Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Dubious]

What is the metaphysic the Bible holds?

The culmination of the Bible is contained in the New Testament, in my ultra-humble view. And the metaphysical implications expressed in those writings should be clear to someone with your, albeit afflicted, capacity to reason. I have just expounded to IC not too far above a good deal of that. Were you enjoying your siesta?

I can't find the data in not too far above. I'd be interested to know where that is, if I'm reading the right post or not, so why not simply point it out to make it specific?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What’s in it for me?

[Dubious]

What’s in it for me?

...a degree of credibility that you actually expounded it...whether I agree, half agree or disagree. It would take you only a few seconds; it would take me a lot longer with all the posts you've made and even then I can't be sure it's the right one. If there is a metaphysic inflected within the NT as you claim it would be interesting to know in what manner it reveals itself.

Is there a problem in doing that?

[Will Bouwman]

And yet...you still can't explain what you, yourself, meant by quantum theory undermining causality. You can't even try, apparently.

Get back to me when you understand superposition.

Well, the posture of "superiority" is failing to hide your lack of an argument.

There's no link between quantum theory and a denial of causality. And if there were, there would be no such thing as science, or, for that matter, even technology. Every event would simply be a quantum singularity, with absolutely no way to recreate any particular effect.

So you're just whistling in the dark.

Well, the problem is you either do not understand or do not remember what I actually said. This is from nearly a year ago:

But again, all this is totally irrelevant to the infinite regress problem.

Which I have already rejected on two counts. Firstly, it is based on an unsound premise - that the world is causal. As I said, quantum mechanics seriously challenges that assumption. Secondly, I'm not convinced the leap from numbers to reality is valid.

Note that the word I use is 'challenges'. Since that time, you have variously misrepresented that as 'imperils', 'undermines' and, as above 'denial'. It is a stretch to use imperil as a synonym for challenge, even more so 'undermine' and 'denial' is simply wrong. Unsound does not mean untrue, it just means unproven.
Most interpretations of quantum mechanics do not include hidden variables. A hidden variable, since you almost certainly don't know, is any hypothesis that explains what Einstein called 'Spooky action at a distance.' Einstein famously, along with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, suggested that there must be some hidden variable and therefore, quantum mechanics is incomplete. The most famous challenge to the EPR experiment came from John Stewart Bell in 1964. Bell's Theorem is a mathematical proof showing that if there is some local hidden variable, statistically, measurements of entangled particles must satisfy Bell's inequality. Experiment shows they don't. That, I'm sure you agree, seriously challenges causality at the micro level.
But, as I recently said to Alexis Jacobi, you have to distinguish between the micro and the macro. On the macro scale, you can safely ignore the problem of induction for most events. It is not 'probable' that if you drop a brick it will fall; it will fall because there is demonstrably a measurable force that acts on two or more bodies, called gravity. That's just a name we give to something that we know exists, but can't explain ontologically, just as dark energy and dark matter are. You don't need to understand the mechanism to do the measurement. At the macro scale, chaos theory notwithstanding, most measurements are discrete, but at the quantum scale, they are for the most part statistical, at the very least because we do not understand the mechanism and possibly, as some of our most rigorously vindicated hypotheses suggest, there is no mechanism.
So yes, you can do science in a non-causal paradigm, but not if you think "Every event would simply be a quantum singularity" were it not for causality. To be fair, I shouldn't rule out the possibility that you actually know better than everyone who knows what they are talking about. Why would "Every event [...] simply be a quantum singularity" were it not for causality?

[Alexis Jacobi]

If there is a metaphysic inflected within the NT as you claim it would be interesting to know in what manner it reveals itself.

Is there a problem in doing that?

You could have included a cash incentive, you cheapskate! Alright, I agree to put out without tangible compensation. But just this once!

