Philosophy Now Forum

According to my limited understanding this notion based on the Copenhagen interpretation. Any of the interpretations may or may not be correct to a certain extent. However, the fact that the other interpretations were not even mentioned or acknowledged does not appeal. Still, the weirdness of reality at the smallest of scales (not sure if "mental" as such) is thought-provoking.

uwot wrote:I read this http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf and thought Mr. Can might appreciate it. No, really! Sample quote:
“The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is ‘this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.’” For anyone who actually reads anything I post, it's a fun but serious argument against materialism by a pukka academic.

The cause of atheism is simply the lack of any evidence that there is a God - plain and simple.

attofishpi wrote:

Harbal wrote:

attofishpi wrote: yes, its the way i see atheist's POV - they seem to consider things in bricks and mortar - atoms in fact - wherein there is a lot more shit going on even below that level - as i know you are aware. The point is our consciousness is also made up of this ethereal energy, and from experience, there is more to reality than meets the average mind.

In my experience people don't walk on water or come back to life after they've died, or communicate with me via a disembodied voice, for that matter. To my mind, that's good enough reason to suppose these things don't happen. While there is undoubtedly more to reality than we know, that's no reason to invent stuff willy nilly.

Granted - i considered if i had not been put through a theist upbringing - i would definitely consider ALL theism a pile of bollocks. But since this entity has made me aware of its existence, it has been also a consideration that 'IT' put me into that family that put me through a theist upbringing - and i am glad of it, since it is the truth.
Walking on water? Coming back to life? Big deal - what i have witnessed over the years of what this entity can do - thats barely the surface of it.
Who's inventing what? Willy nilly?

Well, I was brought up in a theist home. I was even "saved" and baptized. But now I'm an atheist. How could that happen? The way it happened is that I encountered to many inconsistencies and lame answers to my questions when I matured enough to ask them. I realized that you can't acquire truth from authority or tradition. Logic and reason are the only paths to the truth.

Greta wrote:According to my limited understanding this notion based on the Copenhagen interpretation. Any of the interpretations may or may not be correct to a certain extent. However, the fact that the other interpretations were not even mentioned or acknowledged does not appeal. Still, the weirdness of reality at the smallest of scales (not sure if "mental" as such) is thought-provoking.

Personally, I think the author jumps to the conclusion that happens to be what he believes anyway, which is exactly what he accuses others of doing. I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'Shut up and calculate!' associated with QM and Copenhagen in particular. The philosophy at the time of the development of QM was strongly positivist, influenced particularly by Ernst Mach and Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is still very influential, loads of physicists are instrumentalists and deeply hostile to any philosophical interpretation of the data. We all make up stories to string the facts together, and scientists are no different. You're on a hiding to nothing if you argue with the data, unless you happen to have an LHC in the basement, but any story that is consistent with the facts could be true. Even god.

Trajk Logik wrote:The cause of atheism is simply the lack of any evidence that there is a God - plain and simple.

Yup; which is precisely why I am an atheist.

uwot wrote:

thedoc wrote:“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Which science has conclusively demonstrated since Shakespeare's time. As it happens though, Hamlet was referring to ghosts. I'm not sure what your take on ghosts is.

I've never seen one so I can't say either way. I've heard it said that "absence of proof, is not proof of absence". I will say that most of the encounters so far have been shown to be false or faked.

your mental universe is your mental universe...

his/her mental universe is his/her mental universe...

making the assumption of universal goggles might lead to a false sense of identical mental universes...

-Imp

uwot wrote:

Greta wrote:... the fact that the other interpretations were not even mentioned or acknowledged does not appeal. Still, the weirdness of reality at the smallest of scales (not sure if "mental" as such) is thought-provoking.

Personally, I think the author jumps to the conclusion that happens to be what he believes anyway, which is exactly what he accuses others of doing. I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'Shut up and calculate!' associated with QM and Copenhagen in particular. The philosophy at the time of the development of QM was strongly positivist, influenced particularly by Ernst Mach and Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is still very influential, loads of physicists are instrumentalists and deeply hostile to any philosophical interpretation of the data. We all make up stories to string the facts together, and scientists are no different. You're on a hiding to nothing if you argue with the data, unless you happen to have an LHC in the basement, but any story that is consistent with the facts could be true. Even god.

Yes, I find the approach to be manipulative. I didn't have an academic background and spent most of my life unknowingly confused by the pushing and pulling of others' opinions presented as fact. The Selfish Gene changed my life. I remember my delight and amazement reading his consistently reasonable and honest referral to opposing hypotheses to his own. It was the first time that I'd come across a writer who didn't try to hide or denigrate opposing hypotheses, but produced them so as to give readers a clearer perspective of the situation.

