Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[asydhouse]

No we are not. We are talking about a fantasy world that is undetectable in our world.


Correct. And all evidence that we know of shows that such fantasy worlds do not exist, but that is not proof that they do not exist.

It is however proof that they are irrelevant to life in this universe. And for you to claim they are relevant necessitates a mechanism for getting information out of this universe and into the other. Which is the whole point of this thread: it doesn't happen.

 

[PixyMisa]

Actually, it is proof that they don't exist.

Let's take the case of the flerp, the seventeenth piece on each side in a game of chess. It's invisible, intangible, can't move, can't be taken, and has no position on the board and no point value.

Question: Does the flerp exist?

Answer: Obviously not. What a silly question.

Existence means something. When you have defined away all properties of something, it is no longer something that exists.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

It seems to me, that believing in an afterlife that has no connection to this universe is like taking consolation from the fact the multiverse may exist. Sure, you may die painfully here, but somewhere else you get a gold harp and 47 gin and tonics. You still die painfully here!

 

[dlorde]

...Sure, you may die painfully here, but somewhere else you get a gold harp and 47 gin and tonics.

Except that it isn't you, it's one of many almost identical versions of which you are just one, and it lives in different universe, as do all the others.

You still die painfully here!

Quite.

The multiverse, the Star Trek transporter, and the Ship of Theseus (Abe Lincoln's Axe) all give pause for thought about our understanding of identity.

 

[dlorde]

Since we cannot fathom the additional 6+ dimensions, how can we make any claim as to the size of the particles or forces within? OR, how large or small (or plentiful) does a particle or force need to be in said dimensions to be able to retain information on a soul? How large or small is a soul?

It has to be large enough to interact with our everyday macro world in a relevant way. Whatever happens at subatomic scales is already accounted for in what we observe at macro scales; as was explained in the video, we don't need to take further account of it.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

That's straight back to arguing for a universe that is not logically consistent. In which case you lose the argument by definition.

The argument (woo-side QFT equivalent) was logically consistent, proposing of form of symmetry. It was invented out of whole cloth, yes, and in no way offers any means of testing for evidence. Fantasy yes, yet logically consistent and a valid example of a woo claim unfazed by QFT.

Your mistake lies in thinking that only positive claims require proof. Negative claims do, too. To claim proof that there is no afterlife, one needs to backdoor elements that do not pertain.

That does not mean one ought to believe in the notion. The positive claim that there is an afterlife, when made, is one that can easily be dealt with, from Occam's razor to QFT, whatever, depending on what exactly is claimed as evidence in the natural world. Until such a claim to concrete evidence comes into play, all woo is merely rationalized fantasy that science ignores, having better things to do.

What we have is a situation of no proof either way in general terms, and myriad ways to disprove any specific claims regarding an afterlife if and when they intrude on science.

I am a great fan of Carroll, yet am aware of his tendency to generalize when presenting for the public things that he later qualifies in written discussion. His ideas are all sound.

It's the thread and the runaway claim to a definitive sweeping proof of a negative that is out of line.

 

[steenkh]

Then it matters not, for it has no intersection with reality.
[...]
Perhaps, but there is zero evidence for any fantasy world. Idle speculation in that regard is just hunting for unicorns.

And: if they are positing something that cannot in any way be detected, then they're offering something as meaningful as "what lies beyond the event horizon of the formless." It might exist, but as there can be no possible way of detecting it then it's pointless to even consider it.

Yes, I have said the same thing several times now. I am at a loss why people act as if they disagree while coming to the same conclusion.

Actually the problem is that if you have an effect you have interaction, or at least particle are going to be missing on tally on this side.

Why? I do not see why a fantasy world that cannot be detected needs to conform to the rules of our world.

It is however proof that they are irrelevant to life in this universe. And for you to claim they are relevant necessitates a mechanism for getting information out of this universe and into the other. Which is the whole point of this thread: it doesn't happen.

I have never claimed they are relevant; in fact I believe I have claimed the opposite: I called it 'meaningless speculation'. What I said is that we use Occam's Razor to cut away such meaningless worlds, not QFT because QFT cannot deal with stuff that cannot by definition be detected.

I am reminded about how some atheists are labelled 'strong', meaning they assert to have 100% perfect knowledge that there are no gods. And then there are 'weak' atheists who only claim to be 99.9999999999999999% sure.

I am 'weak' in the sense that I reject the same nonsense like all the rest of you, but I accept that there is an extremely improbable possibility that a fantasy world exists that allows for a tiny fraction of woo stuff that nobody believes while still being compatible with QFT.

