Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[steenkh]

To state my objection another way, it is that because whatever is 'living' after death is not defined, it need not be tied to mind physically, according to your brand of woo. For example, there are those who distinguish among body, mind, and soul, with the last being a track record of all life experiences, presumably 'here' but undetectable, and which then goes off into Neverland. This perspective does not require physics, as all spiritual 'components' and 'relations' can be considered non-natural, and of course are mere speculation, to which I do not subscribe.

If the soul is completely undetectable, i.e. it cannot cause the mind to think or do anything, it cannot cause dreams or visions, then it really is outside the scope of science per definition. But I have yet to see anybody who thinks that their soul is undetectable even to themselves.

If they think of the soul and afterlife in the normal way, their belief has now one more substantial piece of evidence against it. The only alternative is to reject QFT and admit that they believe that magic rules the world and that QFT only happens to be right whenever it does not interfere with their beliefs.

I think 'losing' the afterlife ranks up there with the fear of becoming a moral monster as obstacles for those still on the fence, yet wobbling.

You mean we should lie in order to help fence-sitters come down on the side of science? Sounds like skeptics should form a conspiracy to keep the truth for those select few who can handle it!

And I do know of those who practice physics, are not theists, yet who pine still for an afterlife. Who am I to deny them that, especially since they are excellent mainstream scientists who do not peddle woo?

As a former believer myself I see that your cause is noble, but I think that believers can easily bend their god-of-the-gaps so that God can do whatever he likes and still keep it hidden from science.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

If the soul is completely undetectable, i.e. it cannot cause the mind to think or do anything, it cannot cause dreams or visions, then it really is outside the scope of science per definition. But I have yet to see anybody who thinks that their soul is undetectable even to themselves.

It is undefined. Every time we attempt to define it in a thread concerning science, we go off base. In fact, we only have religious narrative as a source. The attempt backdoors a definition that has no relation to the natural world, other than with the imagination of hominids. The only definition that items dealing with souls and other realms deserve is undefined, and consequently they are undetectable by any means. What most feel is their soul is consciousness, but that is a physical phenomenon.

If they think of the soul and afterlife in the normal way, their belief has now one more substantial piece of evidence against it. The only alternative is to reject QFT and admit that they believe that magic rules the world and that QFT only happens to be right whenever it does not interfere with their beliefs.

What's the normal way? The normal way is described by faith, not science. Now, I understand that essentially what most of us imagine when we think of an afterlife is a persistence of self, of the inner dialog. But the trap is laid when we accept that science could ever show or disprove that self can be sustained after death. What test or observation might be made of such a transition, life to afterlife?

(Not to be confused with those claiming communication with the dead. In this case, we can easily debunk 'this side' of the conversation. Indeed, we reject the 'other side' even exists, and make no attempt to observe it.)

My faith in, say, the spaghetti monster does not require science for the Magnificent Meatball to do its magic. I die, and presto, I appear in the great Italian restaurant in the sky. Science can deal with magic tricks on Earth, but does not deal in supernatural realms. Never the twain shall meet.

You mean we should lie in order to help fence-sitters come down on the side of science? Sounds like skeptics should form a conspiracy to keep the truth for those select few who can handle it!

I do not insist that flights of fancy that do not interfere with science, or with civil governance, be crushed. That's right, there's woo that is bad and there is woo that is merely self-deluding for purposes of comfort. Not my place to take that last away from anyone. This avoids, for example, difficult bedside manners in moments that I have had to face when a believer is about to take his or her leave from these mortal coils.

As a former believer myself I see that your cause is noble, but I think that believers can easily bend their god-of-the-gaps so that God can do whatever he likes and still keep it hidden from science.

I'm a former believer, and the process of moving to a natural view was slow and tortuous. I needed friendly conversation and lots of exposure to science. Timid at first, with curiosity leading the way. Nothing like the posting wars one gets on the web, which alienate.

I prefer to progressively push all of faith into magic, and keep it the heck away from methodological naturalism. Randi-style debunking of any attempt to cross the woo back over the divide into the natural world I support, but I do not venture to the supernatural side with science. I leave that remit to faith and those that hold it.