As you noted, none of this reflects on the reality, or not, of the situation but the article would have made a stronger point if at least one other interpretation was considered or incorporated.

uwot wrote:I read this http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf and thought Mr. Can might appreciate it. No, really! Sample quote:
“The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is ‘this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.’” For anyone who actually reads anything I post, it's a fun but serious argument against materialism by a pukka academic.

Hi uwot, good topic.

If you have read any of my idealistic blatherings regarding the universe, then you know that you’re preaching to the choir with this one.

I think that one of the best arguments for the “mental universe” (aside from the implications of the Copenhagen Interpretation) is that the universe appears to be composed of a fundamental essence that is capable of being formed into almost anything “imaginable” (take its near infinite phenomenal features, for example).

I suggest that the infinitely malleable substance that underpins reality is “mind-like” in nature in that it seems to resemble the infinitely malleable substance that composes our thoughts and dreams.

I believe that if humanity does not destroy itself and can continue to advance its understanding of the quantum realm, we will eventually be able to control and manipulate electrons in three-dimensions as easily as the wizards at Pixar or DreamWorks control them now in two-dimensions.
_______

Trajk Logik wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Harbal wrote: In my experience people don't walk on water or come back to life after they've died, or communicate with me via a disembodied voice, for that matter. To my mind, that's good enough reason to suppose these things don't happen. While there is undoubtedly more to reality than we know, that's no reason to invent stuff willy nilly.

Granted - i considered if i had not been put through a theist upbringing - i would definitely consider ALL theism a pile of bollocks. But since this entity has made me aware of its existence, it has been also a consideration that 'IT' put me into that family that put me through a theist upbringing - and i am glad of it, since it is the truth.
Walking on water? Coming back to life? Big deal - what i have witnessed over the years of what this entity can do - thats barely the surface of it.
Who's inventing what? Willy nilly?

Well, I was brought up in a theist home. I was even "saved" and baptized. But now I'm an atheist. How could that happen? The way it happened is that I encountered to many inconsistencies and lame answers to my questions when I matured enough to ask them. I realized that you can't acquire truth from authority or tradition. Logic and reason are the only paths to the truth.

Yes logic and reason are the only path to truth, and since i know God exists, i am fairly certain that physicists will one day discover its existence.
The tragic logic that you have is a rather an unwise philosophical stance.
Its similar to P.W. since "seek, and ye shall find" - if only you held on to a theist belief, you may have taken a shortcut to the knowledge that God does exist. Since now you are an atheist, it is unlikely that in this lifetime of yours, that physicists will discover the truth behind reality...that God does exist.

attofishpi wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
Granted - i considered if i had not been put through a theist upbringing - i would definitely consider ALL theism a pile of bollocks. But since this entity has made me aware of its existence, it has been also a consideration that 'IT' put me into that family that put me through a theist upbringing - and i am glad of it, since it is the truth.
Walking on water? Coming back to life? Big deal - what i have witnessed over the years of what this entity can do - thats barely the surface of it.
Who's inventing what? Willy nilly?

Well, I was brought up in a theist home. I was even "saved" and baptized. But now I'm an atheist. How could that happen? The way it happened is that I encountered to many inconsistencies and lame answers to my questions when I matured enough to ask them. I realized that you can't acquire truth from authority or tradition. Logic and reason are the only paths to the truth.

Yes logic and reason are the only path to truth, and since i know God exists, i am fairly certain that physicists will one day discover its existence.
The tragic logic that you have is a rather an unwise philosophical stance.
Its similar to P.W. since "seek, and ye shall find" - if only you held on to a theist belief, you may have taken a shortcut to the knowledge that God does exist. Since now you are an atheist, it is unlikely that in this lifetime of yours, that physicists will discover the truth behind reality...that God does exist.

I did seek (from the Bible and other believers), but all I found were inconsistencies and hypocrisy. I can guarantee that you didn't arrive at the notion, "I know God exists" in a logical, reasonable manner. No believer I have met has ever been able to show me their logic and reason behind their belief. It's all based off of tradition, authority, or simply the fear of ceasing to exist after death and the unfairness in the world.

Trajk Logik wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote: Well, I was brought up in a theist home. I was even "saved" and baptized. But now I'm an atheist. How could that happen? The way it happened is that I encountered to many inconsistencies and lame answers to my questions when I matured enough to ask them. I realized that you can't acquire truth from authority or tradition. Logic and reason are the only paths to the truth.

Yes logic and reason are the only path to truth, and since i know God exists, i am fairly certain that physicists will one day discover its existence.
The tragic logic that you have is a rather an unwise philosophical stance.
Its similar to P.W. since "seek, and ye shall find" - if only you held on to a theist belief, you may have taken a shortcut to the knowledge that God does exist. Since now you are an atheist, it is unlikely that in this lifetime of yours, that physicists will discover the truth behind reality...that God does exist.

