you would get for your average baseball bat for example.

I'd like to think we are making a better world than back then though. Hopefully everything form the recent referendum to books like that from Stephen Pinker showing violent crime is down..... is suggesting we are. We are a ****ty ****ty species by times. I remember a scene in Terry Pratchetts book "Eric" where the demons finally look at the real world of humanity and come away thinking "What??? I thought we were meant to be the evil messed up sadistic ones".

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The bit between the two is a void.

That is the funny thing about NDE, and OBE, and paranomal events. They are rare but we HEAR about them. The millions of cases like yours were nothing at all happened though..... get ignored and discounted. Millions of people every day likely think of long lost friends for example. If however that friend just HAPPENS to reach out and get in touch after this..... well it must be some magical example of psychic connection! It can not have simply been a normal expression of two overlapping statistics.

People do not like mundane explanations for what seemed like non-mundane events I guess. And hence we have UFOs and NDEs. Such is the way of the human mind.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2019 12:04pm

Fourier wrote: »

To be clear the issue is not with seeking clarification for questions.

As I said it benefits from no further discussion. You seem more interested in talking about me and HOW I write, than WHAT I write. And as I said you would be best dealing with that in private with me or, if you feel it warranted, the mods. It is not helping the thread. But if you are asking me do I occasionally intentionally put the occasional barb in my prose? I certainly do when I think it warranted. I have not, to my recollection, done so with you however.

Fourier wrote: »

However this is not for the mystical reasons he claims.

Yea I think it hard for most people, even people with some education that might be relevant, to parse out claims like "The moon is only there if a consciousness is actually looking at it, otherwise it only exists as a fuzzy superposition of probabilities".

It sells him books though, and gets him Glasses to wear that cost more than some peoples family car

Fourier wrote: »

That's funny the studies I read suggested the opposite. That people mean they act without external coercion.

Equally funny for me as I think that is actually the first time I have heard it defined that way myself. Must also look into it myself

I will try and find the study to which I refer. I know the podcast where I first heard it cited, and I went to read the study then myself. But alas the podcast was three hours long so I will have to listen to the whole thing to find the citation again. I will let you know if and when I find it.

But both definitions are compatible. I can have the feeling I could have done otherwise..... or I can admit I see no reason why I could have done otherwise..... but both of those positions are congruent with the definition of no external coercion. I guess that depends where the delimiter between external and internal is being placed though.

But when I discuss free will it is often on the former definition. Look at the nearest object to you. Decide right now if you want to pick it up or not and then follow through on that. Now ask yourself could you genuinely have acted otherwise? Were you actually the author of the decision you made in that moment, or a witness to it?

And as I said in the longer post from yesterday.... there are studies showing we can influence the brain to simply remove that feeling of agency entirely or.... more interestingly I find..... if we actually remove agency the brain fabricates a narrative of agency. Two interesting pieces of evidence that.... whether free will is an illusion or not..... the brain seems at times to function under the assumption it is illusory.

The more interesting questions for me then...... since I am into evolution science more than physics

...... is why the hell Natural Selection would want to bother evolving an illusionary sense of free will. There are many hypotheses out there (I mentioned Coyne who has a few) and I have a couple of my own. Especially as it turns out in quite a few studies that choice actually makes us quite miserable, or even renders us entirely ineffectual, as a species.

Fourier · 27-06-2019 12:23pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said it benefits from no further discussion. You seem more interested in talking about me and HOW I write, than WHAT I write.

Well how one writes affects the interpretation of what they write. They can't be disentangled so easily. I'll ask you a clarifying remark in PM.

But when I discuss free will it is often on the former definition. Look at the nearest object to you. Decide right now if you want to pick it up or not and then follow through on that. Now ask yourself could you genuinely have acted otherwise? Were you actually the author of the decision you made in that moment, or a witness to it?

It feels like the former, but I can't really state anything more than that.

And as I said in the longer post from yesterday.... there are studies showing we can influence the brain to simply remove that feeling of agency entirely or.... more interestingly I find..... if we actually remove agency the brain fabricates a narrative of agency. Two interesting pieces of evidence that.... whether free will is an illusion or not..... the brain seems at times to function under the assumption it is illusory.

Do you have links to the studies that show this? I would like to see exactly what they're saying and the statistics.

is why the hell Natural Selection would want to bother evolving an illusionary sense of free will.

I think in recent years there has been increased skepticism in evolution evolving "illusions" considering the evolutionary cost of it in most models of evolutionary cost. An example was claims in the 70s that the feeling of caring for others was an illusion and at base we are selfish. Studies on toddlers present strong evidence that it isn't an illusion and many people were already quite suspicious that such a complex illusion would evolve.

Similarly considering it seems intuitively like we have free will and since agency and free will have efficacy in another areas of science (e.g. psychology, decision theory, QM*) some, though not all, consider the "illusion" explanation unlikely as well.

*QM has agents making choices as a primitive

How do you convince people god exists?

Comments