In fact, I find it more likely, but still extremely improbable, that QFT is dead wrong, and magic is really what is ruling this world (while making it look like QFT works)

 

[PixyMisa]

The argument (woo-side QFT equivalent) was logically consistent, proposing of form of symmetry.

The argument is logically consistent. The universe it proposes is not, because it contains two sets of forces which are completely separate and do not interact except when they do. (Which is the problem with all dualism.)

Your mistake lies in thinking that only positive claims require proof. Negative claims do, too.

I know that, and it is precisely the point of the video. Unless Quantum Field Theory is wrong - and it's not - there is no afterlife.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why? I do not see why a fantasy world that cannot be detected needs to conform to the rules of our world.

Because you are also arguing that it interacts with our world. You keep saying you aren't, but for information to reach your fantasy world from ours, it must interact with ours, because that's how our world works.

So your hypothetical basically boils down to QFT is wrong. And we know that it's not.

 

[steenkh]

Because you are also arguing that it interacts with our world. You keep saying you aren't, but for information to reach your fantasy world from ours, it must interact with ours, because that's how our world works.

You cannot know that when by definition the other world does not influence our world. How our world influences that world is unknowable.

 

[Donn]

steenkh, are you saying that the "information" in our universe can influence the other universe but with zero reaction in ours?

It seems to me that there must be some kick-back, some equal and opposite, some jiggle of a field at the pico-pico-pico second when that transfer of "information" happens.

A feather on a wing touches a pond for a moment only, but the pond still betrays it.

 

[PixyMisa]

You cannot know that when by definition the other world does not influence our world. How our world influences that world is unknowable.

Yes we can, because your definition involves our world and contradicts how our world is known to work.

Remember, information is physical. What you are saying is that energy passes from our Universe to the fantasy universe, without any energy being lost from our Universe.

No matter how you define the fantasy universe, this is impossible because our Universe doesn't work that way.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

steenkh, are you saying that the "information" in our universe can influence the other universe but with zero reaction in ours?

It seems to me that there must be some kick-back, some equal and opposite, some jiggle of a field at the pico-pico-pico second when that transfer of "information" happens.

A feather on a wing touches a pond for a moment only, but the pond still betrays it.

The issue about carrying information is an important caveat. If someone did wish to seriously propose a specific method for carrying information to a disconnected immaterial realm (not "universe," since then we'd be speaking of going from one physical realm to another, as in say multiple world theories), using QFT, then we could properly take them to task by asking for proofs. (Not what steenkh is saying; his is an example and not a claim.)

At the same time, if the proposal solely states that the process would only be detectable in the other realm, then we have a claim that simply lacks any means for falsification, and we can safely ignore it on those grounds. It isn't that QFT disproves it, the case is that there is no positive proof, and nothing to discuss that is any different from other fantasies.

One could of course make similar woo-theories about an afterlife in quite a number of ways, but I refrain from doing so since that might leave breadcrumbs for actual lurking woo-ists. Only if any such theories make specific claims to observable evidence do we ever care.

 

[Darat]

The issue about carrying information is an important caveat. If someone did wish to seriously propose a specific method for carrying information to a disconnected immaterial realm (not "universe," since then we'd be speaking of going from one physical realm to another, as in say multiple world theories), using QFT, then we could properly take them to task by asking for proofs. (Not what steenkh is saying; his is an example and not a claim.)

At the same time, if the proposal solely states that the process would only be detectable in the other realm, then we have a claim that simply lacks any means for falsification, and we can safely ignore it on those grounds. It isn't that QFT disproves it, the case is that there is no positive proof, and nothing to discuss that is any different from other fantasies.

One could of course make similar woo-theories about an afterlife in quite a number of ways, but I refrain from doing so since that might leave breadcrumbs for actual lurking woo-ists. Only if any such theories make specific claims to observable evidence do we ever care.

No because once again you are saying something interfaces with our realm. Doesn't matter if it is a one way process or not as soon as you posit that you have to explain why one of our very best theories works yet does not predict nor has a hole in it where this interaction could happen.

Personally I think folk are just getting confused and tying themselves in knots about the fundamentals because they are using words. Just because you think you can describe some separate but capable of an non- interaction/interaction with our world does not mean that you are actually describing anything meaningful. Words are simply not up to the task of describing the fundamentals of our reality.

Let me give an example of what you are doing:

• Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived..
• The idea of God exists in the mind.
• A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
• If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
• We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
• Therefore, God exists.

