Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

originally posted by: LittleByLittle

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: vasaga

Excellent post and long overdue. Science is imprisoning the human mind in a carapace of materialistic, anti spiritual thinking. This is the anti chamber of spiritual death. Rupert Sheldrake wrote a book called The Science Delusion. Well worth reading.

Both agree and do not agree. Some people like Richard Dawkins are clearly turning materialism into a religion.

You mean, making assertions without evidence?

No.

That materialist thinking, with laws of physics works. There's one physics in the universe---"spiritualism", well, somehow every culture has its own or ten and they're all incompatible.

The funny thing is that from my point of view his views are going against the current science in Physics. Entanglement/Quantum theory/double slit experiment. He is saying spiritual things are ridiculous even if he have not really done a fair test in a field that humanity is still quantifying how it works so we can speak of it in Scientific terms.

Quantum mechanics is 100% materialist as the rest of physics. It just happens to be more subtle and difficult than classical physics, so people with lesser ability to understand it correctly attempt to insert "spiritual" stuff for their own emotional reasons and falsely claim that there is a necessary scientific place for it in quantum mechanics. There isn't.

originally posted by: mbkennel
Quantum mechanics is 100% materialist as the rest of physics. It just happens to be more subtle and difficult than classical physics, so people with lesser ability to understand it correctly attempt to insert "spiritual" stuff for their own emotional reasons and falsely claim that there is a necessary scientific place for it in quantum mechanics. There isn't.

At the quantum level 'material' begins to become meaningless. Matter is a construct; everything from the hydrogen atom up. Material particles are not matter in the same way as a hydrogen atom is because the atom is a construction. It hardly means much to speak of matter on a quantum level because it is so different from classical matter. It is very much a question of semantics.

As for Dawkins --- the theory of evolution is not as neat as he pretends. Here's some quotes from the Wistar Symposium

well, somehow every culture has its own or ten and they're all incompatible.

At a fundamental level they are not in conflict with each other. It is only the religious derivations and distortions that give the impression that they are. Here is an article on the Axial Age

originally posted by: mbkennel

Quantum mechanics is 100% materialist as the rest of physics. It just happens to be more subtle and difficult than classical physics, so people with lesser ability to understand it correctly attempt to insert "spiritual" stuff for their own emotional reasons and falsely claim that there is a necessary scientific place for it in quantum mechanics. There isn't.

That you for posting your view that Quantum mechanics is 100% materialist. Not all physics or scientist agree with your view and claim the opposite.

I have blaspheming against materialism and that cannot be allowed. Hence the Ad hominem attacks for the unbeliever of materialism to ridicule the counter view. Funny that Richard Dawkins also do this to Deepak Chopra. I think I am starting to see a pattern.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: mbkennel
Quantum mechanics is 100% materialist as the rest of physics. It just happens to be more subtle and difficult than classical physics, so people with lesser ability to understand it correctly attempt to insert "spiritual" stuff for their own emotional reasons and falsely claim that there is a necessary scientific place for it in quantum mechanics. There isn't.

At the quantum level 'material' begins to become meaningless. Matter is a construct; everything from the hydrogen atom up. Material particles are not matter in the same way as a hydrogen atom is because the atom is a construction. It hardly means much to speak of matter on a quantum level because it is so different from classical matter. It is very much a question of semantics.

Those semantics are arbitrary linguistic constructions if you insist. The physics isn't arbitrary.

You decide that 'quantum mechanical' "matter" isn't ""matter""--in-your-definition. In fact classical matter is quantum mechanical matter in some limit. Whatever you call "it", "it" does what laws of physics say with no spirituality.

As for Dawkins --- the theory of evolution is not as neat as he pretends. Here's some quotes from the Wistar Symposium

Of course there are complexities and details at the leading edge of science, but the strength of evidence for it is just as Dawkins says.

well, somehow every culture has its own or ten and they're all incompatible.

At a fundamental level they are not in conflict with each other. It is only the religious derivations and distortions that give the impression that they are. Here is an article on the Axial Age

Well then, it must be religion that's the problem since it has a 100% track record of distorting, therefore it's a completely useless guide to "spirituality". Given that the non-religious approach (empirical evidence) shows no spirituality or spirits necessary anywhere, it's a good bet there ain't no such thing.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
I have blaspheming against materialism and that cannot be allowed. Hence the Ad hominem attacks for the unbeliever of materialism to ridicule the counter view. Funny that Richard Dawkins also do this to Deepak Chopra. I think I am starting to see a pattern.

Yeah, the pattern is impatience with "oh woe is me, I'm a victim of all those people who made modern civilization" plus "oh, that evidence, um, well, HEY STOP BEING CLOSED MINDED YOU JERK, stop making an ad-hominem attack against me".

