Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[Slowvehicle]

Is your brain like a radio tuner, Ed? Who is sending the signals it is picking up if you believe so?

"What's the frequency, Kenneth?"

 

[Ed Glosser]

Do you want that to be true? I'd be interested to know why? Do you think it would be an improvement on reality? But if it were true, it would in itself be reality, wouldn't it?


ETA: This is one of the most interesting threads I've ever seen on JREF.

I'll tell you a secret: All woos base their beliefs on belief. Then they try to make it sound plausible, whether with science or other people agreeing with them.

Don't judge us. We experience things that we can't explain.

You probably could, though, if it happened to you. Just look at Sam Harris and his mystic experiences that he just blows off and explains away. It works for him, but it doesn't work for everyone.

Love us anyway.

 

[Ed Glosser]

Solipsism? So soon?

Again, I apologize.

 

[PixyMisa]

What I'm fascinated by is the claim in the video. I don't want to discard it, but I can't ignore my own experiences of reality either. You're free to, though!

The thing is, Quantum Field Theory, the theory that lets us rule out these paranormal claims, is exactly that same theory that allows engineers to design and build devices like the iPhone. Quantum Field Theory is the intersection of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity, and the iPhone depends on both.

That means that if iPhones exist, there's no astrology, no homeopathy, no life after death.

iPhones exist.

 

[Aridas]

I'm just frustrated because I just watched (a few hours ago) a fifty-minute lecture of something I didn't get any of, and then with five minutes left I'm informed that this is how we know there is no life after death. It just seemed to me that there was nothing there in support of that claim.

Not having watched the whole thing, I can't comment on the specifics. It sounds like you're referring to a rehash and strengthening of the point that there seems to be no physical evidence, at any level, for the existence of either souls or a place for them to go. Adding that quantum physics does not actually have any room for them or many other unsupported claims would simply seem to be more of a clarification for a whole lot of people who want to abuse quantum physics in their attempts to justify their desired beliefs.

I'm not saying there is nothing in quantum field theory that supports ruling out astrology, reincarnation and black magic, I just didn't really get how the impossibility of introducing new particles, fields or laws means that the supernatural cannot exist. Exactly why can't it exist within the limits of the Standard Model? That's not a rhetorical question, BTW.

Hmm? Your question is about why particles do not act in radically different ways than they've apparently been consistently observed to act in the lab? I apologize, but I, personally, have little interest in the math used by the physicists in question, so I can't directly answer such. I would hazard the guess that it's more a matter of each particle and field having specific ways that interactions with other particles and fields occur, none of which can lead up to something that is reasonable to call "supernatural," for that question, though.

First of all, glad you're back!

Second, what if it's not our minds that "transfer" to a mystic plane, but a duplicate that doesn't leave an imprint in the physical universe? Our life experiences would then still be governed by the laws of physics, but a "backup" version of us would retain the memories and then be able to exist in a different reality with completely different laws, if any.

And how would you propose that the duplicate is created? The information would need some medium to carry it. Either way, that particular proposition can reasonably be rated as even less likely than the deceptive god proposals, like the FSM. After all, the FSM actively alters the results that scientists find to hide what it wants to hide and thus, doesn't need to exist within the rules that scientists determine to likely be the case based on the evidence.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think astrology is about the planets influencing our lives. Rather, the events in people's lives correspond with the movements of the planets, which doesn't require any type of field. It's like the airtime of the final episode of Game of Thrones corresponding to your girlfriends yoga class. One doesn't affect the other. They clashing is just a lucky coincidence that means she won't be there to ask annoying questions.

Two responses to that:

One, events in people's lives do not correspond with the movements of the planets. Except Earth, because we have seasons.

Two, there would not be any correspondence if there were no cause.

Psychic abilities and past life memories is just information revealing itself on schedule.

Neither of these happens, and neither is possible.

Homeopathy is still snake oil.

But on this one we agree completely.

Whenever the term randomness is used to fill in the gaps, you can be pretty sure the part where we spend our lives hasn't been fully mapped out. To a rabbit crossing a railroad track, the appearance of a train is random.

Depends on who is using the term. If it's a layman, that might well be true. If it's a scientist, they'd probably use more specific terms like "stochastic" or "acausal" or "indeterminate", because we have mapped things out and found that they truly are stochastic, acausal, or indeterminate.

 

[Ed Glosser]

Is your brain like a radio tuner, Ed? Who is sending the signals it is picking up if you believe so?

That's the sad thing about not being a physicist, or a scientist of any kind. The logic doesn't add up. That's why I find the proposition interesting, that we now know (almost) all about the material world (here on Earth) so there can't be any new major discoveries, like what we're talking about right now.

At the same time, when your own experience of reality differs from the reality the physicists describe, and you don't want to deny any part of reality, you just want the truth, then it becomes impossible to merge the ideas presented in the video with experience.

