Pages

Sunday, October 15, 2023

Things Tangible and Things Unseen



A statement on a blog by an atheist that well illustrates a major attitude of skepticism and new atheists that one encounters all over the net.

Roger Higman:

But God is a figment of your imagination. S/he can't be seen,heard or sensed in any way and all claims for what s/he thinks or says are just figments of the imagination of other people. At least science is based on things we can all see, hear, smell and taste.[1]
He must mean things like sub atomic strings, dark matter, quarks, nuetrinos,the big bang, and other things we clearly see and smell every day? As for figments of imagination I demonstrated in The Trace of God that 200 peer reviewed studies in journal articles demonstrate that mystical experince is good for you and that it is a valid experiece of something that is being experienced with the same qualia by people from all faiths all over the world.[2] Thus it seems God has more of a basis in empirical evidence than do subatomic particles.

Here is Part of an article I wrote for this blog back in 2020,"Can Science really Prove The Basis of Modern Physics?" (JULY 13, 2020):

Are there realms beyond the natural? Of course there can be no direct evidence, even a direct look at them would stand apart from our received version of reality and thus be suspect. The plaintive cry of the materialists that “there is no evidence for the supernatural” is fallacious to the core. How can there be evidence when any evidence that might be would automatically be suspect? Moreover, science itself gives us reason to think there might be. Quantum physics is about unseen realms, but they are the world of the extremely tiny. This is the fundamental basis of reality, what’s beneath or behind everything. They talk about “particles” but in reality they are not particles. They are not bits of stuff. They are not solid matter.[3] Treating particles as points is also problematic. This is where string theory comes in. This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than four.

So where are they then? One idea is that they are right under our noses, but compacted to the quantum scale so that they are imperceptible. "Hang on a minute", you might think,"How can you ever prove the existence of something that, by definition, is impossible to perceive?" It's a fair point, and there are scientists who criticize string theory for its weak predictive power and testability. Leaving that to one side, how can you conceptualize extra dimensions?[4] There is no direct evidence of these unseen realms and they may be unprovable. Why are they assumed with such confidence and yet reductionists make the opposite assumption about spiritual realms? It’s not because the quantum universe realms are tangible or solid or material they are not. Scientists can’t really describe what they are, except that they are mathematical. In fact why can’t they be the same realms?

Then there’s the concept of the multiverse. This is not subatomic in size but beyond our space/time continuum. These would be other universes perhaps like our own, certainly the size of our own, but beyond our realm of space/time. Some scientists accept the idea that the same rules would apply in all of these universes, but some don’t.

Beyond it [our cosmic visual horizon—42 billion light years] could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the one we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. Nearly all cosmologists today (including me) accept this type of multiverse, which Max Tegmark calls “level 1.” Yet some go further. They suggest completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life. A chief proponent of this “level 2” multiverse is Alexander Vilenkin, who paints a dramatic picture of an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with your name who are reading this article.[5] Well there are two important things to note here. First, that neither string theory nor multiverse may ever be proved empirically. There’s a professor at Columbia named Peter Woit who writes the blog Not Even Wrong dedicated to showing that string theory can’t be proved.[6] There is no proof for it or against it. It can’t be disproved so it can’t be proved either.[7] That means the idea will be around for a long time because without disproving it they can’t get rid of it. Yet without any means of disproving it, it can’t be deemed a scientific fact. Remember it’s not about proving things, it's about disproving them. Yet science is willing to consider their possibility and takes them quite seriously. There is no empirical evidence of these things. They posit the dimensions purely as a mathematical solution so the equations work not because they have any real evidence.[8]