:::clears throat:::

THE MOST BASIC METAPHYSICAL MESSAGE, right off the top of my head, is that there are many things worth dying for. I.e. that it may well be necessary and good to sacrifice immediate or ‘lower’ level attainments, or perhaps simply put material well-being for attainments that are of a transcendental nature. I think it is pretty obvious that all men have a brutal aspect or dimension, would you agree? And that if they are only taught that developing or widening their brutal aspect and tendencies is the greatest good I think it is fairly obvious that mere ‘brute’ existence is non-rewarding in so many ways.

But how, Dear Dubious, and by what means could our brute be inspired to relinquish the brutal aspect and to cultivate those things of a ‘higher’ nature? I would suppose that if it were presented to a man that there actually is a realm of higher being and higher expression — which is generally described as transcendent and also ‘metaphysical’ to mere brutal existence — and if we were to define the attainment of those higher things as ‘spiritual life’, we would at the same time be defining both what is ‘spiritual, and what is Spirit. And the ‘pictures’ of those things, the story, the presentation, the discourse then encourage and develop “practice”. Obviously that outlines the possibility of dedication and devotion as a life-style, and in the course of time we will suppose that the man we are speaking of will begin to develop along other lines. Does this make any sense at all?

And what if the brute man is introduced to the notion that there is something in him — the term “soul” is used — that is not perishable and transient and mutable as is his body and indeed Nature, but in fact eternal, ever-existent? Then, he might recognize that ‘that’ is in truth a thing to be treasured and protected. So that he might deeply consider the choices he makes, the decisions, in light of ‘eternal existence’ beyond his immediate, temporal existence as a mutable, mortal and transient body.

The very message of Christianity (and other religions bound up in metaphysical principles) is based on the idea, the fact (?) that God descends into the flesh realm of (permit me the term) brutal existence. Right there, dearest child, a rather vast metaphysics is portrayed. And in the final analysis isn’t the message that it is worthwhile to make sacrifices for others that help to enable them to ‘elevate’ themselves?

All of this, my dearest son, derives from “metaphysical concepts”, and in a thousand ways is certainly expressed by way of Christian doctrines.

Can you feel it, Dubious? Can you?!

[Will Bouwman]

And yet...you still can't explain what you, yourself, meant by quantum theory undermining causality. You can't even try, apparently.

Get back to me when you understand superposition.

What does it mean for us that “multiple realities exist … until our observation forces a choice” (at the micro level of course!)

That's the Copenhagen interpretation of the collapse of Schrödinger's wave function. According to that view, in our universe (bear with me Gus) a particle can be in every possible state, and every possible location all at once until something happens to make it be somewhere in particular. This doesn't have to be our observing it, but kooks, cranks and some fairly respectable scientists think this means consciousness is the fundamental force in reality. One alternative to that view is that the particle has a binary, one thing or another status, and once the particle options split, there are two separate universes. Now Gus, I don't not know if you understand how many particles there are just in the tip of that hair sticking out of your nose, but it's a lot. The quantum behaviour of just those particles would create more universes than you can shake a stick at in very short order. Could be even madder than that, instead of being binary, the state of particles might be analogue, so that rather than just two, there are an infinite number of universes that cascade from every collapse.
So, "What does it mean for us...?"
Well, as I said to Lacewing in another thread:

Hugh Everett III, who came up with the idea apparently:
"...firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_s ... mmortality

Who knows Gus? You might live forever .

[Alexis Jacobi]

The quantum behaviour of just those particles would create more universes than you can shake a stick at in very short order. Could be even madder than that, instead of being binary, the state of particles might be analogue, so that rather than just two, there are an infinite number of universes that cascade from every collapse.

Wow. I think I’m getting it!

[Immanuel Can]

But again, all this is totally irrelevant to the infinite regress problem.

Which I have already rejected on two counts. Firstly, it is based on an unsound premise - that the world is causal. As I said, quantum mechanics seriously challenges that assumption....Note that the word I use is 'challenges'.

