What are Atheists' thought's on Quantum Mechanics?

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Student X

 

You seem to be bent on viewing Atheists as a coherent group like a religion.

I believe that I have been pretty careful to qualify my references to atheists with words like community or group. At least, I am trying to be careful. So what I am bent on, is viewing groups of atheists as groups of people who are subject to sociological forces just like any other group.

Do you feel a sense of community or comradery with your fellow ATS atheists?

reply to post by Student X

....Are there communities of atheist mystics out there anywhere?

yes.

they are typically found at universities developing quantum mechanics and other strange interpretations of real phenomena.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


"..it isn't. Dammit, why must the new age people all co-opt hard science and make it about something it isn't. Don't tell me you watched "What the *bleep* do we know?" and thought that quantum physics has anything to say about the macroscopic world."

I certainly feel like a lot of the info I am encountering on QM has "new age" twisted into it. That's all fun and good but as you know, it's....fluffy and cute. That's why I asked and posted this question. I was getting a lot of biased info. And no, I haven't watched "What the bleep do we know?" although a i can probably say, judging by the title, I have watched similar videos. Would you have any links that could help in my search?

"That's ok. I'd have suggested researching it a bit better before you post a thread with such a lengthy OP. It would have been wiser to pose questions rather than statements."

I had a question, I asked. I have been running into a lot of biased info and know that Atheists what have a different, perhaps more sensical, bias. Thanks for replying

I think I need to think again what an Atheist is and stop assuming so much....darnit!
Define non-religious theist for me. I haven't heard that one, sounds kinda contradictory?
Honestly, why do we need all the labeling, there is a label for everything. Why can't anyone just be?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Student X

 

....Are there communities of atheist mystics out there anywhere?

yes.

they are typically found at universities developing quantum mechanics and other strange interpretations of real phenomena.

Do you count yourself among their numbers?

reply to post by Student X


At the risk of writing a one liner

NO

Edit: Why is there this need for all this social nonsense? Why does my disbelief in something mean that I have anything whatsoever in common with someone else who does not believe. Do I even know or care if they do not believe for the same reason that I do not? No, because I simply do not believe and that is sufficient. I do not have to have a reason for it, neither do I need a reason for it, and I certainly do not need to affirm my non-belief with a bunch of other non-believers or have anyone else's approval for my lack of belief..

Congregating to discuss nothing smacks of religion and I see no need for it.

reply to post by Student X


i do. and i would be happy to engage anyone in a mystical interpretation of QM. i think that it is very useful to do so.....particularly on a macro-scale (which is of course the big no-no). evidence is coming in quickly for quantum effects at macro scale. i wrote about one such case recently HERE.


QM lends itself very well to mysticism and as a model for describing reality, in general. the reason that doing so is frequently intolerated, IMO, is that the mystics do such a terrible job at using the metaphor.


too bad my last post got buried at the bottom of the last page. i would ask the "believers" in the crowd to go back and read.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Student X

 

i do.

You feel that most of those you number yourself among (QM students at Universities?) share your mystical sensibilities? Or are they mostly oblivious to the mysticism, in a "just shut up and do the math" type way?

Ever had a mystical experience? If so would you describe it?

reply to post by Student X


to be fair, i am in the biosciences where people are all too happy to blur the boundaries. naturally, this includes a fair amount of indoctrination into the more esoteric disciplines.

actually, i got involved with science as a means to ultimately describe my own personal mystical experience. in which i became aware of a resonant network of nodes which serves as a template for my physical body. also interesting was that i had a sensory apparatus which made my five physical senses seem as simple as plastic toys.

of course i would be ridiculed and would not share these ideas with any but my closest colleagues. but if you imagine that it is not possible to arrive at a mechanical description of this aspect of reality, it is my aim to prove you wrong.

but wouldnt my doing so be decidedly non-affirming of any intrinsic "mystical" aspect of it? isnt dissecting it in such a way insulting to your "believer" sensibilities?

Originally posted by tgidkp
but wouldnt my doing so be decidedly non-affirming of any intrinsic "mystical" aspect of it? isnt dissecting it in such a way insulting to your "believer" sensibilities?

Actually, there were whole disciplines founded to dissect and analyze mystical experiences while still showing them due reverence. Check out theosophy and anthroposophy, for instance.

There's also analytical psychology, which is not specifically devoted to mysticism but incorporates it.

somehow I feel this is relevant to this topic, so I will post a starter article and show from 2008 (the not too distant past)

the End of Cosmology

indeed this knowledge was around a long time, there is only the box (parameters of thought) we have to work in.

