"I believe in science, I don't believe in God"

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is proof of the Many Worlds QM theory falsifiable?

I believe that should be called the Many Worlds Interpretation -- not theory. So far as I (no well-versed in QM) can tell, I don't think it is falsifiable at this point. But that is why is is best described as one potential interpretation, not a theory itself.

The MWI consists of two parts:

1. A mathematical theory which yields the time evolution of the quantum state of the (single) Universe.
2. A prescription which sets up a correspondence between the quantum state of the Universe and our experiences.

Part (i) is essentially summarized by the Schrödinger equation or its relativistic generalization. It is a rigorous mathematical theory and is not problematic philosophically (so it is falsifiable -- but has not yet been falsified). Part (ii) involves “our experiences” which do not have a rigorous definition. An additional difficulty in setting up (ii) follows from the fact that human languages were developed at a time when people did not suspect the existence of parallel worlds. Our experiences are not, in my view, falsifiable.

 

[Polymath257]

I am asking for a falsifiable argument against the existence of god.

That isn't how it works. The burden of proof is on the one making the existence claim, not the one saying the evidence isn't enough to prove existence.

There are numerous philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, depending on the numerous different notions of God used. One of the difficulties is that theists can't seem to agree on which God is going to be tested for.

What *would* be evidence against the existence of God? Until the *theists* agree on that, there is not really anything to discuss in terms of falsifiability.

 

[Polymath257]

But none of those arguments is "scientific"

Until theists give a testable hypothesis, there can be no science about this.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I believe that should be called the Many Worlds Interpretation -- not theory. So far as I (no well-versed in QM) can tell, I don't think it is falsifiable at this point. But that is why is is best described as one potential interpretation, not a theory itself.

The MWI consists of two parts:

1. A mathematical theory which yields the time evolution of the quantum state of the (single) Universe.
2. A prescription which sets up a correspondence between the quantum state of the Universe and our experiences.

Part (i) is essentially summarized by the Schrödinger equation or its relativistic generalization. It is a rigorous mathematical theory and is not problematic philosophically (so it is falsifiable -- but has not yet been falsified). Part (ii) involves “our experiences” which do not have a rigorous definition. An additional difficulty in setting up (ii) follows from the fact that human languages were developed at a time when people did not suspect the existence of parallel worlds. Our experiences are not, in my view, falsifiable.

And Wave Function - is that falsifiable?

 

[Polymath257]

Even if we accept your definition of religion, I would contend that myths, rituals and folk traditions have meaning and purpose.

And even as an atheist, I agree with this. Literature, art, music, etc are incredibly important *psychologically* for us humans.

Not all truths are literal - what we may call poetic truths are often no less profound than scientific truths (though imo these do overlap).

Here is where I disagree. Poetry can be moving. It can be meaningful. But it is NOT *true*. There can be profound insights into our psychology and how we view our place in the world. But those are NOT truths.

To religious people, the things of enduring value are not things of this world - where moth and rust corrupt, and thieves break through and steal.

And poetry, myth, and metaphor are important parts of human existence. The problem comes, in my mind, when you label those as 'truths'. That betrays, to me, a lack of understanding of what the term 'truth' actually means.

 

[Polymath257]

And Wave Function - is that falsifiable?

The model involving wave functions is falsifiable. In fact, that model is Quantum Mechanics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only G-d can destroy a soul, I'm sure.

Well, once someone actually finds one, we can investigate that with some testing.

 

[Polymath257]

I would respectfully suggest that when demands are made for evidence to be 'falsifiable', we are already in the realm of semantics and paradox.

On the contrary, the demand that *theories* be falsifiable is crucial. The *evidence* is simply the result of the observations used to test the theory.

To be a falsifiable theory means that there is, in theory, some observation or set of observations that could, if the theory is wrong, SHOW it is wrong.

As an example, Newton's laws of motion make very specific predictions about the motions of the planets. One way to show it to be wrong would be to make an observation and find that some planet is not where it is expected to be. Another way it could be wrong is if the acceleration of something is NOT simply the product of its mass and acceleration (F=ma is one of Newton's laws). This can be determined by actually looking (observing) the motion of things.

To be evidence means that the result of the observation changes the probability that some idea is correct: either increasing that probability or decreasing it. If an observation is equally consistent with both an idea and its opposite, that observation is NOT evidence for or against that idea.

So, for example, the observation that there is a universe of complexity and beauty (as seen by humans) is equally consistent with both the existence of a deity and the non-existence of a deity. Either way, a complex, beautiful universe can exist and there is no change in the probabilities either way given that the universe is complex and beautiful.

That means the complexity and beauty of the universe is NOT evidence for the existence of a deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the other hand I am not aware of any falsifiable argument for atheism .are you?