Which speaks to my overall attitude and differences with militant atheism. I am not at war, and ideological purity is something only dictators seek. I prefer a medical metaphor: heal the sick. Let them have placebos so the process is less painful.

 

[steenkh]

It is undefined. Every time we attempt to define it in a thread concerning science, we go off base.

The point of this thread is that we do not need to know the definition of a soul: it cannot interface back to our world.

In fact, we only have religious narrative as a source. The attempt backdoors a definition that has no relation to the natural world, other than with the imagination of hominids. The only definition that items dealing with souls and other realms deserve is undefined, and consequently they are undetectable by any means.

In that case, there is no problem. but in real life, people claim that they can remember past lives, and they claim that their soul can leave their bodies and experience things that they can tell about afterwards, and they claim that they can communicate with souls of the dead. that is a physical claim, and we now have good theoretical arguments to dismiss it: Modern physics does not allow it. there is no "gap" where these claim can exist, no unknown "planes" or "higher dimensions".

What most feel is their soul is consciousness, but that is a physical phenomenon.

Correct, and this feeling is not the subject of this thread, only their claim that it is more than a feeling.

What's the normal way? The normal way is described by faith, not science. Now, I understand that essentially what most of us imagine when we think of an afterlife is a persistence of self, of the inner dialog. But the trap is laid when we accept that science could ever show or disprove that self can be sustained after death. What test or observation might be made of such a transition, life to afterlife?

It can only be done if information about the afterlife is reaching us from the other side of the barrier. Some believers, for instance many Christians, hold such beliefs, and by definition they will not be affected by anything physics can learn about the world.

(Not to be confused with those claiming communication with the dead. In this case, we can easily debunk 'this side' of the conversation. Indeed, we reject the 'other side' even exists, and make no attempt to observe it.)

But this kind of believers has often attempted to use limitations of science to justify their beliefs, such as "extra dimensions", or "quantum effects". These gaps are now closed.

I do not insist that flights of fancy that do not interfere with science, or with civil governance, be crushed.

Neither do I. I also do not think it is bad if people believe in physics with a touch of magic to facilitate their beliefs. But I still cannot see why the realization that modern physics can now say with great confidence that there are no unknown forces left in our everyday life.

That's right, there's woo that is bad and there is woo that is merely self-deluding for purposes of comfort. Not my place to take that last away from anyone. This avoids, for example, difficult bedside manners in moments that I have had to face when a believer is about to take his or her leave from these mortal coils.

It seems that you are not so much at odds with the OP as the consequence that some atheist zealot will misuse it. I do not think that the extra argument from the OP will change much in death-bedside manners, so I do not fear this.

I'm a former believer, and the process of moving to a natural view was slow and tortuous. I needed friendly conversation and lots of exposure to science. Timid at first, with curiosity leading the way. Nothing like the posting wars one gets on the web, which alienate.

Yes, I know what you mean. For several years I was a moderator of an atheist internet forum, but I still would not refer believers to visit it. The problem is that those with the strongest views are also the ones most likely to hang around internet forums.

I prefer to progressively push all of faith into magic, and keep it the heck away from methodological naturalism.

Is that not what I have argued all the time? Either QFT or magic.

Let them have placebos so the process is less painful.

I am not a militant, and I rarely preach. I am surrounded by woos everywhere, and I just do not address it, except when I believe it is dangerously wrong, like when a serious illness is treated with pills that should be kept away from mobile phones, or they would lose their power.

Normally I practise "live, and let live". People can have their beliefs, and spend their money on what they want, as long as it is not harmful.

 

[PixyMisa]

To state my objection another way, it is that because whatever is 'living' after death is not defined, it need not be tied to mind physically, according to your brand of woo.

If it's not tied to your mind, it's not you, and it's not life after death.

For example, there are those who distinguish among body, mind, and soul, with the last being a track record of all life experiences, presumably 'here' but undetectable, and which then goes off into Neverland.