An ad-hominem attack is, "Don't listen to LittleByLittle, because he is really ugly and smells of elderberries." That isn't what's going on.

a reply to: mbkennel
Saying that physics is 100% materialism is also and assertion without evidence. Also the idea that world religions are incompatible is an assertion that only relates to religions at superficial levels.

In context to the common sense's our capacity to interact is the result of internal representations.

One can assert that the results of quantum mechanics are completely random. But that in reality is about our capacity to understand the phenomenon. In some altogether way there could very well be a "method to the madness," of spooky action at a distance.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mbkennel
Saying that physics is 100% materialism is also and assertion without evidence. Also the idea that world religions are incompatible is an assertion that only relates to religions at superficial levels.

In context to the common sense's our capacity to interact is the result of internal representations.

One can assert that the results of quantum mechanics are completely random. But that in reality is about our capacity to understand the phenomenon. In some altogether way there could very well be a "method to the madness," of spooky action at a distance.

You cannot prove something to someone who do not want it proven and are conditioned to not hear. Amazing that indoctrination have been able to do what it has done and that we live long lives without understanding the secrets hidden inside ous. The potential of the human body interacting with the consciousness is incredible.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mbkennel
Saying that physics is 100% materialism is also and assertion without evidence.

Find something in Landau + Lif#z Course of Theoretical Physics (a comprehensive set of reference textbooks) which is not "materialistic".

Also the idea that world religions are incompatible is an assertion that only relates to religions at superficial levels.

Given that the "transformations" necessary to make them compatible are as idiosyncratic as the religions themselves, as opposed to physics, I think that it's warping to fit a predetermined outcome. To use a concrete historical example, how was Greco-Roman religion in say 44 BCE compatible with Judaism of its time? It wasn't in the slightest. Other neighbors and conquered people had religions which could be roughtly 'morphed' into syncretic Greco-Roman religion for obedience to the Republic and later Empire, but that didn't work with the Jews.

In context to the common sense's our capacity to interact is the result of internal representations.

You mean that humans have internal state, and memory and knowledge? OK, and so?

One can assert that the results of quantum mechanics are completely random. But that in reality is about our capacity to understand the phenomenon. In some altogether way there could very well be a "method to the madness," of spooky action at a distance.

There is a "method to the madness", known as quantum mechanics. The principles since its derivation by Bohr & Heisenberg and successors have been unchanged since 1926. The spooky action at distance is by all appearances a correct description of physical reality as it is upheld by experiments time and time again despite their seemingly counter-intuitive predictions and results. Clearly a few humans are able to understand what appears to be reality, with many years of study and effort they do computations which predict the result of experiments correctly. People who predict using their inborn consciousness and spirituality and common sense get the answers wrong.

The conclusion is that quantum mechanics is right and our intuition is faulty, and that is not surprising since we are evolved to make quick decisions in a classical world of 10^23 atoms where such effects are not biologically perceptible.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
You cannot prove something to someone who do not want it proven and are conditioned to not hear. Amazing that indoctrination have been able to do what it has done and that we live long lives without understanding the secrets hidden inside ous.

Looks like I called it: a.k.a. "oh, that evidence, um, well, HEY STOP BEING CLOSED MINDED YOU JERK"

a reply to: LittleByLittle
If that is true it is important to understand that we have all been conditioned.

Science presents in reality that we do not know everything, that is science.

Science offers also that until all of us are certain of something it is not certain.

Take this example....some who frequent internet forums believe that if it is not on the internet it did not happen. These days if one presents something on the internet they need to back it up with data from the internet.

Now in relation to history and if you discussed such an issue with a historian. He or She could very well tell you that that is a bunch of baloney.

This is because in relation to history points of view are expressed.

See there is no way of knowing whether or not those points of view were accurate in relation to science.

I mean to prove that Alexander the Great was really an incredible leader. And not some wimp who took credit for things those assigned to him did you need a time machine.

In that same regard we have scientists who simply and factually speak out of there field.

Any thought?

a reply to: mbkennel
This situation is not different than the conclusion the Universe is flat. As often applied that conclusion has its basis upon our capacity to observe, so that it is possible that the Universe is curved but it is outside our capacity to comprehend.

What I mean by a "method to the madness" is a Unified Field Theory. That considers the issue of quantum mechanics, as representative of classical mechanics and again in some altogether way.

In context if one were to look at the object that is 13.7 billion years old and about 40 billion light years wide. What you define as random events, are non random, they are relevant to the Laws of Physics at the classical scale.

The method to the madness.

By internal representations I mean that everything you see, feel, taste, hear and smell is all in your head.