For the hardcore skeptics, God could appear on every television in the world, make our pets poop rainbows, and then make it rain pixie sticks, and they still wouldn't believe in a higher power. It's just like the diehard Theists; God could do the same thing and then say, "the Hindus have it right", and most Christians would simply refuse to believe it.

I don't think Quantum Mechanics will get to the level that you're mentioning for some time, though. And I don't think it'll ever convince Atheists to become Theists or vice-versa.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
For the hardcore skeptics, God

that's interesting... God in a topic devoted to atheists and science (quantum mechanics)

I see you point totally without even having to read any further...

yup science and theology is indeed moving on.

reply to post by SlyFox_79

Athiests don't believe in quantum mechanics.

The O.P is misleading

Atheism is rejection of the belief in deities. A deity is a supernatural immortal being, which is often regarded as sacred, divine, or holy.

everyone has and uses consciousness, how can you argue otherwise?

There are many things we atheists don't understand, which we openly admit. The knowledge and understanding of our surroundings is constantly growing. Quantum mechanics is that next step, and i dont see any reason why we cant accept it.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Student X

 

to be fair, i am in the biosciences where people are all too happy to blur the boundaries. naturally, this includes a fair amount of indoctrination into the more esoteric disciplines.

So thats a yes?

actually, i got involved with science as a means to ultimately describe my own personal mystical experience. in which i became aware of a resonant network of nodes which serves as a template for my physical body. also interesting was that i had a sensory apparatus which made my five physical senses seem as simple as plastic toys.

Cool!

of course i would be ridiculed and would not share these ideas with any but my closest colleagues.

Then I daresay most of your peers are not atheist mystics. Otherwise there would be no ridicule; no taboo to violate.

but if you imagine that it is not possible to arrive at a mechanical description of this aspect of reality, it is my aim to prove you wrong.

I imagine that a mechanical model would have a hard time accommodating the full range of human experience. For instance, psi, which is at root mystical. Its my position that psi points to a mental monism, not a materialistic ('mechanical') monism. But I'm open to the remote possibility that a determined materialist could force-fit it somehow, even without a psi mechanism. How familiar are you with parapsychological literature?

but wouldnt my doing so be decidedly non-affirming of any intrinsic "mystical" aspect of it? isnt dissecting it in such a way insulting to your "believer" sensibilities?

Oh, don't worry about that!

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
For the hardcore skeptics, God could appear on every television in the world, make our pets poop rainbows, and then make it rain pixie sticks, and they still wouldn't believe in a higher power.

When someone makes asinine charges like this against skeptics it simply shows they have little understanding of what skepticism is. I see more and more of this on ATS lately and it seems to be an emotionally driven ad hominem issued after experiencing the frustration involved in being unable to provide the evidence to support the things they believe.

reply to post by Student X


reply to post by Student X


Hey look, an argument from authority combined with an appeal to ridicule. Two logical fallacies in a two line post!

Last time I checked, something wasn't true just because some sort of great person thought it to be true. Now, if you could demonstrate how quantum physics leads to mysticism or is in any way involved in it, I'd gladly listen.

Oh, and rather than trying to ridicule my posts with idiotic off-hand comments, how about you try to discuss the legitimate objections I had or demonstrate why those objects were illegitimate.

reply to post by SlyFox_79


Sly, you seem like good people. Sorry if my initial post came off as a bit...frustrated.

Anyway, a non-religious theist would be someone who believes in a concept of a deity without adhering to a specific religious group. There would also be the concept of a deist, which basically posits that a deity started the universe and then...well, the deity seemingly had better things to do.

And yeah, I'd try looking into some scientific sources on quantum mechanics, though it's a very difficult subject to say the least. This is actually why I find it so hard to talk to new agers and 'mystics' about the subject because they like to act as if they know everything about a subject on which there isn't a total consensus.

I'll come up with some references, but it'll take a while as I'm in a busy period of my life.

Originally posted by Student X
...Then I daresay most of your peers are not atheist mystics. Otherwise there would be no ridicule; no taboo to violate....

nah. the ridicule is from a respect of the current boundaries of science and body of evidence. scientists in their hearts are dreamers, too. but boundaries are very important.

...psi points to a mental monism, not a materialistic ('mechanical') monism.

i have been thinking of starting a thread on this very topic. for the reason that it is quite clear to me that either monistic model alone cannot account for consciousness. i get very tired of the "we are all one" script. because it is equally as true (and useful and valuable) that "we are all separate".

how could consciousness manipulate anything, without something to manipulate? what use is a definition of consciousness if it does not include the manipulation of things?


the ground state of consciousness is dualism.