A combination of biology, biophysics, and QFT rules out the existence of such a soul. There is no way around this. You are just repeating yourself.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

If it's not tied to your mind, it's not you, and it's not life after death.

Define "it." Define "you" in the metaphysical terms suggested by "it."

A combination of biology, biophysics, and QFT rules out the existence of such a soul. There is no way around this. You are just repeating yourself.

Define "soul."

If you use science, the definitions do not apply to souls and afterlives. If you use faith, the science does not apply. Without definitions, then measurements, there is no science to discuss.

Make a new argument to refute, and I'll stop repeating this refutation.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

The point of this thread is that we do not need to know the definition of a soul: it cannot interface back to our world.

In those terms, if soul is meaningless, so is the interface. We just can't say anything about them that is grounded, outside the descriptions of theism.

In that case, there is no problem. but in real life, people claim that they can remember past lives, and they claim that their soul can leave their bodies and experience things that they can tell about afterwards, and they claim that they can communicate with souls of the dead. that is a physical claim, and we now have good theoretical arguments to dismiss it: Modern physics does not allow it. there is no "gap" where these claim can exist, no unknown "planes" or "higher dimensions".

I agree that if and when woo claims science, then science can be used to debunk any and all claims that purport to be related to the physical world. What it can't do, and needn't, is prove a negative: that there is no 'other' realm. The answer to that is, without justification, why subscribe to any notions of other realms at all?

It can only be done if information about the afterlife is reaching us from the other side of the barrier. Some believers, for instance many Christians, hold such beliefs, and by definition they will not be affected by anything physics can learn about the world.

But this kind of believers has often attempted to use limitations of science to justify their beliefs, such as "extra dimensions", or "quantum effects". These gaps are now closed.

And that effort will never cease, only moving to other forms of woo. Better to hold the line at observables, and keep pushing for proof, while stating that to move from the default position of no belief on any topic, one needs that proof.

The issue with theists is that they think mistakenly that a worldview is false or failed if incomplete, coming as they do from a place with all the answers, and any gaps are filled with the will of a deity. So they will always, always have this issue with science.

Let the woo peddlers come up with what they like. If it deals with the natural world, it can be debunked. If it makes claims only about Neverland, I am arguing that we not play this game. It legitimizes their stance that science could prove articles of faith. Can't, never will.

ETA: Similarly, claims from science that purport to disprove the exclusively supernatural are, sad to say, woo.

 

[steenkh]

If it's not tied to your mind, it's not you, and it's not life after death.

Pixy, if it is a one-way connection, it could be you, and it could be life after death. As long as our world is not influenced by this soul or that afterworld, we cannot rule it out per definition.

But we can apply Occam's Razor like we always did.

 

[PixyMisa]

Define "it." Define "you" in the metaphysical terms suggested by "it."

It is whatever is hypothesized to be "living" after death. You is the person that died.

Define "soul."

A hypothetical system or substance that would allow for some aspect of a person's mind or personality to survive bodily death.

If you use science, the definitions do not apply to souls and afterlives.

Poppycock. Science applies to anything that interacts in any way with the natural world. If souls of any form exist, they interact with the natural world.

Make a new argument to refute, and I'll stop repeating this refutation.

It's not a refutation. For it to be a refutation, it would need to refute. You are simply wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy, if it is a one-way connection, it could be you, and it could be life after death. As long as our world is not influenced by this soul or that afterworld, we cannot rule it out per definition.

But in fact that is precisely what we do. We have a term for such things, that cannot even in principle interact with our Universe: They are called "imaginary".

 

[PixyMisa]

ETA: Similarly, claims from science that purport to disprove the exclusively supernatural are, sad to say, woo.

But any exclusively supernatural claim is, by definition, logically inconsistent, so science isn't needed.

 

[steenkh]

But in fact that is precisely what we do. We have a term for such things, that cannot even in principle interact with our Universe: They are called "imaginary".

Now you are applying Occam and not Carroll

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

I watched the entire presentation with keen interest. Thank you to the OP for linking to the presentation; one I would have not seen without his/her effort. I judged this as a fascinating presentation by someone which a huge, interesting brain.