We could make the argument that we have several possibilities for other worlds and those possibilities suggest more: we have the idea of being “outside time.” There’s no proof that this is a place one can actually go to, but the idea of it suggests the possibility, there’s the world of antimatter, there are worlds in string membranes, and there are other dimensions tucked away and folded into our own. In terms of the multiverse scientists might argue that they conceive of these as “naturalistic.” They would be like our world with physical laws and hard material substances and physical things. As we have seen there are those who go further and postulate the “rules change” idea. We probably should assume the rules work the same way because its all we know. We do assume this in making God arguments such as the cosmological argument. Yet the possibility exists that there could be other realms that are not physical and not “natural” as we know that concept. The probability of that increases when we realize that these realms are beyond our space/time thus they are beyond the domain of our cause and effect, and we know as “natural.” It really all goes back to the philosophical and ideological assumption about rules. There is no way to prove it either way. Ruling out the possibility of a spiritual realm based upon the fact that we don’t live in it would be stupid. The idea that “we never see any proof of it” is basically the same thing as saying “we don’t live it so it must not exist.” Of course this field is going to be suspect, and who can blame the critics? Anyone with a penchant for the unknown can set up shop and speculate about what might be “out there.” Yet science itself offers the possibility in the form of modern physics, the only rationale for closing that off is the distaste for religion.

All that is solid melts into air

This line by Marx deals with society, social and political institutions, but in thinking about the topic of SN it suggests a very different issue. The reductionist/materialists and phsyicalists assume and often argue that there is no proof of anything not material and not ' ‘physical” (energy is a form of matter). The hard tangible nature of the physical is taken as the standard for reality while the notion of something beyond our ability to dietetic is seen in a skeptical way, even though the major developments in physics are based upon it. Is the physical world as tangible and solid as we think? Science talks about “particles” and constructs models of atoms made of wooden tubes and little balls this gives us the psychological impression that the world of the very tiny is based upon little solid balls. In reality subatomic particles are not made out of little balls, nor are these ‘particles” tangible or solid. In fact we could make a strong argument that no one even knows what they are made of.

We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions. This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.[9]

Particles are not solid; they are not very tiny chunks of solid stuff. They have no volume nor do they have the kind of stable existence we do. They “pop” in and out of existence! This is not proof for the supernatural. It might imply that the seeming solidity of “reality” is illusory. There are two kinds of subatomic particles, elementary and composite. Composites are made out of smaller particles. Now we hear it said that elementary particles are not made out of other particles. It’s substructure is unknown. They may or may not be made of smaller particles. That means we really don’t know what subatomic particles are made of. That means scientists are willing to believe in things they don’t understand.[10] While it is not definite enough to prove anything except that we don’t know the basis of reality, it does prove that and also the possibilities for the ultimate truth of this are still wide open. To rule out “the supernatural '' (by the wrong concept) on the assumption that we have no scientific proof of it is utterly arrogance and bombast. For all we know what we take to be solid unshakable reality might be nothing more than God’s day dream. Granted, there is end to the spinning of moon beams and we can talk all day about what ‘might be,’ so we need evidence and arguments to warrant the placing of confidence in propositions. We have confidence in placing evidence; it doesn’t have to be scientific although some of it is. That will come in the next chapter. The point here is that there is no basis for the snide dismissal of concepts such as supernatural and supernature.



Notes

[1]"The God Cpnsclusion,"Facebook, No date given. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid026zwX5w1B83ewVadJz8osCAANt6u7D7ZLVnyMkcU2umBVo5C3qmi7oQe86WVkCfmVl&id=110569734986874&comment_id=776115883509430&reply_comment_id=1133078190613576¬if_id=1660685142035948¬if_t=feed_comment_reply&ref=notif

[2]Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God: Rational Warrant for Belief, 2014,' On Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714 In this, my first book, I discuss a body of scientific work in psychology (200 studies going back to the 1960s The jist of these studes is that relgioius experomce is an experience of something real.Although we cant [rove that God is the thimg experoence thyatis the best explaination.

[3] “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Science and Facilities Council, 2012 URL: http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detectives/Take%205/13686.aspx

[4] Ibid.

[5] George F.R. Ellis. “Does the Miltiverse Really Exist [preview]” Scientific American (July 19, 2011) On line version URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist George F.R. Ellis is Professor Emeritus in Mathematics at University of Cape Town. He’s been professor of Cosmic Physics at SISSA (Trieste)

[6] Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, Posted on September 18, 2012 by woi blog, URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

[7] ibid, “Welcome to the Multiverse,” Posted on May 21, 2012 by woit URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4715

[8] Mohsen Kermanshahi. Universal Theory. “String Theory.” Website URL:http://www.universaltheory.org/html/others/stringtheory5.htm

[9] STFC ibid, op cit.

[10] Giorgio Giacomelli; Maurizio Spurio Particles and Fundamental Interactions: An Introduction to Particle Physics (2nd ed.). Italy: Springer-Verlag, science and Business media, 2009, pp. 1–3.

14 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:23 AM

    A big difference between string theory and the multiverse, compared to religious claims, is that scientists are upfront about them being speculation.

    How certain are scientists that the multiverse exists? Not at all, it is just speculation until they can devise a way to test it.

    How certain are Christians that God exists? Absolutely.

    Pix

    ReplyDelete
  2. those findings are made in different ways. Scientists don't have intense personal feelings about the presence of multiverses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are "intense personal feelings" supposed to be evidence of the truthfulness of your beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "mystical experience" may be the basis for a belief in God.
    That doesn't make them empirical evidence for God.
    The link between the two has yet to be, and may not be able to be, established.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cuttlebones said...
    Are "intense personal feelings" supposed to be evidence of the truthfulness of your beliefs?

    It's a distinction between science and religion, it's also an existential proof.

    ReplyDelete
  6. mystical experience" may be the basis for a belief in God.
    That doesn't make them empirical evidence for God.
    The link between the two has yet to be, and may not be able to be, established.

    The proof is the effect of the experience not the content, But the content matters in that it should not be universal and yet it is. that implies an external cause.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The proof is the effect of the experience not the content, But the content matters in that it should not be universal and yet it is. that implies an external cause.
    The effect of the experience proves nothing about the cause.
    That the effect is deemed positive doesn't demand a benevolent external agency.
    Why should the experience not be universal? We are all human.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The effect of the experience proves nothing about the cause.

    Yes it does.

    That the effect is deemed positive doesn't demand a benevolent external agency.

    It lives up to the promise of Christian belief, the fact that it's found in all cultures means the experience is not just in the mind but is the result of an external reality.



    Why should the experience not be universal? We are all human.

    Religion is cultural not genetic. Religious symbols are not genetic they are based upon culture, Experiences pertaining to religious ideas are not genetic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The effect of the experience proves nothing about the cause.

    Yes it does

    How does it? All it shows is that the experience has predominantly beneficial results.
    Any claim regarding cause is pure supposition based upon the desire to link that experience to a god.


    It lives up to the promise of Christian belief, the fact that it's found in all cultures means the experience is not just in the mind but is the result of an external reality.

    What is "the promise of Christian belief"? If it does, why hasn't everyone who has had such an experience embraced Christianity.

    How does it show that the experience is not just in the mind? It's commonality can be accounted for by the fact that all humans have minds. The function of the human mind is not a product of culture.


    Religion is cultural not genetic. Religious symbols are not genetic they are based upon culture, Experiences pertaining to religious ideas are not genetic.

    Religious expression is cultural. "mystical experience" is not. The mind is not.

    ReplyDelete
  10. CB: The effect of the experience proves nothing about the cause.

    Yes it does

    How does it? All it shows is that the experience has predominantly beneficial results.

    It just depends upon the case but I can think instances where it would. By "prove" mean it supports given conclusion, not that it proves it conclusively. People don't normally change or grow or mature from a single experience, It does happen with religious experience,

    Any claim regarding cause is pure supposition based upon the desire to link that experience to a god.

    Some suppositions have been known to be true.


    Joe: It lives up to the promise of Christian belief, the fact that it's found in all cultures means the experience is not just in the mind but is the result of an external reality.

    What is "the promise of Christian belief"?

    Salvation, which is life after death, it begins in this life with renovation, the renewal of the mind: peace, soundness of thought, joy, security.


    If it does, why hasn't everyone who has had such an experience embraced Christianity.

    People link it to whatever tradition they associate with except in some cases where it is linked directly to Christ.



    How does it show that the experience is not just in the mind? It's commonality can be accounted for by the fact that all humans have minds. The function of the human mind is not a product of culture.

    Religious experience and their meanings are cultural. Mystical experience is linked to religious symbols or concepts, it's not associated by the experiencer as an act of the mind.


    Joe: Religion is cultural not genetic. Religious symbols are not genetic they are based upon culture, Experiences pertaining to religious ideas are not genetic.

    yes, what he said.