 

[Ed Glosser]

That is precisely the example Dr Carroll uses in his lecture, the hypothetical "Xilbot" particle. If there were such a signal, we would know.

Absolutely. I see that now.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I consider the teapot every day, my friend.

Assuming you mean "the Teapot", how would you, personally, respond to the taunt that "You can't prove the Teapot doesn't exist, and doesn't write the Kitchen Tools for Heartsick Fools column in the Phoenix Gazette" ?

Okay. I've avoided the question of evidence, because we all know that song and dance a little too well. There are things I consider evidence within the field known as parapsychology, or consciousness studies, but I respect that the scientific community, and you skeptics, are not convinced by that evidence. It convinces me, but not you. I have to respect that, I feel.

In what ways are your anecdotal ghost stories "concrete, empirical, practical, objective, congruent, fruitful, and luminous evidence"?

What I'm fascinated by is the claim in the video. I don't want to discard it, but I can't ignore my own experiences of reality either. You're free to, though!

I am not discarding your "...experiences of reality...". I am waiting for you to provide concrete, empirical, practical, objective, congruent, fruitful, and luminous evidence of anything that does not fit within the standard model.

BTW, you don't wanna know what's living in my garage.

I will, however, venture to wager a batch of home-made chewy chocolate chocolate chip oatmeal cookies against whatever you care to risk that whatever is living there, if it does, in fact, exist, it can, in fact, be detected.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'll tell you a secret: All woos base their beliefs on belief. Then they try to make it sound plausible, whether with science or other people agreeing with them.

Don't judge us. We experience things that we can't explain.

You probably could, though, if it happened to you. Just look at Sam Harris and his mystic experiences that he just blows off and explains away. It works for him, but it doesn't work for everyone.

Love us anyway.

It is charming that you think this is a secret.

Just 'cause the gimme cap is new don't mean this is my first tractor pull.

<3

 

[Ed Glosser]

The thing is, Quantum Field Theory, the theory that lets us rule out these paranormal claims, is exactly that same theory that allows engineers to design and build devices like the iPhone. Quantum Field Theory is the intersection of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity, and the iPhone depends on both.

That means that if iPhones exist, there's no astrology, no homeopathy, no life after death.

iPhones exist.

The thing is, for anyone with unexplainable experiences of their own, or who has studied the last 150 years of research into all things woo and come to a favorable conclusion, it's easier to believe that science today compared to the science of the future is as flawed as science five hundred years ago is compared to the science of today.

Surely, your iPhone argument would be a little more convincing had you been talking about Warp speed space ships or Star Trek-like teleportation. I'm sure the people who built the first steam engine felt like gods. Doesn't mean much. Also wasn't there something in the video about how we don't need to understand smaller stuff than the atom to understand the atom? Something like that? So to build a computer, we hardly need to understand all of reality, right?

 

[ehcks]

I'll tell you a secret: All woos base their beliefs on belief. Then they try to make it sound plausible, whether with science or other people agreeing with them.

Don't judge us. We experience things that we can't explain.

You probably could, though, if it happened to you. Just look at Sam Harris and his mystic experiences that he just blows off and explains away. It works for him, but it doesn't work for everyone.

Love us anyway.

Everyone experiences things they can't explain. The proper method to dealing with that is finding an explanation that fits with what we know about reality. If you can't do that, you might just not be smart enough. Or it didn't happen as you remember.

I know that feeling stupid or wrong aren't things anyone wants, but we are stupid, and we're often wrong. Fitting "magic" into those events we can't explain doesn't change that. In fact, it prevents changing that. Belief in the supernatural keeps people stupid and wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Surely, your iPhone argument would be a little more convincing had you been talking about Warp speed space ships or Star Trek-like teleportation. I'm sure the people who built the first steam engine felt like gods. Doesn't mean much. Also wasn't there something in the video about how we don't need to understand smaller stuff than the atom to understand the atom? Something like that? So to build a computer, we hardly need to understand all of reality, right?

You don't need to understand atomic physics to do biology.

You do need to understand atomic physics - indeed, Quantum Mechanics - to design a modern microprocessor, like the A7 chip in the current iPhone. The transistors in modern integrated circuits are made up of layers just a few atoms thick, and there's lots of clever trickery involved in manufacturing them and making them work reliably, trickery based on our understanding of Quantum Mechanics (part of Quantum Field Theory).

And GPS depends on both Special and General Relativity (and Special Relativity is part of Quantum Field Theory). So the existence of iPhones is a demonstration that Quantum Field Theory is correct, and Quantum Field Theory rules out things like astrology and life after death.

As I put it in another thread, if you have an iPhone, you literally have no soul.