It's just a bowlful of word salad.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So other then providing a place for the Woo to go what is the difference between something that doesn't exist and something that exists... and literally by definition can't interact with anything.

This "Undefinable thing that explains my Woo" game is tiresome.

 

[tsig]

No because once again you are saying something interfaces with our realm. Doesn't matter if it is a one way process or not as soon as you posit that you have to explain why one of our very best theories works yet does not predict nor has a hole in it where this interaction could happen.

Personally I think folk are just getting confused and tying themselves in knots about the fundamentals because they are using words. Just because you think you can describe some separate but capable of an non- interaction/interaction with our world does not mean that you are actually describing anything meaningful. Words are simply not up to the task of describing the fundamentals of our reality.

Let me give an example of what you are doing:

• Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived..
• The idea of God exists in the mind.
• A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
• If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
• We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
• Therefore, God exists.

It's just a bowlful of word salad.

It needs the dressing of faith to taste good.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

No because once again you are saying something interfaces with our realm. Doesn't matter if it is a one way process or not as soon as you posit that you have to explain why one of our very best theories works yet does not predict nor has a hole in it where this interaction could happen.

This is the problem with hypothetical cases. I am not actually advocating a position; I wish to describe one that does not offer a testable hypothesis. All the magic is on the woo side of the coin, so it offers no changes to QFT as known and practiced. Why anyone might choose to believe in such a thing is another matter entirely, and goes beyond the purposes of the example.

I am saying that any idea of any kind that states nothing that can be tested is not worth bothering with. The minute there is a testable claim, we have something to refute.

I am further stating that nothing science does, or should do, serves as a blanket refutation of all woo, because much of woo offers nothing science is concerned with.

And to clarify just in case, I have no difficulty with QFT (other than actually doing the math!), and am questioning nothing of that model.

Just because you think you can describe some separate but capable of an non- interaction/interaction with our world does not mean that you are actually describing anything meaningful.

This is, in fact, a good response to generic woo about anything supernatural. Notice you need go no further!

Pardon me if I consider this a Q.E.D. of part of what I've been arguing.

Words are simply not up to the task of describing the fundamentals of our reality.

But that is a different matter entirely. Yet, QFT is expressed in words, as well as numbers. In fact, all of science does that. It makes no statements otherwise.

Let me give an example of what you are doing... It's just a bowlful of word salad.

This speaks to the rather mistaken impression that I actually advocate something other than my preferences about when we can make the claim that something has been definitively shown.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Gentlemen, an editorial comment.

I have re-read my posts, and it is fairly clear that I speak of hypotheticals. The tendency to interpret this as actual advocacy, or backdooring of faith, is spurious.

I suspect some frustration with not fully whacking the hammer on a mole (afterlife). I may be completely mistaken, but if that is in any way at work, rest assured I enjoy mole-whacking, too.

The question I am really asking is, have we whacked this mole entirely with QFT? I don't think so.

I recognize that I am picking a whole in something Carroll stated in a venue that forces one to make statements with less qualification than they may normally require; ones which I have seen made in his writing, so no quarrel with Carroll. For me, it's an exercise in due diligence alone. I do not wish to troll you with some sort of real agenda about spooky things.

That said, I enjoy friendly disagreement, so please do not take my pleadings as a request to go easy. Shall we continue?

 

[Darat]

Gentlemen, an editorial comment.

I have re-read my posts, and it is fairly clear that I speak of hypotheticals. The tendency to interpret this as actual advocacy, or backdooring of faith, is spurious.


...snip...

All I see people doing is explaining why your hypothetical examplel keeps failing to deal with the facts as they are currently known to exist.

As you would rather have it:

You are attempting to create a hypothesis that creates a gap in reality so a "god of the gaps" can be hidden in it, unfortunately for your hypothesis it would seem that our understanding of reality has come to such a point that there is simply no gap for your hypothetical example to hide in.

 

[dlorde]

You are attempting to create a hypothesis that creates a gap in reality so a "god of the gaps" can be hidden in it, unfortunately for your hypothesis it would seem that our understanding of reality has come to such a point that there is simply no gap for your hypothetical example to hide in.

Quite - but not only is there no need or gap for that hypothesis, it contradicts what we know, through theory confirmed by observation, to be true of the world that is relevant to human scales. The hypothesis effectively proposes magic.

Carroll's statements were explicitly qualified with regards to their scope, and clearly definitive in their conclusion.