Is everything physical?

>>9265987
Your mother and I got physical last night if you know what I mean.

>>9265987
yes and no. it is both and neither and both or neither as well as both neither and not both neither.

File: jesus_laughing21.jpg (31KB, 429x547px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 429x547px

LOLnope.

>>9265987
Everything is physical beyond doubt. Unless you're a christfag. Everything grasped must exist.

>>9265987
probably, but maybe not - hope not

>there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing
>suddenly something happens
>and now there's something

Pure materialism will not ever be able to explain Creation
>muh quantum fluctuations
>muh random chance for something to happen to nothing out of nowhere

>>9267979
holy...

>>9265987
No

Anyone that argues otherwise is lying, stupid, or lying and stupid.

Nothing is.

>>9265987
yeah, except ghosts

>>9267979
are you applying this universe's laws of physics to whatever reality was before this universe existed

File: 2manydimensions.jpg (248KB, 400x398px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 400x398px

If one considers the physical world to be the three spatial and one temporal dimension which a human being can experience the world in, most certainly not. Even if one allows for the nine total spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension which string theory call for I don't think 'physical' would be an accurate descriptor for the phenomena that occur in the six higher spaces.

Whether one chooses to believe in string theory's explanation of these higher dimensions or not, my personal conviction is that there exists some sort of aphysical realm adjoint to our own wherein one's consciousness, as well as other four-dimensionally inexplicable phenomena such as quantum entanglement, dark matter, and dark energy find their origins. The laws by which this realm is governed may or may not be deterministic (one could never create a test to discover this either), but I suspect the behaviours of entities in this noumenal world manifest what one might call 'free will,' namely the ability to act on the universe in a free way uninfluenced by previous states of the universe.

tl;dr: no

>>9268010
Okay smarty pants explain yourself. How could anything not be physical?

Believing that just because everyone can't sense the same qualia means the quaila has a different essence makes you a pleb.

>>9268870
Woah, dude. What if like, those dimensions run tangent to ours but like, as a web you know? What if at the highest dimension it's all one and like, all our information comes from here. So using this unifying realm of the higher planer conscious collective we could communicate beyond physical means? If you take enough acid you'll know what I mean.

File: lineland.gif (6KB, 495x573px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 495x573px

>>9268921
In mathematics the dimension of a space is defined by the number of linearly independent vectors which are required to create a basis for it, meaning in more lay terms the number of perpendicular arrows one could construct without having any be parallel. It is not too difficult to conceive of a infinite-dimensional space wherein the (infinitely great) number of vectors required to define it would result in all of those vectors being themselves parallel to each other. Just a circle has an infinite number of vertices where, despite not overlapping with each other, they appear contiguous, so too might higher dimensional structures display similar emergent properties.

Supposing I were living my life as a point on the outside of this circle, and could only communicate with the points adjacent to myself, it would appear to us as though we lived on a one-dimensional line. If it were possible for me to observe and utilize the circle's intrinsic geometries to then communicate to a point which lies 'across' the circle, it would indeed seem as though I were breaking the laws of circle-universe. However, because there are infinitely many points along its circumference, I am just as much adjacent to the point across the diameter as I am the ones 'next to' me; I am not actually adjacent to any of them, and therefore I am adjacent to all of them.

It then becomes possible through the extension of this thought experiment to understand a form of aphysical communication across this noumenal realm, and while we as humans may never acquire the understanding of our figurative circle, it nonetheless presents an intriguing mode of inquiry.

Pic somewhat related; Lineland in flatland, to the point-people may as well be a circle. It is only through a two-dimensional observation of it that one can understand it as a line.

>>9269065
I've seen that movie so I get your point. But just because you are not parallel to something doesn't mean you aren't adjacent to it, right? Even if technically those words meant the same thing, and that's your logic, you are still closer to the point in front or behind you than the one across the circle seeing the circle from the second dimension. It depends on your perspective. You can't just say you are adjacent to all and none.

>>9269296
The point that I attempted to make (although in rereading not so explicitly) was this: Due to the infinitude of the circle's vertices, it does not make sense to call one adjacent to another at all, and so therefore the limitation preventing one's communication is completely arbitrary; merely a construct of the mind stemming from a lack of understanding of the universe in which one resides. Similarly if one were to gain an understanding of our own universe that carried similar geometries, one might be able to erode the barriers preventing the communication of information across the four dimensions we experience.

File: image.jpg (63KB, 1173x301px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1173x301px

>>9265987

There are hundreds of miles of space between atoms so no

>>9265987
Your girlfriend isn't

>>9267979
How does non-materialism escape that problem?
By having God create everything? But that is not a beginning of everything, because God was there already and God is something.
So did God have no beginning? Then there was no beginning. But "no beginning" is also an option for materialists.
So regardless of materialism or non-materialism, if there was a beginning, everything came from nothing without anything happening.

>>9269668
God is the first, unmoved mover.
Before everything and after everything is God.

Does this answer your question?

>>9269609
If one were to consider the possibility that a.) OP has a girlfriend or b.) OP only has a girlfriend in his imagination, a materialist would argue that in either case OP's girlfriend is a physical entity in the universe. From the perspective of a materialist, even one's thoughts are physical phenomena, explained through the interactions among chemicals or atoms in the brain. Seeing as OP can only conceive of his girlfriend in a thought, and not actually experience or confirm her physical presence in the universe due to his observation of her being similarly reported to him by thoughts in his brain (whether she exists in it or not), it must then be the case that even if his girlfriend is a figment of his imagination, she is a physical element of the universe.

I, as you, do not believe this is the case; more pointedly, materialism does not offer the possibility of non-physical existence no matter what, but we can clearly understand OP does not in fact have a physical girlfriend, and is a faggot.

