Is God necessary for morality?
Re: Is God necessary for morality?
Quantum mechanics isn't all speculation.As I have said several times, quantum mechanics is responsible for some of the most accurate predictions in all of science. You seem to be having problems with this.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:50 pm"Out there?" "Out there?"
How do you know what's "out there," with no empirical evidence? I mean, the proponents of the 10 or so current quantum theories are asking us to believe that evidence they admit they do not currently have will magically appear eventually. Why should we believe that?
Heck, why would THEY believe that? This is why it starts to look ideologically-driven.
Believing in things that are completely non-evidentary is superstition. Scientific hypothesis requires at least a basic "apple" to fall on a basic "Newton's head" in order to justify a theory. But QM is pure speculation. How can anyone seriously suggest we take their blind hope for a promissory note that evidence is "out there" and will appear later?
There just isn't justification for that much faith. And why that much faith is even necessary should set our alarm bells off. We're being sold the Brooklyn Bridge...except in this case, Brooklyn itself isn't even known to exist.
But let us grant, for argument's sake, that QM evidence eventually appears. If it turns out to be a "something" rather than a "nothing," then it hasn't done anything to abate the seriousness of the infinite-actual-causal-regress problem. So then, it just turns out to be irrelevant to the question of whether or not a First Cause is necessary.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23230
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Is God necessary for morality?
Quantum physics deals with the behaviour of matter and light on an atomic and subatomic level. For example, quantum physics is used to calculate such things as energy and the magnetic property of atoms, it is also used to calculate the relationship between energy and frequency, as well as black-body radiation, just to name a few. Quantum physics is a tried and tested empirical science.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23230
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Is God necessary for morality?
Well, I'm tempted to ask what it actually "predicts," G, and which of the 10+ extant QM theories is the one that we are to suppose has done it...But in point of fact, that's rather a red herring to pursue that further if, as you've said earlier, a quantum field is not a "nothing."Ginkgo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:32 amQuantum physics deals with the behaviour of matter and light on an atomic and subatomic level. For example, quantum physics is used to calculate such things as energy and the magnetic property of atoms, it is also used to calculate the relationship between energy and frequency, as well as black-body radiation, just to name a few. Quantum physics is a tried and tested empirical science.
For then, we still have the actual-infinite-regress-of-causes problem, now in the form of accounting for both the "something" of the quantum field itself, and also in accounting for the existence of the mechanics that govern the transition from quantum field to the present complexity of existence and life, just as the author of that NYT article I cited earlier has pointed out. So perhaps we're back to that: how do we overcome the mathematical and empirical impossibility of an infinite regress of causes?
Re: Is God necessary for morality?
Why do you keep lying about impossibility?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:13 pm How do we overcome the mathematical and empirical impossibility of an infinite regress of causes?
Apparently this is a philosophy forum and claims are supposed to proven?
Where is your proof of impossibility?
Oh that's right... it's "outstanding".
Re: Is God necessary for morality?
Quantum mechanics predicts that blackbodies can't radiate and infinite amount of energy as predicted by classical physics. A quantum explanation provided a prediction that was finite.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:13 pmWell, I'm tempted to ask what it actually "predicts," G, and which of the 10+ extant QM theories is the one that we are to suppose has done it...But in point of fact, that's rather a red herring to pursue that further if, as you've said earlier, a quantum field is not a "nothing."Ginkgo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:32 amQuantum physics deals with the behaviour of matter and light on an atomic and subatomic level. For example, quantum physics is used to calculate such things as energy and the magnetic property of atoms, it is also used to calculate the relationship between energy and frequency, as well as black-body radiation, just to name a few. Quantum physics is a tried and tested empirical science.
For then, we still have the actual-infinite-regress-of-causes problem, now in the form of accounting for both the "something" of the quantum field itself, and also in accounting for the existence of the mechanics that govern the transition from quantum field to the present complexity of existence and life, just as the author of that NYT article I cited earlier has pointed out. So perhaps we're back to that: how do we overcome the mathematical and empirical impossibility of an infinite regress of causes?
Could you fill me in on the 10 theories you are referring to?
Here’s an excerpt from wikipedia:
"The ultraviolet catastrophe, also called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe, was the prediction of late 19th century/early 20th century classical physics that an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium will emit radiation in all frequency ranges, emitting more energy as the frequency increases. By calculating the total amount of radiated energy (i.e., the sum of emissions in all frequency ranges), it can be shown that a blackbody would release an infinite amount of energy, contradicting the principles of conservation of energy
and indicating that a new model for the behaviour of blackbodies was needed.
It was a “catastrophe” because that prediction violated conservation of energy and did not match experimental data. It was way off.
The solution, found by Max Planck, again wikipedia
Planck derived the correct form for the intensity spectral distribution function by making some strange (for the time) assumptions. In particular, Planck assumed that electromagnetic radiation can only be emitted or absorbed in discrete packets, called quanta.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23230
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm