https://interestingengineering.com/new-physics-experiment-indicates-no-objective-reality

This leaves a Kolobian-sized loophole for anyone Mormon or otherwise to drive their dark matters through on their way to visit mother nature's black hole.

For hundreds of years, science has systematically shown us that the universe is not magic, that it has a predictable and consistent set of rules to its behavior. Until we got to quantum mechanics, and then suddenly science showed us that at least at that tiny scale the universe is magic and doesn't make any sense at all and you're welcome to transpose whatever your favorite assumptions are.

Science has a specific set of blinders that rules out God. You can’t answer a scientific question with “cuz God” because that defeats the whole purpose. That does not mean there is nothing outside the box of science. Science (as an institution) observes the principle of non-overlapping magisterium for practical reasons. When those reasons become personal then science is hobbled by the same dogmas as religion.

Some science proves that magic is real. What to do then, doubt your doubts?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2021 04:29PM by babyloncansuckit.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some science proves that magic is real. What to do
> then, doubt your doubts?

Um, you are going to need to provide an example.

I don't know if I've ever told this joke yet on this forum. Those who like quantum physics might better appreciate the humor.

Heisenberg and Shrodinger were speeding down the road one day. Heisenberg was driving. A police officer noticed how fast they were going and pulled them over. The officer says to Heisenberg "do you know how fast you were traveling?". Heisenberg responds "no, but I know where I was". The officer thinks this is an odd answer and decides to investigate. He opens the trunk and is shocked "my gosh, you've got a dead cat back here", the officer says. Shrodinger responds in a disappointed voice "aw, well now we do".

:D

Uh oh !

Or objective reality is not objective. Or paradoxes in three dimensions are mundane and simple in five dimensions. Or…

There are many ways to skin Schrödinger’s cat. I take it on faith that if an explanation in physics doesn’t make sense, then it is at best incomplete, possibly completely off the mark, and that when we get it right, it will make sense.

Yet that too is a sort of faith, no?

Of course it is. I could be wrong. People who claim they no longer have faith are kidding themselves. We operate on faith all the time. We have faith that drivers in the oncoming lane will stay in their lane. Sometimes that faith is unfounded.

I believe the universe is governed by laws, not gods, and that humans can discover and comprehend those laws. This belief has a long and fruitful history in human culture, but we don’t really know for sure that all those laws are comprehensible, or even discoverable. I think they are. I can’t prove that. Hence, faith.

I agree on the first point--that humans inevitably function on the basis of faith--without reservation.

On the second--the probability that the universe will ultimately make sense--I agree that that would be nice and that the history of science gives some reason for optimism.

I trust you concur that all knowledge is probabilistic. That's why I describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist. The very ambiguity in the competing definitions of God means that those definitions cannot be falsified. All I can say is that in my experience the likelihood that there is a divine master of the universe is minimal and, by the same token, the odds that the universe is irrational seem low albeit higher than those for the existence of God.

I guess the question is two-fold: does a person recognize the limitations of her own intellect and what level of probability suffices for her to say "I know."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the second--the probability that the universe
> will ultimately make sense--I agree that that
> would be nice and that the history of science
> gives some reason for optimism.

I disagree. I don't think we have the capability to make sense of it. The answer is 42.

> All I can say is that in my experience the
> likelihood that there is a divine master of the
> universe is minimal and, by the same token, the
> odds that the universe is irrational seem low
> albeit higher than those for the existence of
> God.

This is Greek to me. By the numbers it is irrational.

> I guess the question is two-fold: does a person
> recognize the limitations of her own intellect and
> what level of probability suffices for her to say
> "I know."

One person's intellect never limits them to thinking they know. Evolutionarily knowing things (that can't really be known are are good guesses) is beneficial.

That's a terrible article.

The experiment described does not show that there is no objective reality. What it does is physically demonstrate what was previously a only thought experiment on the topic. That thought experiment made several assumptions about the nature of reality and also relied on a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics in order to be valid.

Here's the Wikipedia article on that thought experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

Thanks. I was curious if there was something missing and I wanted to look up Wigner.

We've known this all a long and just called it a moving target.

Although lately the target seems to be spinning and twirling in the winds of hostile agendas.

Whirling dervishes hide dark matter.