The Afterlife: What You Want Versus What You Believe

See the problems I pointed out.

The "beginning of time" explains absolutely nothing. It doesn't explain why it could happen in the first place, and why it is the way it is. I sincerely can't see how an external cause is "less likely" than the universe coming literally out of nowhere.

It's for the same reason that I don't believe in the inner "randomness" of matter. Just because the current model operates well without taking into account unseen causes, it doesn't mean that the models are an absolutely accurate description of existence (and, obviously, you can't really accurately predict a lot of things if your model relies on randomness). And you can't prove randomness: there can always be an infinitude of unseen causes, and you can't disprove them. You may be able to prove that a specific type of unseen cause is nonexistent, but definitely not all the possible causes. The model is a practical assumption, and it is useful, but it can't be taken as the absolute truth.

As for the existence of a mind, I explained that in the latest entry in the blog.

edited 7th Nov '13 9:19:36 AM by Teraus

I don't see why your "qualia" need to have an existence independent of the brain. Colour, for example, is just a code that informs us of the wavelengths of light being produced/reflected by a certain object. You don't need consciousness to code this information, either. That's what a camera does.

edited 7th Nov '13 9:30:39 AM by Elfive

You didn't really understand my point, I'm afraid.

Obviously, color is a code for wavelengths and a camera can do that. It's not that the quale is "necessary", it's just that it happens. And it happens in a way that physicalism is incapable of explaining. I did explain the reason for that assertion, in a pretty lengthy way and with several examples.

edited 7th Nov '13 9:42:34 AM by Teraus

Well, it isn't quite accurate to say the universe sprung out of absolutely nothing. IIRC, it actually began as a random fluctuation in the quantum foam.

I suppose if you take the afterlife to be a timeless realm which consciousness pop out of, ride linear time for a few decades and then get sucked back into, then there wouldn't be much of a difference between the afterlife and the before-life. That said, even in a reincarnation scheme, can ones previous life truly be considered the same person? You have different memories and a different personality, so is it really any different from some other person who happened to have used the same soul?

What matters is the continuous first-person perspective.

And who knows? All the memories from each life might be stored somewhere. If afterlife exists, it's not necessarily without a purpose.

Proof?

How can you even say that there was nothing other than this quantum foam? How can you even say there aren't different, independently existing verses?

edited 7th Nov '13 12:51:47 PM by Teraus

Hey, there's one theory that the Big Bang was caused by two other universes smacking into each other and the guy who came up with it even thought of a way to test it by looking for a shadow in the cosmic microwave background.

There's also the "two universes got a bit close... and stirred part of that which had once been a universe into moving its arse again". *bang* New kid in town, quickly expanding — get out the way!

Heat death doesn't mean everything suddenly vanishes. There's... stuff. It just doesn't do anything and probably doesn't even have time, as such, in which to get bored in: especially if you consider time a form of energy. Unless something, maybe, kicks it... like a next door neighbour getting a bit hyper. Or random variables doing random things on a quantum level and building from there in a form of collective phase-shift.

I still fail to see how "randomness" is less of a belief than anything else. You literally can't prove randomness. I know there was that experiment with polarized light that proved that a specific type of subatomic interaction didn't exist, and some people claim that "proves" the intrinsic randomness of matter. It doesn't. There can always be unseen variables. You don't know what you don't know. It bothers me how physicists just seem to take it as fact based on a practical assumption (physicalism).

It just seems so fundamentally wrong that something can have several outcomes and the cause for the "choice" between the outcomes can be literally nonexistent.

edited 7th Nov '13 1:33:38 PM by Teraus

It can seem as fundamentally wrong to us humans as it wants - doesn't make it any less true.

Whether you find it easy to accept or to understand, and whether you like it or wish it weren't so, just plain doesn't matter. Our personal preferences are utterly irrelevant, when it comes to science. If there's a theory that agrees with the best experiments we'll have to accept it, at least tentatively, if we're to claim any sort of interest in understanding reality.

edited 7th Nov '13 1:37:29 PM by BestOf

We take it as fact because it's true. It's often said that the only thing Quantum Mechanics has gong for it is that it is undeniably correct. You can spout all the philosophy you want but unfortunately science has already kicked you in the balls and moved on.

It works, bitches.

I am unaware of any scientist who believes in true randomness. Every one I've ever heard of is a determinist.

I have a friend. He is a respected physics professor and is very knowledgeable about many topics. He asserts the existence of randomness. I agree with him on many aspects, but not in this particular one.

And you ignored the entire paragraph before that comment.

It's logic: You cannot prove randomness. A discrete function, no matter how complex, can be modeled with actual variables without any randomness. You may need a myriad variables for that, but they may still be there.

So this is pretty much bullshit. The model works, yes, in a certain scope, but that doesn't prove randomness. Newtonian physics also works in a certain scope, but it doesn't accurately describe the entire behavior of matter.

And you can't deny the possibility of what you can't see.

Randomness is just human limitation. I don't see why it's more reasonable to assume that matter is truly random than to simply acknowledge the possibility of causes that we cannot measure. That is my issue. If you can answer to me why this is more reasonable, I might reconsider it.

edited 7th Nov '13 1:48:49 PM by Teraus

It's not really randomness per se. It's more the fact that at extremely small scales any measurement you make will affect the system in such a way that the outcome is unpredictable, so you can only make definitive statement in terms of probabilities. A particle in a given state will give a certain result a certain fraction of the time and a different result a different fraction of the time, and it is literally impossible to determine which before you measure it.

Also you can get effects like one photon going through both slits in a screen at the same time.

edited 7th Nov '13 1:49:22 PM by Elfive

So you don't believe in actual randomness. This certainly clashes with your previous post.