I don't think it does "challenge" causality. Rather, I would say that causality is observable, predictable and useable in our science and technology; and without it, we would have none of either, and no practical knowledge.

The evidence is all on my side, in that. To worry about quantum mechanics, one does indeed have to reduce to the "micro" level, at which point it is not our knowledge but our lack of knowledge that causes the problem.

We don't know why, for example, light particles seem to behave as points at one time, and then as waves at another. But we do know that to say, "X is both a wave and a point" is absurd: things aren't two things simultaneously, or even, in quantum theory, under the same conditions of observation. So what we're seeing is a very weird phenomenon that requires a new theory, one that clearly is not yet complete, since it fails to describe the observed phenomenon in a non-contradictory, non-absurd way.

None of this imperils (or "challenges") causality. Causality moves on in the same way it always has: as a pillar of our functioning and knowing. But now we know there's something about how it works that we have yet to learn. And that's untroubling to anybody with a proper and modest view of how science makes progress -- somebody who does not think science has to have all the answers, and definitively, and have them today.

Secondly, I'm not convinced the leap from numbers to reality is valid.

Interesting. It seems you're choking on the 'gnat' of an analogy, while swallowing the 'camel' of quantum uncertainty.

The numbers are merely analogical placeholders in the argument. They show what is rational to suppose: not because they are numbers, but as we use them as placeholders for the actual, observable phenomenon of causal sequencing. We are stipulating that one must be produced before the next, just as is universal in all causal sequences. So you can drop the thought of numbers completely, and just try to do the practical experiment. And you'll find out exactly the same thing, if you do: that you cannot even write down a single prerequisite in such a sequence.

And when something we are representing by numbers can be reproduced empirically and logically, then you have your best indicator that the numbers are merely place-holding for something real. That's the point.

Why would "Every event [...] simply be a quantum singularity" were it not for causality?

You've not put the point accurately. The point is that if quantum states were the right descriptor of causality, they would be unpredictable, and thus unusable for human knowledge, including for science, technology, and even practical daily life. But they are not. And that tells us that describing causal chains as quantum singularities is a completely wrong-headed thing to do, a category error.

If we make that mistake, we are not "challenging causality": we are using the wrong paradigm to account for the phenomenon of causal chains. We are imposing the confusion we obtained from our observations at the "micro" level back onto our conclusions regarding phenomena at the "macro" level, and are guilty of a kind of fallacy of amphiboly. And we can assure ourselves that's what we're guilty of doing, because despite our quantum speculating, causality continues to operate with its same stodgy predictability at the observable, experiential level of real life.

Something's got to give. But causality will not quit happening. We can observe it constantly, and it is, in fact, a basic of our ability to observe. The next deduction is then obvious: it's quantum theory that's in need of revision or at least a more complete theory that does not undermine belief in what we can see with our own two eyes, every day.

We might add that, ironically, the only reason we are able to see quantum phenomena is that we already came to them with contrary suppositions. For instance, we expected light to behave as either a particle or as a wave...and it seemed not to. Thus we were surprised. But why were we surprised? Only because we already know a thing cannot be two genuinely contrary things at the same time. And that knowledge is also the reason why we don't just say, "Well, then light is a wave and a particle," and say the theory's complete at that. We know we're falling short of understanding quantum events because we have not got a unified theory of what we're observing -- yet. But it is our confusion at this, our recognition of our lack of knowledge, that will continue to advance quantum theory: for otherwise, there would be nothing more to explain.

[Fairy]

The evidence for God is overwhelmingly everywhere. You exist as an Avatar, which is known without doubt or error. How could it not be known.
The evidence is evidence enough, no need to prove or disprove the known as the evidence is self-evident.

[Will Bouwman]

The evidence is all on my side...

Of course it is. There's a thing called an idiot that weaves a narrative which includes evidence that contradicts their side.