You are effectively experiencing a rather accurate hallucination but a hallucination nonetheless.

The basis of that accuracy being human standards.

Like the thought experiment about the four blind men and the elephant. We could very well be in the same situation in understanding reality.

As one of the blind men.

Any thoughts?

Y a reply to: Kashai

Do stars explode because of events taking place at a quantum or classical level?

a reply to: Astyanax

Only a few varieties of stars end their lives this way and astronomers sort the explosions into two basic categories: type Ia supernovae and type II supernovae. While the exact self-destruction process varies with each type, all stellar explosions ultimately depend on the star's enormous mass.

Source
I feel that our capacity to observe any event is limited. While we have some grasp of phenomenon A and B what we do not observe directly that is inherent to the phenomenon's, is a factor in why the phenomenon's occur.

Let me just point something out for the sake of argument.

Quantum entanglement is a real event. Everything we do and even think has an effect upon our environment because of this. Even though we at present cannot evaluate empirically what this process entails in the example of a singular human, it does not change the fact it exists.

We can assume consciousness which is an ordered system is irrelevant to random fluctuations at the quantum scale. But the problem with that, is that any system is dependent upon the components of its structure.

Case in point is the Strange Quark (A virtual particle) that's effect constitutes 1% of an Atoms structure. Without it the atom would collapse so it is also relevant to consider that if 1% percent of the Strange quarks structure were to collapse the result would be the end of the atom. Further if 1% of the structure that constitutes 1% of a strange quark were to collapse it also means death to the atom.

In relation to identifying the effect of consciousness upon our Island Universe (13.7 billion years old 40 billion light years wide)?

How does consciousness factor in????


Any thoughts?

What about, "The Ordered Activity of Virus's in Relation to EPR Paradox"????

Could understanding this result in a method of treatment in relation to Viruses?

Any thoughts?

Any thoughts?

Yes. Illegitimate speculation about subjects on which no useful data exists is neither science nor scientism. It is science fiction. Amusing, possibly even prophetic on rare occasions, but still fiction.

I notice you evaded my test question. Isn't that because answering it in a straightforward way would mean admitting that your assertions
regarding quantum reality are false? Come on: show some gumption and give us an honest answer! Quantum or classical?

a reply to: Astyanax

I thought I did. Suggesting that Stars explode merely due to Classical Mechanics does not take into consideration the relative effect of quantum interactions.


Or how about any quantum event, related to the large scale structure of the Universe could have a relative effect.

Is that better???

How about the idea that at the very least, consciousness could represent a "Butterfly effect". With respect to the large scale structure of the Universe (13.7 billion years old and about 40 billion light years wide). In consideration, to Dirac's Equation when considering the potential of the non-random behavior of all virus's and bacteria (and even water bears) in our Island Universe. In relation to EPR Paradox, as well as everything else, related to self awareness.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

Suggesting that Stars explode merely due to Classical Mechanics does not take into consideration the relative effect of quantum interactions. Or how about any quantum event, related to the large scale structure of the Universe could have a relative effect.

Is that better?

No, it's worse. Please give us a reply in plain English. Is a supernova a classical or quantum event?

How about the idea that at the very least, consciousness could represent a "Butterfly effect". With respect to the large scale structure of the Universe (13.7 billion years old and about 40 billion light years wide). In consideration, to Dirac's Equation when considering the potential of the non-random behavior of all virus's and bacteria (and even water bears) in our Island Universe. In relation to EPR Paradox, as well as everything else, related to self awareness.

Any thoughts?

Yes. That's an entire paragraph of science fiction (as defined in my earlier post). You might even call it... scientism.

a reply to: Astyanax

It is quantum one we only observe it in the classical senses. As I explained earlier everything we observe in relation to the common senses are internal representations.

I apologize if it sounds like I a bugging but it me it appears apparent. Classical mechanics is an approximation of reality, a good one but still an approximation given quantum mechanics. Furthermore the reason a star exists and dies is because of the original conditions in the Universe just after the big bang, again quantum mechanics.

Considering that objects in the Classical sense experience quantum interconnectedness is a valid point.

The question is as in the case of Psi whether a person can perceive that.

It is not sci-fi to understand that.

Also to present in belief that consciousness in conclusion has nothing to do reality is.....scientism.


Any thoughts?

a reply to: Astyanax
Since you have taken the liberty to ask me about this issue I would like to know why are you asking me such a silly question?

I mean if you do not understand the origin of the Universe and everything that happened after that, perhaps your should rent "Cosmos", with Carl Sagan.

Just to add the cup is half full and half empty at the same time.

Also, when a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, the tree generates sound waves.

Regardless if whether or not someone can hear is fall.

Just wanted to clear that up.