    Religious expression is cultural. "mystical experience" is not. The mind is not.

    It's not genetic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CB: The effect of the experience proves nothing about the cause.

    Yes it does

    How does it? All it shows is that the experience has predominantly beneficial results.

    It just depends upon the case but I can think instances where it would. By "prove" mean it supports given conclusion, not that it proves it conclusively. People don't normally change or grow or mature from a single experience, It does happen with religious experience,

    Any claim regarding cause is pure supposition based upon the desire to link that experience to a god.

    Some suppositions have been known to be true.


    Joe: It lives up to the promise of Christian belief, the fact that it's found in all cultures means the experience is not just in the mind but is the result of an external reality.

    What is "the promise of Christian belief"?

    Salvation, which is life after death, it begins in this life with renovation, the renewal of the mind: peace, soundness of thought, joy, security.


    If it does, why hasn't everyone who has had such an experience embraced Christianity.

    People link it to whatever tradition they associate with except in some cases where it is linked directly to Christ.



    How does it show that the experience is not just in the mind? It's commonality can be accounted for by the fact that all humans have minds. The function of the human mind is not a product of culture.

    Religious experience and their meanings are cultural. Mystical experience is linked to religious symbols or concepts, it's not associated by the experiencer as an act of the mind.


    Joe: Religion is cultural not genetic. Religious symbols are not genetic they are based upon culture, Experiences pertaining to religious ideas are not genetic.

    yes, what he said.

    Religious expression is cultural. "mystical experience" is not. The mind is not.

    It's not genetic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good point, IMS. That's the way science should be used.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So science and religion are not in competition as long as science keeps out of the realm of knowledge that has been claimed by religion. That's fine with me as long as religion keeps out the realm of empirical investigation, because that's what science is all about. Any kind of objective evidence is on the table, and subject to scientific scrutiny. And it's perfectly fine for religious people to engage in scientific investigation, as long as they keep their religious biases out of it. We have seen plenty of examples of religious people conducting good scientific work, and plenty of examples of religious people allowing their religious beliefs to guide their work, resulting in pseudo-science.

    ReplyDelete
  14. CB: The effect of the experience proves nothing about the cause.

    Yes it does
    No. You could wake up tomorrow and find $1M in your bank account. That would be very beneficial to you. But it tells you nothing about the origin of the $1M. You can’t say that it is from a loving anonymous benefactor, rather than an accident on behalf of the bank or the keying mistake of an online user.


    How does it? All it shows is that the experience has predominantly beneficial results.

    It just depends upon the case but I can think instances where it would. By "prove" mean it supports given conclusion, not that it proves it conclusively. People don't normally change or grow or mature from a single experience, It does happen with religious experience.
    Again, the fact that “People don't normally change or grow or mature from a single experience” only tells us that the experience is out of the ordinary and beneficial. It doesn’t indicate a source.


    Any claim regarding cause is pure supposition

    Some suppositions have been known to be true.
    And many have been found to be false.


    It lives up to the promise of Christian belief, the fact that it's found in all cultures means the experience is not just in the mind but is the result of an external reality.

    What is "the promise of Christian belief"?


    Salvation, which is life after death, it begins in this life with renovation, the renewal of the mind: peace, soundness of thought, joy, security.

    We cannot verify the truth of life after death.


    People link it to whatever tradition they associate with except in some cases where it is linked directly to Christ.
    What number of “mystical experiences” include anything specific to a particular religious tradition?


    Religious experience and their meanings are cultural. Mystical experience is linked to religious symbols or concepts, it's not associated by the experiencer as an act of the mind.

    I thought “Religious experiences” were cross cultural? Mystical experiences are likely filtered through the dominant tradition the experiencer is exposed to as they seek to make sense of the experience.
    Those who experience hallucinations don’t consider them an act of the mind either. At least not at the time.


    Religion is cultural not genetic. Religious symbols are not genetic they are based upon culture, Experiences pertaining to religious ideas are not genetic.

    What do you mean by religious ideas and genetic?
    Do you mean general mystical ideas independent of any religious tradition?
    If you mean that experiences are not shown to be restricted to those possessing particular genes, I’d agree. If you mean they are independent of any physiological or psychological origin, I’m not convinced.

    ReplyDelete