Any valid argument for the existence of God would be a way to falsify atheism.

So no... it seems that atheism might not be falsifiable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

May I point out that it was primarily religious institutions that ran the residential schools in Canada that basically stole children from their families to "get the Indian out of them." And who buried them by the hundreds in unmarked graves with no notification to their families when they died. Did their religion give them their sense of "justice?" The slave owners in the US south were almost all Christian -- did their Christianity provide them with their sense of love and righteousness? Or how about the almost entirely religious-based efforts to trample on the rights and even the dignity of LGBT people? Love? Righteous?

I do not have a soul, but I crave the starry night, and I'm enough of a pianist to play very beautiful music.

(My list could grow arbitrarily long, including the depredations of missionaries the world over, and the bonfires made of heretics, but I'm sure you get my point.)

IMO, monotheistic religions tend to act as echo chambers. Since each believer's God agrees with them, God endorses every opinion they hold.

This is why kind people think that they're doing "God's work" by doing charity, and why racist bigots think they're doing "God's work" by doing ethnic cleansing, and why slavers and abolitionists both thought that God was on their side.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And even as an atheist, I agree with this. Literature, art, music, etc are incredibly important *psychologically* for us humans.



Here is where I disagree. Poetry can be moving. It can be meaningful. But it is NOT *true*. There can be profound insights into our psychology and how we view our place in the world. But those are NOT truths.



And poetry, myth, and metaphor are important parts of human existence. The problem comes, in my mind, when you label those as 'truths'. That betrays, to me, a lack of understanding of what the term 'truth' actually means.

You and I may have different uses for the word Truth. Inevitable perhaps, given that language is both abstract and mutable.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Keats' words may be or may not be falsifiable. But they aren't, imo false.

 

[Polymath257]

You and I may have different uses for the word Truth. Inevitable perhaps, given that language is both abstract and mutable.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Keats' words may be or may not be falsifiable. But they aren't, imo false.

I would say they are poetic, so neither true not false. The classification 'true or false' doesn't apply to poetry in my mind. The classification 'meaningful or not' is what is relevant for poetry.

Strictly speaking, of course, truth and beauty are not the same at all. But, also of course, that isn't the point of the poem.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I would say they are poetic, so neither true not false. The classification 'true or false' doesn't apply to poetry in my mind. The classification 'meaningful or not' is what is relevant for poetry.

Strictly speaking, of course, truth and beauty are not the same at all. But, also of course, that isn't the point of the poem.

The themes of the poem, I think, are transcendence, impermanence; what endures and what does not; what is of real value and what is not.

This is territory traditionally considered proper to the arts, but I think scientists have always considered these questions too.

Many profound truths are articulated in poetry, imo; such truths as may not lend themselves to literal explanation. These truths are of course subjective; as our experience of life is subjective;

“For we are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little lives are rounded with a sleep.”

 

[Clara Tea]

I can see why some feel that way, I used to feel that way, too.

The concept that science has all the answers has been growing in the secular world.

Science is based on the scientific method, a process by which truth is discovered, including objective observation, testing, hypotheses, etc. To those who boast in the scientific method, I say, "Big deal. I've never known anyone who didn't."

Science is invaluable and helps us measure and quantify physical matter and energy. But I can't order three pounds of justice at the grocery store or a half-gallon of love and righteousness at the gas station.

When a person believes the physical, the material, is all that exists, I contend they lose their soul. I'm not referring to their eternal soul, even though that is obviously forfeited as well. I'm referring to their soul now, that which makes them human and separates them from mere animals. The soul is that part of us that stands in awe of a starry night or the ocean waves, that is moved by beautiful art or music, and that is inspired by selfless courage or loving self-sacrifice.

I thank God for awakening my soul, redeeming and restoring it. Per the Bible, anyone who trusts Jesus has eternal life--and a soul that is alive and well.

At my gas station there is a woman selling love.

The son of Reverend Schuller (Crystal Cathedral, Orange County, California) had a scantily clad woman in one arm, bottle of booze in another, and his pants were down and his penis was sticking out in public.

From this (and other stories), it is clear that religion does make morality. Atheists are usually much more moral.

Your argument seems to fall apart when you try to assert that religion is the key to love and righteousness.

 

[Clara Tea]

I would say they are poetic, so neither true not false. The classification 'true or false' doesn't apply to poetry in my mind. The classification 'meaningful or not' is what is relevant for poetry.

Strictly speaking, of course, truth and beauty are not the same at all. But, also of course, that isn't the point of the poem.

Mirrors keep arguing with me about truth and beauty being the same.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But none of those arguments is "scientific"

Mirrors keep arguing with me about truth and beauty being the same.