To worry about quantum mechanics, one does indeed have to reduce to the "micro" level, at which point it is not our knowledge but our lack of knowledge that causes the problem.

Then you're on the EPR side. So what is your solution to Bell's inequality?

[Will Bouwman]

The quantum behaviour of just those particles would create more universes than you can shake a stick at in very short order. Could be even madder than that, instead of being binary, the state of particles might be analogue, so that rather than just two, there are an infinite number of universes that cascade from every collapse.

Wow. I think I’m getting it!

Pray that you don't, Gus! Getting it is a sure sign of madness..

[Immanuel Can]

The evidence is all on my side...

Of course it is.

Well, causality works. Science works. Technology goes on. Human knowledge, including quantum theory, continues to develop.

What has the recent speculating in quantum theory done to impede that?

Not a thing.

If you think it has, then go ahead and point it out. If you cannot, then yeah, the evidence of our eyes is all against you.

[Dubious]

Get back to me when you understand superposition.

What does it mean for us that “multiple realities exist … until our observation forces a choice” (at the micro level of course!)

That's the Copenhagen interpretation of the collapse of Schrödinger's wave function. According to that view, in our universe (bear with me Gus) a particle can be in every possible state, and every possible location all at once until something happens to make it be somewhere in particular. This doesn't have to be our observing it, but kooks, cranks and some fairly respectable scientists think this means consciousness is the fundamental force in reality. One alternative to that view is that the particle has a binary, one thing or another status, and once the particle options split, there are two separate universes. Now Gus, I don't not know if you understand how many particles there are just in the tip of that hair sticking out of your nose, but it's a lot. The quantum behaviour of just those particles would create more universes than you can shake a stick at in very short order. Could be even madder than that, instead of being binary, the state of particles might be analogue, so that rather than just two, there are an infinite number of universes that cascade from every collapse.
So, "What does it mean for us...?"
Well, as I said to Lacewing in another thread:

Hugh Everett III, who came up with the idea apparently:
"...firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_s ... mmortality

Who knows Gus? You might live forever .

The way I would interpret that, it's the statistic, if such ever gets confirmed, which is forever but not the one who actually lived and died. He's just a minuscule member or infinitesimal of what the statistic implies, and as a single instance of it, remains dead forever. In effect, when I croak, it will be final regardless of how many instances of me might exist concurrently, subsequently or both at the same time. There is zero connection which negates any personal immortality as Everett supposed. If not true, what need would there be to speculate on the matter? Immortality presupposes a continuance of identity; when that gets cut the break is complete; it's the statistic as a process which not only survives but also controls every such event.

Just my two and half cents worth of useless assumptions. Like Socrates, I know that I know nothing...or was that Sergeant Schultz?

[Dubious]

You could have included a cash incentive, you cheapskate! Alright, I agree to put out without tangible compensation. But just this once!

Thank you. Your generosity is duly noted! I read your post a number of times...which I seldom do. It is elegantly expressed and clear, which goes to show, you can when you want to. Also, nice choices in the music department as instances of transcendence which more than philosophy has a unique ability to convey...per Schopenhauer and also, yes, Beethoven.

THE MOST BASIC METAPHYSICAL MESSAGE, right off the top of my head, is that there are many things worth dying for. I.e. that it may well be necessary and good to sacrifice immediate or ‘lower’ level attainments, or perhaps simply put material well-being for attainments that are of a transcendental nature. I think it is pretty obvious that all men have a brutal aspect or dimension, would you agree? And that if they are only taught that developing or widening their brutal aspect and tendencies is the greatest good I think it is fairly obvious that mere ‘brute’ existence is non-rewarding in so many ways.

Can’t argue with that!

