Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Here's the title of the thread:

Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?

Still, not a shred of evidence to refute anything I've said from the OP. Scientist have to come up with these theories because there's no evidence that an objective material universe exists.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm aware of the title. The evidence was summarized as literally all of history for the past 4 billion years preceding the rise of the (modern) human race. Again, that doesn't include the previous several billion years of astrophysics before life began. Your refusal to accept information doesn't disqualify it. The planet and its home galaxy, the surrounding cosmic void and neighboring celestial bodies were all present hundreds of millions of years before there was any sentient life to acknowledge it.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Again I ask:

If Decoherence is the answer to Schrodinger's cat, when exactly does the cat decohere? How can the cat decohere into a live state or a dead state prior to a quantum event occuring?

This article in Nature explains why the cat is never in any measurable state of superposition, and how scientists measured decoherence rates in intermediate size systems from which they extrapolate how rapidly it occurs in larger systems:

How decoherence killed Schrödinger's cat

For a system as big as a cat, however, comprised of billions upon billions of atoms, decoherence happens almost instantaneously, so that the cat can never be both alive and dead for any measurable instant. It is rather like a juggler trying to keep billions of balls in the air.

Yet physicists would dearly like to know just how that process of decoherence takes place for many-atom systems. David Wineland and colleagues at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Colorado, USA, suspected that this might be possible to follow at intermediate scales -- for superposition states of only moderate size. Now, they report in Nature that they have been able to watch decoherence happen and see how it speeds up as the system gets larger.

That's an excerpt meeting the ATS T&C. You can read the source article for additional details if you're interested.

if human observers are no different than rocks.

You like strawman arguments, don't you? I never said "human observers are no different than rocks", and Sean Carroll never said that either. Why don't you go back to where I quoted what Sean Carroll said, or what I actually said, and quote that instead of posting this misrepresentation of my position and Sean Carroll's position?

a reply to: neoholographic

Are you saying your observation is reality?

No. Actually, I'm saying the opposite: there is nothing called reality. There is nothing like the objective world. The moment you put observers in, you are putting subjects, life forms, and life forms always have a partial, subjective view of their environment.

As I said many times, physics does not care about life forms, their brains or brainless nature, their mental fabrications, their beliefs or disbeliefs. Never forget that the idea one gets about the world around is extremely limited due to one's senses. A snake sees the world quite differently from you: it sees its world. And the physics the snake could ever do is just snake physics, much as the one you can do with your senses is just human physics.

Surprisingly, the inferences the snake and you make about the environment coincide, the measurements about quantities you make coincide, and the results you both get from your experiments coincide. Does that mean there is an objective world out there? No, it doesn't. Why? Because if you wish the world to be truly objective... you'll need to remove the observers. No snakes, and not you. Only then you could talk about the objective world, were you be able to talk once you ceased to exist...

The world becomes subjective the moment you observe it. That's what QM is all about.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You didn't answer the question because you probably don't understand it. The question was:

If Decoherence is the answer to Schrodinger's cat, when exactly does the cat decohere? How can the cat decohere into a live state or a dead state prior to a quantum event occuring?

You copied and pasted something but you didn't explain how what you copied and pasted pertains to the question I asked you. The quote you posted says:

For a system as big as a cat, however, comprised of billions upon billions of atoms, decoherence happens almost instantaneously, so that the cat can never be both alive and dead for any measurable instant. It is rather like a juggler trying to keep billions of balls in the air.

If the cat can't be alive or dead for any measurable instance, when does Decoherence decide which state the cat will be in? If you're correct, Decoherence must decide the cat is dead or alive before the poison is triggered. So, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead in universe A and alive in universe B prior to the event of decay which triggers the poison? If you're not talking about MWI, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead or alive in a single universe before the poison is triggered by decay?

Also, you failed to answer my other questions.

If Everett isn't talking about many worlds in his original paper, tell me the mechanism in his original paper that reduces all probable states to zero except one?

