Empiricism v Theism: A Ramble

...DawahFilms' latest video got me thinking about the problems on both sides of the theist v hard-atheist debate.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• williamcardno
• religion
• atheism
• theism
• science
• evidence
• atheist
• muslim
• islam
• ramble
• Debate
• Random
• Blah
• Boring

[mirabileamavi]

@6Untitled9 necessary/sufficient conditions, this is a logical notion.

i didn't imply einstein was right about epr... i was using that example to illustrate how hypothesis is formed and tested. and i certainly did not say nor even imply that its not 'nature that restricts... physical theory' :S

the point is rather that mathematical knowledge + data is necessary but not sufficient for physics. whats sufficient? no one knows for sure, but thats why physics is so interesting.

[6Untitled9]

@mirabileamavi So, according to you, mathematics is not exactly "useful" for theory testing, although it is "necessary". What can anyone make of that? Afaik, Mathematics and physics go hand in glove

As for epr. The data suggests that Einstein was wrong about that, but then, Einstein didn't know everything. A good example of how it's nature that restricts the way we formulate physical theory, and not necessarily according to logical reasoning or intuition.

[mirabileamavi]

@6Untitled9 look at it this way, formal mathematical constructions of qm are not controversial but not exactly useful either. useful in the sense that its not sufficient for hypothesis forming nor theory testing (although necessary). think of it in terms of epr and bells theorem and its impact on physics.

angel and pin really illustrate the problem of the continuous and discrete, i.e. measurement of arc length.

[6Untitled9]

@mirabileamavi > [ " the angel and pin question may sound intuitively silly.... " ]

Well it is silly really and it's used synonymously, as an umbrella term for absurd hypothetical arguments. This is the problem. Quantum mechanics is such an abstruse subject, that it lends itself to appropriation by all sorts of new age mystics, mind/brain dualists and such. Who all promulgate their own biased interpretations, that have no basis in fact, thus entirely confusing the issue for non-scientists.

[mirabileamavi]

@6Untitled9 umm not exactly, more like the copenhagen interpretation. they are important as they will restrict how we may formulate our physical theory in general.

the angel and pin question may sound intuitively silly but its important too! classical mechanics started off on that question and modern physics can only begin due to the unsatisfactory answer given to this question via newton. seriously, no kidding!

[6Untitled9]

@mirabileamavi An interpretation?

You mean some good graphics, to illustrate this 90 year old theory to non-physicists ; )

Look! The language used to describe quantum mechanics, is mathematics. It's necessarily outside the scope of ordinary language or experience.

["surely an understanding of 'reality' (whateve that is) is the goal ..."]

Agreed!...I just fail to see how 'angels on the head of a pin' type debates, can contribute anything to that.

[mirabileamavi]

@6Untitled9 not science per se although large parts of our epistemic commitments surely derive from science.

and.. its important in so many ways...

surely an understanding of 'reality' (whateve that is) is the goal of most of our pursuits. an interpretation of quantum mechanics is central to our understanding of reality.

[6Untitled9]

@mirabileamavi > [ " ..a realist would say bosons exist, while a instrumentalist would say they do not...."]

So, you're not talking about science or scientists then.

[ "this debate is probably the most important for physics,"]

Why?

[mirabileamavi]

@6Untitled9 umm.. a realist would say bosons exist, while a instrumentalist would say they do not. to use an unfair analogy think of the instrumentalist claiming that bosons are like santa, they are useful, (perhaps for comforting, giving joy to, people) hence they can be profitably used, but they aren't really there. while the realists say they are there, no really, they are. this debate is probably the most important for physics, einstein only spent the last few decades of his life on it =p