But how, Dear Dubious, and by what means could our brute be inspired to relinquish the brutal aspect and to cultivate those things of a ‘higher’ nature? I would suppose that if it were presented to a man that there actually is a realm of higher being and higher expression — which is generally described as transcendent and also ‘metaphysical’ to mere brutal existence — and if we were to define the attainment of those higher things as ‘spiritual life’, we would at the same time be defining both what is ‘spiritual, and what is Spirit. And the ‘pictures’ of those things, the story, the presentation, the discourse then encourage and develop “practice”. Obviously that outlines the possibility of dedication and devotion as a life-style, and in the course of time we will suppose that the man we are speaking of will begin to develop along other lines. Does this make any sense at all?

Very much so. As I read it, transcendence as a goal and spirituality through practice being its arrival.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srbbm9688KQ

And what if the brute man is introduced to the notion that there is something in him — the term “soul” is used — that is not perishable and transient and mutable as is his body and indeed Nature, but in fact eternal, ever-existent? Then, he might recognize that ‘that’ is in truth a thing to be treasured and protected. So that he might deeply consider the choices he makes, the decisions, in light of ‘eternal existence’ beyond his immediate, temporal existence as a mutable, mortal and transient body.

Here too I would agree but render it more within the context of time. Soul to me is the sensation of spirituality, of having arrived or nearly so where no boundaries are felt. Mortality itself is its precondition which allows a time-prone vessel to experience the singular compression of a moment inflating itself into a state of timelessness. It’s as if, turning itself inside-out in that singular instance, imparts that intense convergence which desires nothing more. Call it the perfection of the moment, eternity as felt within beings who are anything but.

Consider the flight of birds as a metaphor for the flight of spirit...

Birds that glide in steeped serenity
Hear no voices of posterity
But yield to each moment’s graced inflection
The inside-out of their own perfection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbA5bp-26NA

The very message of Christianity (and other religions bound up in metaphysical principles) is based on the idea, the fact (?) that God descends into the flesh realm of (permit me the term) brutal existence. Right there, dearest child, a rather vast metaphysics is portrayed. And in the final analysis isn’t the message that it is worthwhile to make sacrifices for others that help to enable them to ‘elevate’ themselves?

Cut the “dearest child” crap!

Yes, it is a powerful metaphor when taken on its own terms as metaphysical, meaning equally valid whether encapsulated in scripture or mirrored in philosophy.

Can you feel it, Dubious? Can you?!

Ja, ich fühle es, und ebenso die hervorragende kraft!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCsNlSM ... rt_radio=1

[Will Bouwman]

The evidence is all on my side...

Of course it is.

Well, causality works.

As I said:

Well, the problem is you either do not understand or do not remember what I actually said.

Which is it in the following case?

Most interpretations of quantum mechanics do not include hidden variables. A hidden variable, since you almost certainly don't know, is any hypothesis that explains what Einstein called 'Spooky action at a distance.' Einstein famously, along with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, suggested that there must be some hidden variable and therefore, quantum mechanics is incomplete. The most famous challenge to the EPR experiment came from John Stewart Bell in 1964. Bell's Theorem is a mathematical proof showing that if there is some local hidden variable, statistically, measurements of entangled particles must satisfy Bell's inequality. Experiment shows they don't. That, I'm sure you agree, seriously challenges causality at the micro level.
But, as I recently said to Alexis Jacobi, you have to distinguish between the micro and the macro. On the macro scale, you can safely ignore the problem of induction for most events. It is not 'probable' that if you drop a brick it will fall; it will fall because there is demonstrably a measurable force that acts on two or more bodies, called gravity. That's just a name we give to something that we know exists, but can't explain ontologically, just as dark energy and dark matter are. You don't need to understand the mechanism to do the measurement. At the macro scale, chaos theory notwithstanding, most measurements are discrete, but at the quantum scale, they are for the most part statistical, at the very least because we do not understand the mechanism and possibly, as some of our most rigorously vindicated hypotheses suggest, there is no mechanism.
So yes, you can do science in a non-causal paradigm...

If you don't understand that, I can try and explain further. If, on the other you continue as if I hadn't said it, I won't waste any more time on you.