Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Polymath257]

So if I open that famous Schrodinger cat box the cat is alive or dead. My observation determines the cat's fate.
Aren't I creating two universes, one for the alive cat and one for the dead? If so I have 'created' an entire
universe. That's my reading of this stuff.

No, it is not the simple act of looking that separates the universes. it is the decay of the particle that kills the cat or not that determines the split of the universe. Your looking only lets you know which universe you are in.

The quantum event produces the split (in those interpretations that have a split), not the observation.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, it is not the simple act of looking that separates the universes. it is the decay of the particle that kills the cat or not that determines the split of the universe. Your looking only lets you know which universe you are in.

The quantum event produces the split (in those interpretations that have a split), not the observation.

So in a two cat world I decide which I am in, and take you with me?

 

[PruePhillip]

No, it shows precisely that the observer is NOT primary. NONE of the spots is the center. So NONE of them is special. Each has a distorted view because it is working from its perspective. It is only by stepping back that you get a full picture. It is the geometry of the whole that is important in relativity, not the view from any one spot. Relativity tells how to translate between the views of different spots by describing the geometry as a whole. That is my point.

If no point is priveleged, then YOU have that honor.

 

[Polymath257]

If no point is priveleged, then YOU have that honor.

No, if no point is privileged, then NO POINT has that honor. There is no center to the expansion. Each point gets a distorted view. What is important is the whole geometry, not the view of any point.

 

[Polymath257]

So in a two cat world I decide which I am in, and take you with me?

No.

Once again, the split happens when the quantum event that triggers the release of poison occurs (or not). Your observation just lets you know which side of the split you are on. It isn't your decision, but rather the quantum event that takes us with it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I need a clear definition of the term 'free will'.

Look up libertarian free will.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Your lack of imagination aside, that has not been my experience, nor is it supported by any atheist I have spoken to. The last sentence is a straw man of course, you seem to love these irrational fallacies in informal logic.

Giving my opinion is a straw man? Do you even know what the term means?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Fantasies are often more fun than reality. That doesn't make them true.

No the Truth is much more fun than fantasy. It's endlessly fascinating and we will never reach the end of it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What makes that a problem when there is no evidence of a spirit realm at all?

I guess that works for you as long as you ignore that over 90% of the people in the world have experienced it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The laws of physics are man made, they are our attempt to understand how the material universe works, they are therefore descriptive, not prescriptive. Creationists often make this basic error in reasoning.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, the laws do not come about through chance. They simply exist. They are not caused.

Lol, that's hilarious! You realize how much of what you said in the past you just contradicted there?
Now we can have uncaused causes in a universe that only operates by blind causation? I guess laws can just be for no reason? Where is the logic?

 

[Polymath257]

Look up libertarian free will.

I looked up several sites that discuss it. But what does it mean to 'freely choose'? What does it mean to be 'independent'? What does it mean to 'make decisions autonomously'?

Clearly, we are *not* fully autonomous. If I am falling from a cliff, I cannot 'choose' to not fall. I am subject to the law of gravity. Similarly, if a car runs into me, I cannot 'choose' to be unhurt.

So I am NOT autonomous in all cases.

That means the question is whether I am *ever* fully autonomous and, in other cases, the degree to which I am autonomous.

In any case, no I do not believe in 'libertarian free will'. I find it clearly wrong and rather a silly concept.

 

[Polymath257]

I guess that works for you as long as you ignore that over 90% of the people in the world have experienced it.

At one point, 90% of the world thought the Earth to be flat. The numbers don't prove their ideas are right.

And, again, I do not dispute that they had certain experiences. What I dispute is their interpretation of those experiences.

Someone having hallucinations has the experience of seeing things that are not there. The experience exists, but their interpretation is wrong: the visions are all in their head. What they see is not real.

The vast majority of people are not taught to use logic or to be skeptical. So they believe and experience things that do not correspond to reality much more frequently than those who have been so taught.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, that's hilarious! You realize how much of what you said in the past you just contradicted there?

Nothing. Can you show where something I said was contradicted by what I just said?

Now we can have uncaused causes in a universe that only operates by blind causation? I guess laws can just be for no reason? Where is the logic?

Causation only makes sense when there are natural laws acting. That is because causation is the action of those laws.

In particular, it makes no sense to talk about the cause of natural laws.

Similarly, causation only makes sense when there is time. And since time is part of the universe, that means that causation only makes sense within the universe.

And that means that it makes no sense to talk about the cause of the universe.

Finally, not everything *in* the universe is caused. Most quantum level events are uncaused. So it is also false that the universe only works by 'blind causation' (what the adjective 'blind' adds to the description is beyond me).

 

[Polymath257]

No the Truth is much more fun than fantasy. It's endlessly fascinating and we will never reach the end of it.

And I would agree. That is why I don't follow any religion: I find all religions to be fantasy and rather boring.

 

[Polymath257]

Giving my opinion is a straw man? Do you even know what the term means?

Presenting a simplified alternative that is easy to defeat in place of the actual position of another person?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Similarly, causation only makes sense when there is time. And since time is part of the universe, that means that causation only makes sense within the universe.

And that means that it makes no sense to talk about the cause of the universe.

...

Makes no sense as unknown. The universe is what we know exist. We don't know more than that.

 

[Polymath257]

I must ponder this, "Your question is littered with space time words"
Kind of neat...
Space time is part of the universe, or creation if you like.
Things popping up in space time, like alternate universes, are still a 'part' of everything we know.
What lay BEFORE all this is another matter.

The word 'BEFORE' is also a time word. So it also only makes sense within the universe (or multiverse, if you go that far).

 

[Polymath257]

A distinction without a difference.

On the contrary, a very crucial difference: that between an intelligence creating something and something just existing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I would agree. That is why I don't follow any religion: I find all religions to be fantasy and rather boring.

And that is why I don't follow truth. I find it to be fantasy and rather boring just as all versions of true religions.