I will have to reflect on this a bit, but I think I agree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At my gas station there is a woman selling love.

The son of Reverend Schuller (Crystal Cathedral, Orange County, California) had a scantily clad woman in one arm, bottle of booze in another, and his pants were down and his penis was sticking out in public.

From this (and other stories), it is clear that religion does make morality. Atheists are usually much more moral.

Your argument seems to fall apart when you try to assert that religion is the key to love and righteousness.

I am pretty sure his argument fell apart before it got that far.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Per the Bible, anyone who trusts Jesus has eternal life--and a soul that is alive and well.

Yes, but there is no reason to believe the Bible.

is it possible that schizophrenia is caused by a close connection between the spirit world and the suffering individual?

Only if a spirit world exists. I see no evidence for spirits.

perhaps modern humans have too much connection to materialism?

Maybe, but that would be a poverty of self-development.

Personally, there's nothing material that I want apart from other human beings and animals, a solid surface to stand on, a survivable environment including food, water, and oxygen, a variety of amenities like a computer, television, and telephone, a car, assorted restaurants and other enjoyable places to visit, and the means to ensure a steady supply of all of these as much as possible. Since I have all of that, there is nothing else I want. My wife is always asking me what I want her to order from Amazon. The answer is usually nothing. Recently, it was more tube socks.

Another myth of the faithful - only they have proper priorities and values. How many see us as lifeless automatons with no inner life at all? This is typical.

Look at that. We have no experience, like a Roomba wandering the room bumping into furniture "measuring." Look at the implication that only his kind has authentic experience. LOL. We just laugh at these arrogant, self-important phonies.

Sorry, evidence should be what now? Falsifiable?

Falsifiability doesn't apply to evidence. It refers to some types of existential claims. Evidence is never false (or true). It's simply whatever is evident. Statements about its significance might be demonstrably false.

If the entire result of humanity's collective search for God were nothing, religion would have been abandoned long ago.

I think you overestimate humanity. Atheism is an evolved human concept. It isn't for everybody, and not everybody is properly prepared for it. It's easier to believe in a god than not.

Being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, nobody watching over you or answering your prayers, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence.

To the theist I say, try standing up like the bipedal ape you were born to be, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. And then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, that you may be vulnerable and not watched over. Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finitude, of consciousness ending with death, of maybe not seeing the departed again. Accept the reality of your likely insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by those who know you - people, and maybe a few animals. Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

And that is much more difficult than the alternative, which is why so many more fit into the religious category. Widespread religious belief is not an argument for theism. Nor is widespread illiteracy an argument for being illiterate.

That isn't quite right to attribute immorality to a religious mindset, nor a scientific mindset.

I find many religious precept immoral.

I am not aware of any falsifiable argument for atheism .are you?

Atheism isn't an argument. It makes no claims about reality. Therefore, there is nothing to falsify.

I'm still seeking the theist that knows what atheism is and what atheists believe and advocate.

I am asking for a falsifiable argument against the existence of god.

Why? We just reject the claim for lack of evidence and move on from religion and theism. You'll have to proceed without one.

I can provide a proof that the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist, but I won't. I'm not trying to convince you or any other Christian that that god doesn't exist. All I want out of believer is that they agree that their religion should be confined to them. If I have that, I'm not interested in their religious beliefs. Really. If people want to stand under the midnight moon dancing around a pole in the nude while shaking a stick with a chicken claw nailed to it, go for it.

But if you're my neighbor, please do so quietly.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

My brother on law has schizophrenia so i am involved in it on a daily basis.

And certainly in his case there is no spirit world involved. It is a physical mental abnormal brain function. If people want to call electrochemical processes spirt then i suggest they are doing nothing to help those with brain disorders but are intent on trying to make a name for themselves in new age circles.

Connection/belief, if it eases the mind, makes living easier then whats the problem. It in no way proves a spirit or a god, just a belief.

Scientific study is done to learn. And improve your life. I have never heard of a sciencist becoming wealthy from working in science. There there are of course a few who diversity and preach science and get paid for that. Oh wait, there are religious people who do that too on their subject m

i am a huge fan of scientific study

1,000,000,000,000 times more so than I am of religion

however, I will not discount what I cannot see or touch

our understanding will continue to increase over time, and who knows what we may discover that we cannot understand today?

hundreds of years ago, people had no idea there were microscopic things inside us that were causing us harm, but that didn’t stop scientists from continuing their search of the unknown

hopefully we do not inhibit our quest for knowledge, and the desire to go where no person has gone before, just because we’re disgusted by religious zealots

 

[ChristineM]

hundreds of years ago, people had no idea there were microscopic things inside us that were causing us harm,

True, they blamed spirits and science filled yet another gap in knowledge that was filled with religion and woo