And the photon thing... How is that related to randomness?

Anyway, I'm fine with "your" version of randomness. I have an issue with a "random fluctuation" that created the universe, though.

edited 7th Nov '13 2:02:14 PM by Teraus

Elfive is correct, QM hasindeterminacy, not true randomness. That's why what your friend is saying doesn't make sense to me. Can he provide you with a reference?

Well, there's also things like radioactive decay, which is calculated based on the fraction of nuclei that will randomly decay in a given time frame. You can't say for certain how long a particle will last, you can only say at what rate a large number of them will dwindle away.

Also, there's the Heizenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that for certain paired variables (position and momentum, energy and time) the more accurate measurement you make of one the less accurate any measurement of the other can be. This allows things like conservation of energy to be violated if you do it for a short enough timespan.

Without random fluctuations in the primordial gas cloud (due to HUP) clumps of matter would not have formed that eventually coalesced into stars. The universe would be a uniform fog of dust without any life at all.

So yes, randomness exists. If it didn't, neither would you.

You are ignoring everything I said about randomness not being provable.

All the things you mentioned, all of them, can be explained by the existence of complex, yet unmeasurable, interactions. You are simply assuming these interactions don't exist, based on absolutely nothing other than the fact that you don't see them. They are not even "unlikely". I make no such assumptions.

Please note that I'm talking about "true" randomness, the one in which several outcomes can happen without any different cause. It's not the same thing as just being unpredictable, in this case.

I don't talk with him very often. However, as far as I can see it, he is just conflating practical assumptions with the actual truth. As in "unseen causes are not necessary to explain what we see, so they must not exist". I strongly disagree with that view.

edited 7th Nov '13 2:20:29 PM by Teraus

The second one can't. Random fluctuations in stuff is literally a law of physics.

Oh, dear...

For the millionth time, you can't prove that "random fluctuations" are truly random and not caused by unseen interactions.

Well, at the very least you can't propose an unseen cause without providing evidence for it or at least a suggestion as to how such evidence could be found. Before it's relevant to science it also has to be falsifiable; if there can't be an observation or experiment that would prove your model wrong your model is simply useless.

The predictions of Quantum Theory are currently the most accurate that exist in science, and Quantum Theory posits that the universe is fundamentally random. One can of course admit that in principle it's possible that there are unknown variables that explain the apparent randomness, but until such a hidden variable is identified and subjected to experiment (and explaining at least as much as Quantum Theory with at least equally accurate predictions) we cannot include it in any description of reality, except as a bit of trivia at the end.

Well, except if you want to describe reality outside of the theories and observations of physics, in which case I'll contest your proposition with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is not less likely to be true than anything else that cannot be tested.

Most - or perhaps all - scientists will acknowledge this much, I think: that a proposed model that doesn't come with a testable (at least in principle) prediction, while impossible to disprove, cannot be of any importance to science.

If people want to say that they want to think about such untestable hypotheses, this is of course fine by me; but any statement proposing such a model as a likely reflection of reality should be met with a similar reaction as the Flying Spaghetti Monster hypothesis.

For the "flying spaghetti monster" part, read this. Specifically, the bit about the "unicorn fallacy".

As for the rest: I already said it, the current model (quantum mechanics) is useful. It runs on practical assumptions, like the rest of science, that is: it excludes what is not necessary for the model. A practical assumption should not be confused with the actual truth, because the truth doesn't care whether something is practical to us or not. An approximation can be great, but it's still an approximation. We're talking on a philosophical level, not a practical one.

There is no more evidence for randomness than there is evidence for these unseen variables. Randomness cannot be proven true nor false because these variables cannot be proven true nor false, either. The only difference is that observable reality overwhelmingly favors determinism (things have a clear cause and effect on a macroscopic scale, and you just assume things can work differently on a microscopic scale because you can't always see the cause).

For the record: there is no evidence for external reality, either.

edited 7th Nov '13 3:09:27 PM by Teraus

Physicalism is mostly a pragmatic position. It's not that I can say for certain that there are no dragons in my garage (well, I can, because I don't have a garage, but whatever) on any plane of reality, but if they are completely undetectable then there's no way to use them to make any sort of predictions or anything useful, so there's no reason to give a fuck whether they exist or not.

The text goes on to say that a range of universes containing every possibility is more likely than any particular universe that one could care to propose. While this is true, it is missing the point a bit. When someone like me proposes the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the idea is to point out that if we accept anything that cannot be proven wrong we must accept everything that cannot be proven wrong - that is, if the quality of not being disprovable is enough to make a universe worth thinking about.

If "not disprovable" is enough for you I'll agree that from that starting point "physicalism" is wrong; but it's a starting point that doesn't get you predictions about reality that could be meaningful to anyone who would care to test your claims. Instead of approaching an approximation of the true nature of the universe, you're venturing on a course that doesn't compare the possible universes in a way that would yield plausibility to some universes and not others.

Here's an interesting opinion piece about the use of an arbitrary degree of skepticism as a form of argument. It doesn't strictly address the question here, but it's thereabouts and I though it might hopefully shed some light to an avenue of thinking I would prefer not to see here - plus it's amusing.

Anyway, to get back to your post:

If you don't want to accept certain discoveries about the nature of the universe according to the best science we have, you are of course free to do so, but in doing so you're forgoing the use of any science that is based on those discoveries - they're based on the things you're refusing to take on board. This leaves you with a broader set of possible universes (as the ones made impossible by the discoveries you refused are now available to you,) but it also leaves you with a less precise description of this universe than the one that the rest of us have.

edited 7th Nov '13 3:22:35 PM by BestOf

Or, in other words, I can make shit up too and that doesn't make me any more or less right than you.