I have one massive quibble. I do not believe we know all that there is to know, or perhaps better said, the framework for which all there is yet to learn.

 

[The Norseman]

I watched the entire presentation with keen interest. Thank you to the OP for linking to the presentation; one I would have not seen without his/her effort. I judged this as a fascinating presentation by someone which a huge, interesting brain.

I have one massive quibble. I do not believe we know all that there is to know, or perhaps better said, the framework for which all there is yet to learn.

Neither does Sean Carroll, so who are you quibbling with?

 

[tsig]

I watched the entire presentation with keen interest. Thank you to the OP for linking to the presentation; one I would have not seen without his/her effort. I judged this as a fascinating presentation by someone which a huge, interesting brain.

I have one massive quibble. I do not believe we know all that there is to know, or perhaps better said, the framework for which all there is yet to learn.

The woo of the gaps?

 

[PixyMisa]

I watched the entire presentation with keen interest. Thank you to the OP for linking to the presentation; one I would have not seen without his/her effort. I judged this as a fascinating presentation by someone which a huge, interesting brain.

I have one massive quibble. I do not believe we know all that there is to know, or perhaps better said, the framework for which all there is yet to learn.

But that's exactly what Professor Carroll explains. We know that Quantum Field Theory is correct (not complete, but correct) because (a) it's been consistently confirmed by experiments and (b) we actually use it in modern technology, like, for example, computers.

And Quantum Field Theory, based on experiments we have already run, says that's it, there's no unknown laws of physics that affect our everyday lives. We've looked. If there was something there, we would have seen it.

THIS DOESN'T MEAN WE KNOW EVERYTHING. It means that we know the physical laws of everyday life.

But that's enough to demolish a vast array of woo.

 

[Darat]

And science fiction faster than light travel

Damn you Science!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

It is whatever is hypothesized to be "living" after death. You is the person that died.

A hypothetical system or substance that would allow for some aspect of a person's mind or personality to survive bodily death.

What is the provenance of this? Not science.

Poppycock. Science applies to anything that interacts in any way with the natural world. If souls of any form exist, they interact with the natural world.

Who says it interacts according to the laws of physics? Not science. This is not a testable hypothesis for science, on the same footing as invisible, undetectable elves in the garden. See Popper.

It's not a refutation. For it to be a refutation, it would need to refute. You are simply wrong.

I think you've missed several points along the way.

...

Militancy in any movement entails the danger of wishing to see its propositions succeed to the point of making exaggerated claims. The attempt by some to 'defeat' theism by creating a competing, full and definitive narrative that allows no quarter is a serious mistake. In comes the woo.

"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy's methods your enemy has won." - Michael Ventura

I take my science as she is, forever incomplete.

 

[PixyMisa]

What is the provenance of this? Not science.

Well, duh. Science tells us that no such thing can exist.

Who says it interacts according to the laws of physics? Not science. This is not a testable hypothesis for science, on the same footing as invisible, undetectable elves in the garden. See Popper.

Yes, if you are willing to throw evidence and reason to the four winds and posit a universe that is logically inconsistent, you can claim whatever you like.

But that also means that you lose the argument.

I think you've missed several points along the way.

No, you're just wrong.

Militancy in any movement entails the danger of wishing to see its propositions succeed to the point of making exaggerated claims. The attempt by some to 'defeat' theism by creating a competing, full and definitive narrative that allows no quarter is a serious mistake. In comes the woo.

"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy's methods your enemy has won." - Michael Ventura

I take my science as she is, forever incomplete.

That's nice for you. But it doesn't change the facts. There's still no souls, and no afterlife.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Well, duh. Science tells us that no such thing can exist.

Science relies on observations. It is simply mute on those things that are irrelevant to it, such as an afterlife.

Yes, if you are willing to throw evidence and reason to the four winds and posit a universe that is logically inconsistent, you can claim whatever you like.

A logically inconsistent universe is one that mixes and matches the natural world with fantasy concepts. This is consistent with my arguments against such mixing. Your argument is unclear, still relying on a combination of ideas that do not go together.