 

[Ed Glosser]

Two responses to that:

One, events in people's lives do not correspond with the movements of the planets. Except Earth, because we have seasons.

Two, there would not be any correspondence if there were no cause.

Maybe I'm using the wrong word here. What I mean is, things happen in a person's life and, simultaneously, planets are in certain positions. Sorry if I made it sound like something else.

The cause, then, is the same thing that caused everything to happen and to play out the way it has, does and will. I guess this is called Deism, if anyone wants to be picky and label things.

What, then, would the planets and their positions actually have to do with our daily doings? Technically, nothing, but someone might still interpret their states in a way that matches things going on in a person's life, the way they do it with a crystal ball or tea leaves, or what have you.

If you believe in that kind of thing.

 

[Aridas]

I'm sorry about the special pleading. My bad. Here's some more.

You've misidentified the issue.

To state that what we experience while alive comes to an end when we die is a huge assumption for which there is no evidence.

This is simply false. The evidence overwhelmingly points towards what we consider as ourselves being a purely physically based phenomena which is directly affected and changed in fairly predictable ways when physically altered in numerous ways. To state that what we experience does not come to an end when we die requires a huge and unsupported assumption, based on the information actually at our disposal.

Unless it's all in the mind?

There would be an exchange, then. Unless, of course, you're referring to solipsism, which is inherently a dead end that still wouldn't support the idea that you had put forth.

Okay. I've avoided the question of evidence, because we all know that song and dance a little too well.

It is, after all, a good way to separate what is reasonable to accept from what is not reasonable to accept.

There are things I consider evidence within the field known as parapsychology, or consciousness studies, but I respect that the scientific community, and you skeptics, are not convinced by that evidence. It convinces me, but not you. I have to respect that, I feel.

You actually don't have to respect that. As a general rule, though, invoking either fallacies or poorly based logic will not be convincing, though. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's "no supernatural," myself. I simply see little reason to accept that "supernatural" things actually are the case.

What I'm fascinated by is the claim in the video. I don't want to discard it, but I can't ignore my own experiences of reality either. You're free to, though!

Why? For a number of things there, actually. Such as why would you ignore your own experiences? Keeping your experiences in perspective is reasonable. Ignoring your experiences is not.

 

[abaddon]

Why would there have to be a machine and why would we have to be able to detect it?

If you can't detect it, why would you think it exists?

 

[Ed Glosser]

Neither of these [reincarnation and psychic ability] happens, and neither is possible.

We'll just have to disagree to agree.

 

[Senex]

That's the sad thing about not being a physicist, or a scientist of any kind. The logic doesn't add up. That's why I find the proposition interesting, that we now know (almost) all about the material world (here on Earth) so there can't be any new major discoveries, like what we're talking about right now.

At the same time, when your own experience of reality differs from the reality the physicists describe, and you don't want to deny any part of reality, you just want the truth, then it becomes impossible to merge the ideas presented in the video with experience.

The key to be a happy well adjusted individual is to understand what part of your truth is just wishful thinking. And then you can appreciate how lucky you are that all the parts of physics came together and allowed you human consciousness. Not only are you conscious but you are the highest level we know about. My golden retrievers were happy but not as happy as I am. You don't need woo to believe the universe is wonderful.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I'll tell you a secret: All woos base their beliefs on belief. Then they try to make it sound plausible, whether with science or other people agreeing with them.

Well, I've pretty much known that all my life, but it's only in more recent years that I dotted the i's and crossed the t's.

Don't judge us. We experience things that we can't explain.

Whatever you experience, its interpretation takes place in your brain and the conclusion you come to is based on the information and ideas your brain already contains, isn't it? If any of the explanations you decide on comes under a heading of 'woo - not possible', then it should temporarily be put under the 'don't know' heading until further notice

You probably could, though, if it happened to you. Just look at Sam Harris and his mystic experiences that he just blows off and explains away. It works for him, but it doesn't work for everyone.

I've looked at the lot - palmistry, astrology, revisionist history, flying saucers, etc but always with the question 'Is this TRUE?' running alongside my reading. A couple of things took a time to rationalise, but when I learnt about how cold reading and memory work, then the very small question mark was no longer needed.

 

[abaddon]

I'll tell you a secret: All woos base their beliefs on belief. Then they try to make it sound plausible, whether with science or other people agreeing with them.

Don't judge us. We experience things that we can't explain.

You probably could, though, if it happened to you. Just look at Sam Harris and his mystic experiences that he just blows off and explains away. It works for him, but it doesn't work for everyone.

Love us anyway.

I don't have time to await your particular gotcha among the plethora of gotcha's.

Put up your flavour of gotcha, you are at risk of becoming yet another woo claimant. Whatever it is that you believe, post it or forever hold your piece. It is not up to anyone to guess what is on your mind.