I did seek (from the Bible and other believers), but all I found were inconsistencies and hypocrisy. I can guarantee that you didn't arrive at the notion, "I know God exists" in a logical, reasonable manner. No believer I have met has ever been able to show me their logic and reason behind their belief. It's all based off of tradition, authority, or simply the fear of ceasing to exist after death and the unfairness in the world.

You want to tell me i did not reach the knowledge that God exists via a logical reasonable manner, yet you relied on simply the buy bull and other believers...i did nothing so irrational.

attofishpi wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
Yes logic and reason are the only path to truth, and since i know God exists, i am fairly certain that physicists will one day discover its existence.
The tragic logic that you have is a rather an unwise philosophical stance.
Its similar to P.W. since "seek, and ye shall find" - if only you held on to a theist belief, you may have taken a shortcut to the knowledge that God does exist. Since now you are an atheist, it is unlikely that in this lifetime of yours, that physicists will discover the truth behind reality...that God does exist.

I did seek (from the Bible and other believers), but all I found were inconsistencies and hypocrisy. I can guarantee that you didn't arrive at the notion, "I know God exists" in a logical, reasonable manner. No believer I have met has ever been able to show me their logic and reason behind their belief. It's all based off of tradition, authority, or simply the fear of ceasing to exist after death and the unfairness in the world.

You want to tell me i did not reach the knowledge that God exists via a logical reasonable manner, yet you relied on simply the buy bull and other believers...i did nothing so irrational.

Yet you don't seem to be brave enough to explain the process by which you came to believe in a God. You'd think that if you are so special by coming upon the belief in some God different than everyone else did, you'd want to share it without even being asked to do so.

How did you come to the belief that God exists if you never heard the term, "God" used by others first? You obviously weren't born believing in a God. No infant believes in God.

Trajk Logik wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote: I did seek (from the Bible and other believers), but all I found were inconsistencies and hypocrisy. I can guarantee that you didn't arrive at the notion, "I know God exists" in a logical, reasonable manner. No believer I have met has ever been able to show me their logic and reason behind their belief. It's all based off of tradition, authority, or simply the fear of ceasing to exist after death and the unfairness in the world.

You want to tell me i did not reach the knowledge that God exists via a logical reasonable manner, yet you relied on simply the buy bull and other believers...i did nothing so irrational.

Yet you don't seem to be brave enough to explain the process by which you came to believe in a God. You'd think that if you are so special by coming upon the belief in some God different than everyone else did, you'd want to share it without even being asked to do so.

Oh dear, is that your measure for bravery, posting on an internet forum!
Through the 20yrs of experience i have had of God and enduring its many tests, it was there that i had to be brave - not posting to pipsqueaks on the internet. I've been on this forum for over 6yrs - if you want any explanation of any process then go and analyse my posts, i am not going to reiterate it every time a noob comes along and demands it. To make myself quite clear, i dont give a fuck what you think.

attofishpi wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:

attofishpi wrote: You want to tell me i did not reach the knowledge that God exists via a logical reasonable manner, yet you relied on simply the buy bull and other believers...i did nothing so irrational.

Yet you don't seem to be brave enough to explain the process by which you came to believe in a God. You'd think that if you are so special by coming upon the belief in some God different than everyone else did, you'd want to share it without even being asked to do so.

Oh dear, is that your measure for bravery, posting on an internet forum!
Through the 20yrs of experience i have had of God and enduring its many tests, it was there that i had to be brave - not posting to pipsqueaks on the internet. I've been on this forum for over 6yrs - if you want any explanation of any process then go and analyse my posts, i am not going to reiterate it every time a noob comes along and demands it. To make myself quite clear, i dont give a fuck what you think.

It's not just posting on a internet forum. When I mentioned bravery, I was talking about your willingness to expose your innermost beliefs and how you arrived at them to others for critique. That's what an open society that debates ideas openly does. You obviously aren't willing to do that. So why are you even here?

If you're saying that I should go search your previous posts, then why engage in a conversation, or post anything else? Everyone should just go back and look at your previous posts.

If you makes you sleep better at night then go ahead and maintain the delusion of me being a "noob" (You may be 20, and I'm twice your age but you seem to have the mentality of a 13 year old?). I'm far more advanced in my understanding of things than you could know. I've had so many discussions with people like you, it has become a bore. Just because I may not have as many posts as others on this forum doesn't mean I haven't had these discussions uncountable times in other places, but it seems like your mind is too small comprehend this.