But that also means that you lose the argument.

If the argument is that one requires QFT to refute the concept of an afterlife, and/or that QFT refutes such a claim in all its forms, you have yet to make it successfully.

No, you're just wrong.

Getting a little repetitive now.

That's nice for you. But it doesn't change the facts. There's still no souls, and no afterlife.

I do not claim there is (strawman).

If and when you present something different, I'll be happy to discuss it. As things stand, you are still missing the fact that you rely on faith-based concepts for your definitions.

I will allow you this, if this is what bothers you: If and when someone does make the specific claim that a field or particle is responsible for an afterlife, pretending to describe how it does so, then one can use QFT to discuss that claim specifically. However, the general claim that an afterlife exists, using faith-based definitions, is something entirely unrelated to QFT. This is my objection to the form in which the claim was presented by Carroll.

...

1st iteration: I presented a response that showed the kind of reaction one might expect from those seeking to prove/disprove an afterlife using QFT. The effort was intended to show using QFT to refute an afterlife was a woo door opener.

Indeed, there were other examples of that in-thread almost immediately forthcoming. Q.E.D.

2nd iteration: Once the above was clear, I have argued that one does not need QFT to debunk that which is simply not there.

3rd iteration: The issue of mixing definitions from incompatible domains of discourse has been presented. Clearly, the main assumptions that derive from faith-based concepts continue as poorly incorporated elements in a purported scientific approach.

Observation: There is an unfortunate tendency to think of arguments such as this in terms of 'sides': JREF vs woo. The moment one has a purpose prior to argument, reasoning becomes subject to error.

The goal is not and cannot be to slam doors on woo (whack-a-mole). Rather, it is to promote the practice of clear thinking, without recourse to claims that cannot be made. Otherwise, might as well hold the JREF forum in the US House of Representatives, and shout across isles while getting nowhere.

 

[tsig]

Science relies on observations. It is simply mute on those things that are irrelevant to it, such as an afterlife.



A logically inconsistent universe is one that mixes and matches the natural world with fantasy concepts. This is consistent with my arguments against such mixing. Your argument is unclear, still relying on a combination of ideas that do not go together.



If the argument is that one requires QFT to refute the concept of an afterlife, and/or that QFT refutes such a claim in all its forms, you have yet to make it successfully.

Getting a little repetitive now.



I do not claim there is (strawman).

If and when you present something different, I'll be happy to discuss it. As things stand, you are still missing the fact that you rely on faith-based concepts for your definitions.

I will allow you this, if this is what bothers you: If and when someone does make the specific claim that a field or particle is responsible for an afterlife, pretending to describe how it does so, then one can use QFT to discuss that claim specifically. However, the general claim that an afterlife exists, using faith-based definitions, is something entirely unrelated to QFT. This is my objection to the form in which the claim was presented by Carroll.

...

1st iteration: I presented a response that showed the kind of reaction one might expect from those seeking to prove/disprove an afterlife using QFT. The effort was intended to show using QFT to refute an afterlife was a woo door opener.

Indeed, there were other examples of that in-thread almost immediately forthcoming. Q.E.D.

2nd iteration: Once the above was clear, I have argued that one does not need QFT to debunk that which is simply not there.

3rd iteration: The issue of mixing definitions from incompatible domains of discourse has been presented. Clearly, the main assumptions that derive from faith-based concepts continue as poorly incorporated elements in a purported scientific approach.

Observation: There is an unfortunate tendency to think of arguments such as this in terms of 'sides': JREF vs woo. The moment one has a purpose prior to argument, reasoning becomes subject to error.

The goal is not and cannot be to slam doors on woo (whack-a-mole). Rather, it is to promote the practice of clear thinking, without recourse to claims that cannot be made. Otherwise, might as well hold the JREF forum in the US House of Representatives, and shout across isles while getting nowhere.

You went from "if the argument is" to claiming "you have yet to make it successfully".

If you don't understand what the argument how can you refute it successfully?