Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[PixyMisa]

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

An afterlife that is actually an after life must by definition interact with life. And that's where science comes in, and science rules out any such thing.

And all your nonsense attempting to avoid this fact is just that - nonsense.

 

[steenkh]

An afterlife that is actually an after life must by definition interact with life. And that's where science comes in, and science rules out any such thing.

That is actually wrong. If life affects the afterlife but the afterlife does not affect life, then science cannot rule any such thing out. In other words, if you go to Heaven but this information will never be known in our world, then it cannot be ruled out, except by common sense.

 

[theprestige]

An afterlife that is actually an after life must by definition interact with life.

An afterhighschool that is actually an after high school must by definition interact with high school.

No, wait. That's a retarded definition. Nothing I did after high school interacted with high school in any way, shape, or form.

I mean, it would be freaking awesome if what I know now, if who I am now, could somehow inform my perceptions, my decisions when I was a sophomore in high school. But as far as I can tell, that's not how After High School works. And I have no reason to think that After Life works any different. Your baseless assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is actually wrong. If life affects the afterlife but the afterlife does not affect life, then science cannot rule any such thing out.

We don't need science to rule out such a thing. Such a thing does not exist by definition.

Let's say we have two systems.

In one, there is no particle.

In the other, there is a particle with no mass, no charge, no spin, that doesn't interact with anything in any way.

What's the difference between the the two systems? Nothing.

So a particle with no mass, no charge, no spin, that doesn't interact with anything in any way is a particle that doesn't exist.

And the same goes for that posited afterlife.

 

[PixyMisa]

An afterhighschool that is actually an after high school must by definition interact with high school.

No.

No, wait. That's a retarded definition.

Correct.

Of course, it is not in any way analogous.

 

[steenkh]

We don't need science to rule out such a thing. Such a thing does not exist by definition.

Let's say we have two systems.

In one, there is no particle.

In the other, there is a particle with no mass, no charge, no spin, that doesn't interact with anything in any way.

What's the difference between the the two systems? Nothing.

So a particle with no mass, no charge, no spin, that doesn't interact with anything in any way is a particle that doesn't exist.

And the same goes for that posited afterlife.

From where do you get the definition that if something cannot be known, it does not exist? It seems to me to be a logical fallacy.

I would suggest that we call it "meaningless speculation" to claim that something exists that cannot be known.

On the other hand, some people think that the same principle applies to other things that cannot be known, such as the multiverse, or even things like gravitational waves that have never been observed.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

An afterlife that is actually an after life must by definition interact with life. And that's where science comes in, and science rules out any such thing.

Depends on the definition, sorry. A woo peddler may simply posit that there are non-natural field equivalents to QFT that act in that undetected world to capture information from this, placing all the woo on the 'other side.' Voilá, woo-based afterlife piggybacking on QFT.

Science comes into play when any claim is made for observed evidence, on any topic. Prior to that, why bother?

And all your nonsense attempting to avoid this fact is just that - nonsense.

Not a valid form of argument. Try again.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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

Read that as "if the argument is x, you have not shown x."

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

I'd suggest dealing with the arguments made already in the thread to see how. Happy to discuss them with you if you care to do so.

 

[PixyMisa]

From where do you get the definition that if something cannot be known, it does not exist? It seems to me to be a logical fallacy.

Very simple. If the existence of something is, by definition, identical to its non-existence, it does not exist. That's the case with my particle with no properties, or your non-interacting afterlife.

On the other hand, some people think that the same principle applies to other things that cannot be known, such as the multiverse, or even things like gravitational waves that have never been observed.

Gravity waves are clearly different; they're something that follows logically from existing theory, and would be readily detectable in the right circumstances, that we have not yet detected.

Multiverses are a bit iffy. They can only be models; the best they can do is simplify the mathematics of cosmology. If we find such a model that is simple and makes accurate predictions about our Universe, it would at least be useful. Not demonstrable nor falsifiable, but useful.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is actually wrong. If life affects the afterlife but the afterlife does not affect life, then science cannot rule any such thing out. In other words, if you go to Heaven but this information will never be known in our world, then it cannot be ruled out, except by common sense.

Oh, and also - the laws of physics rule out that sort of one-sided interaction. It would break several different conservation laws all at once.

So even if it were logically possible, it would be physically impossible.

 

[steenkh]

Oh, and also - the laws of physics rule out that sort of one-sided interaction. It would break several different conservation laws all at once.

So even if it were logically possible, it would be physically impossible.

What conservation laws would be broken for by interactions that cannot be detected? How do we even know that conservation laws exist in that other fantasy world?

 

[steenkh]

Very simple. If the existence of something is, by definition, identical to its non-existence, it does not exist. That's the case with my particle with no properties, or your non-interacting afterlife.

But both cases are not identical to their non-existence: they are only identical by what can be detected.

Gravity waves are clearly different; they're something that follows logically from existing theory, and would be readily detectable in the right circumstances, that we have not yet detected.

Yes, I only mentioned them because there was some crank here who thought that gravity waves was fictional physics.

Multiverses are a bit iffy. They can only be models; the best they can do is simplify the mathematics of cosmology. If we find such a model that is simple and makes accurate predictions about our Universe, it would at least be useful. Not demonstrable nor falsifiable, but useful.

And there are lots of cosmologists who work on finding out how such models could be confirmed or falsified. Reliable detection of gravity waves from the early universe seems to be crucial for this.

 

[tsig]

What conservation laws would be broken for by interactions that cannot be detected? How do we even know that conservation laws exist in that other fantasy world?

You can invent any fantasy world you wand but we're talking about this world.

Fantasy worlds only exist in your head, this one has a persistence of existence independent of your head.

 

[tsig]

An afterhighschool that is actually an after high school must by definition interact with high school.

No, wait. That's a retarded definition. Nothing I did after high school interacted with high school in any way, shape, or form.

I mean, it would be freaking awesome if what I know now, if who I am now, could somehow inform my perceptions, my decisions when I was a sophomore in high school. But as far as I can tell, that's not how After High School works. And I have no reason to think that After Life works any different. Your baseless assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

You had no plan for life after high school?

 

[PixyMisa]

What conservation laws would be broken for by interactions that cannot be detected?

All of them.

You are proposing that A interacts with B, but B does not interact with A. That automatically breaks any and all conservation laws.

How do we even know that conservation laws exist in that other fantasy world?

It interacts with our world. The conservation laws exist in our world.

 

[PixyMisa]

But both cases are not identical to their non-existence

Yes they are.

they are only identical by what can be detected.

Yes. That's what "identical" means.

 

[steenkh]

You can invent any fantasy world you wand but we're talking about this world.

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

Fantasy worlds only exist in your head, this one has a persistence of existence independent of your head.

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.

 

[steenkh]

It interacts with our world. The conservation laws exist in our world.

In what way does something undetectable interact with our world?

 

[abaddon]

What conservation laws would be broken for by interactions that cannot be detected? How do we even know that conservation laws exist in that other fantasy world?

All of them. It's a fantasy world, no laws of physics need apply.

 

[abaddon]

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

Then it matters not, for it has no intersection with reality.

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.

Perhaps, but there is zero evidence for any fantasy world. Idle speculation in that regard is just hunting for unicorns.