Also:

If consciousness has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, you must know what consciousness is to speak in such absolutes. A conscious observer can extract information about a quantum system and it's aware of the information extracted unlike a measuring device. Tell me the exact nature of this and why we're aware of the quantum state being measured if human observers are no different than rocks. You must have the evidence to speak in such absolutes.

Do you understand the questions?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

You like strawman arguments, don't you? I never said "human observers are no different than rocks", and Sean Carroll never said that either. Why don't you go back to where I quoted what Sean Carroll said, or what I actually said, and quote that instead of posting this misrepresentation of my position and Sean Carroll's position?

Did you watch the video you posted? Starting at 1:15. He says a rock can be an observer. The whole purpose of his talk there, was that human observers are no different than any other observers including rocks.

a reply to: neoholographic

Is that offensive to you? The idea that rocks can collapse quantum wave functions and produce static data as easily as humans?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Did you watch the video you posted? Starting at 1:15. He says a rock can be an observer. The whole purpose of his talk there, was that human observers are no different than any other observers including rocks.

Humans can be observers in a quantum mechanical sense of collapsing the wave functions of photons striking the retinas.
Rocks can be observers in a quantum mechanical sense of collapsing the wave functions of photons striking the rocks.

Carroll is inferring that they do have that much in common, however that is not an assertion that humans are no different from rocks. Humans have brains, and rocks don't have brains, so humans and rocks are different in that and other aspects, but, no brain is required for the wave functions of photons striking the rock to collapse.

originally posted by: neoholographic
I have watched a few debates recently and the athiest scientist always talk about the physical or material universe. This is mainly people like Krauss, Dawkins and others. It amazes me that thee scientist don't know there's not a shred of evidence that an objective material universe exist. In fact, all of the evidence points to God creating the universe. Scientist realize a material universe doesn't make send without an intelligent mind. You will see in the evidence presented, how these Scientist give the universe attributes of a mind.

If there are infinite universes then every combination or randomness would be there too. Our universe is here as it is due to the properties that allow it to be this way, but if there is infinite universes then one would be us right?

God creates a Chicken or egg scenario, and I would agree that there could be a God, but why would we need one if the universe can still exist without one?

We also have that old dilemma that humans put a God to everything they didn't understand and its not like we are stopping anytime soon, so why a real one now when we have 100,000 years of fake ones. Remember those fake Gods were once very real to us too at one time.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: neoholographic
Did you watch the video you posted? Starting at 1:15. He says a rock can be an observer. The whole purpose of his talk there, was that human observers are no different than any other observers including rocks.

Humans can be observers in a quantum mechanical sense of collapsing the wave functions of photons striking the retinas.
Rocks can be observers in a quantum mechanical sense of collapsing the wave functions of photons striking the rocks.

Carroll is inferring that they do have that much in common, however that is not an assertion that humans are no different from rocks. Humans have brains, and rocks don't have brains, so humans and rocks are different in that and other aspects, but, no brain is required for the wave functions of photons striking the rock to collapse.

Yes, he means humans are no different than rocks and are subject to the universal wave function which he thinks is physical without any evidence.

His point is, an observer is anything that can interact with a quantum system and cause a measurement is an observer. So human observers are no different than rocks. If humans are different than rocks, then are observation of a quantum system is different than a non conscious observer. You recognize the flaw in Carroll's argument:

Humans have brains, and rocks don't have brains, so humans and rocks are different in that and other aspects, but, no brain is required for the wave functions of photons striking the rock to collapse.

These are your words, which refute Carroll who you claim to support!

Brains can interact with a quantum system, extract information about the state that's measured and is aware that the measured state occurred. We can write books about it and build technologies around it.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

a reply to: neoholographic

How ironic is it that Creationist should argue that specified complexity (i.e. the Universe) cannot exist without a designer, while simultaneously maintaining that complexity (God) can exist without a cause or designer.

You will always be in the awkward position of having to argue that extremely complex designs (e.g. God) can come about without cause, while far less complex designs (e.g. humans) require a designer. Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that the less complex thing would come about first? In much the same way that an amoeba is more likely to arise than a man?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You also didn't answer the questions:

If the cat can't be alive or dead for any measurable instance, when does Decoherence decide which state the cat will be in? If you're correct, Decoherence must decide the cat is dead or alive before the poison is triggered. So, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead in universe A and alive in universe B prior to the event of decay which triggers the poison? If you're not talking about MWI, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead or alive in a single universe before the poison is triggered by decay?

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: neoholographic

How ironic is it that Creationist should argue that specified complexity (i.e. the Universe) cannot exist without a designer, while simultaneously maintaining that complexity (God) can exist without a cause or designer.

You will always be in the awkward position of having to argue that extremely complex designs (e.g. God) can come about without cause, while far less complex designs (e.g. humans) require a designer. Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that the less complex thing would come about first? In much the same way that an amoeba is more likely to arise than a man?

OH NO!

Not the asinine who created God argument!

The whole premise of your question is flawed. You can't debate against an eternal, uncaused God that I believe in, so you set up a strawman god that's the product of complex design.

Why should I debate a god that you made up that's the product of complex design. Why does the God I believe in have to be the product of complex design? Are you saying God and the universe are the same thing?

Do you realize you're debating against a proposition that you made up?

a reply to: neoholographic

You ask a lot of questions for someone who can't really explain divine mechanics or the psychology of the thinking universe, and you have failed to demonstrate that the planet or the universe depends on consciousness (human or otherwise) to sustain itself. I shared elementary history facts and you couldn't challenge or debunk any of my points.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, a response devoid of any coherency about the topic of the thread. I will ask you the question I asked the other guy.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

a reply to: neoholographic
Whether "God" is not complex or have a huge amount of complex and highly organized information (i.e. God’s “brain”) How can such a thing “just exists,” and then goes about creating less complex things.

Cells exist from active elements that exist throughout the Universe; man is built from cells, and acquires knowledge gradually. God is built of a mysterious supernatural substance that has never been observed, made of elements that are invisible, and somehow receives his knowledge magically?????

a reply to: toktaylor

You said:

Whether "God" is not complex or have a huge amount of complex and highly organized information (i.e. God’s “brain”) How can such a thing “just exists,” and then goes about creating less complex things.

What is god's brain? What are you talking about exactly?

This illustrates why the "who created God" question is so illogical. You're trying to debate a strawman god that nobody believes in. Yes, I believe in a God that just exists and has always existed. A God that created all things.

So you can't debate against this with the who created god question, so you conjure a god up in your mind that needed to be created then you ask me to debate your strawman god.

Asinine!

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, a response devoid of any coherency about the topic of the thread. I will ask you the question I asked the other guy.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

Let's be clear on this point: the act of measuring does not create the measurement. It's a translation process, aka converting natural data into artificial data that is compatible with technology we use to study the causality of that natural data. The data itself exists whether we look at it or not. Consider the many thousands of fossils excavated in the last century. According to your logic, those fossils didn't exist until we exposed the sediment they were buried in. We essentially conjured those results. Is that correct?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, a response devoid of any coherency about the topic of the thread. I will ask you the question I asked the other guy.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

Let's be clear on this point: the act of measuring does not create the measurement. It's a translation process, aka converting natural data into artificial data that is compatible with technology we use to study the causality of that natural data. The data itself exists whether we look at it or not. Consider the many thousands of fossils excavated in the last century. According to your logic, those fossils didn't exist until we exposed the sediment they were buried in. We essentially conjured those results. Is that correct?

You didn't answer the question.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

It's a simple question. Stop obfuscating and answer the question. You said the data exists whether we look at it or not, how do you know this without consciousness?

a reply to: neoholographic

If something is to "just exists and has always existed" then it must be the thing that exist...the Universe exist.
A God would require an incredible amount of complexity, considering its need to store, retrieve, comprehend, and create. This God would have to know how to bring matter into existence, and intentionally shape that matter into living things. It would need either need to be self-taught, or somehow “just know” all things without ever being educated.

By comparison, energy and particles are pretty dumb. They don’t begin with a high degree of complexity, and must rely on natural laws, chance probabilities, and selection to begin to form any sort of true complexity.