>>9269575
existential comics is gutter trash
can't draw for shit
has the most superficial understanding of philosophy
"jokes" are just hamfisted references

and I have to see this shit all over the place because other philosophy grad students are so desperate and autistic that they go over the moon when someone panders to them

>>9267979

Why do you think that this "nothing" ever existed? B/c Nietzsche told you?

>>9269713
>>9269668
Even if one chooses not to believe in G-d, one could conceive of the creation of the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension in which we experience the universe as having been created in a higher dimensional space. If the phenomena governing this space posses the quality of 'free will,' then it is certainly possible that there are things in the perceived universe under the influence of these free will entities and therefore have what one might rightly perceive as non-physical origins.

>>9269745
No lol, because there simply is something. And we also know definitively that this material universe is not eternal. And we kinda know about it's creation too

That implies a state before this. That state, to materialists, is "nothing"

>>9269771
Also, to address an important point before anyone responds, one could continue this process of free will entities creating every lower order universe, including the ones in which the original free will entities reside ad infinitum.

This being just as faithful as a belief in G-d, it becomes more appropriate to foster either a cyclic view of universe-creation, or one wherein free will entities have the potentiality to create, recreate, or preserve their own domains. To me the more appealing is the cyclic, as without a conception of linear temporal axis, cyclic is more rich and meaningful in that time as we understand it is completely absent.

>>9269854

It's a special kind of nothing though, it's not that there was empty space, there was no space at all. What does that mean? I don't really know, but it doesn't seem reasonable to assume it worked exactly like empty space works, which is what you're doing when you make this "how could something come from nothing" argument.

>>9269713
Not at all, reread my post. I don't know how I could make it clearer.

>>9269877
>>9269854
Indeed a "special kind of nothing" is appropriate in discussion of a pre-physical realm. Even the verbage 'before the universe' relies on our understanding of a concept of before, which, as far as we can test, only exists within our universe. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume either an "eternal" universe -- one that is not necessarily material in our four dimensions, mind -- or a supra-universe in which our universe resides that is also beyond material explanation.

>>9269854
Maybe it is eternal; maybe before the radical expansion that we call the big Bang, there was a radical contraction, etc., Ad infinitum.

>>9269737
Lol, this

>>9269877
Every "thing" comes from something.
No matter how far you go everything comes from something, including your "no space"

>>9269899
God has no beginning. He always has existed. He was not created.

>>9268881
We're still incredibly limited scientifically. How could anyone that isn't supremely arrogant assume to know every secret of the universe? Perhaps ultimately everything is physical, but yet is so complex that it may as well not be. Everything is unknown.

>>9269903
And how did that ad infinitum universe come to be?

Or it is just out of randomness being random and there existing something instead of nothing?

>>9269771
>one could conceive of the creation of the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension in which we experience the universe as having been created in a higher dimensional space
That does not matter at all to what I said.
That higher dimensional space would be something that exists.
We are talking about the beginning of existence itself, of everything, of there being something, of there being anything at all.
Call this "The Beginning".
God's act of creation cannot be The Beginning, obviously, because God exists when he creates.
So either The Beginning was the beginning of God's own existence, or of whatever began His existence, or of whatever began the existence of whatever began God's existence, etc.; or there was no Beginning.
Either way, if you believe in The Beginning, it is logically impossible to deny that it was from nothing. The Beginning is from nothing by absolute necessity, because the only other option is that it would be from something, in which case it would of course not be The Beginning.

>>9269899
Also forgot to say, everything else does have a beginning. Creation has a beginning. The Creator, is God.

>>9269934
Then there was no beginning to existence.
Read this: >>9269952

File: 1485042155053.jpg (292KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 2560x1440px

>>9265987>>9265987

>hey literature enthusiast can you give a philosohpical anws er xDDD??? its not like you just read books for hobbits &(and) i know theres a board dedicate to philosophikal themes, yes, i just want to know you are answer to this philosophical theme hehe :) XDDDDD btw i like /pol/"
>>>/his/

>>9269962
God exists 100% outside of The Beginning.

Before The Beginning, was God.
After The End, will be God.

See the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas if you want to know how it works. Search for his "5 proofs"

>>9267979
Steven Hawking once said something like
>given that there is a law such as gravity, a universe can and will create itself from nothingness
I cant even...

>>9265987
Everything is mind.

>>9269979
I remember. He said he doesn't believe in god because of this.

>>9269952
What I mean to say (being the person there quoted) was that the universe that we exist in, our 3+t dimensions, could easily have their Beginning without necessitating a beginning of higher order. Easily reconciled with either a notion of God or lack thereof.

>>9269979
What created gravity?
What creates the possible dimensions or whatever where gravity has an effect?

And anyway, gravity being a law has already been thought to be wrong. In particular check out Eric Verlinde's theory. He says gravity arises as part of quantum fluctuations. A whole lot more, too. His view of the universe is getting closer.

>>9270024
A beginning of 4-dimensional spacetime from some n-dimensional spacetime is not the beginning of everything.

>>9269973
I know the five ways. They do not address this.
Everything can only begin from nothing, because other than everything there is not anything. If God exists, He is part of everything (otherwise he is obviously nothing, i.e. not something that exists).

>>9270045
There is no reason, however, that the n-dimensional space must have a beginning. It is clearly not a part of the physical "everything" of our universe. I merely suggest that one can easily reconcile both a.) There exists a G-d who created our universe and b.) The realm in which G-d exists needn't have itself had a beginning -- nowhere in the Bible nor in logic is this a conclusion made.

>>9270067
>one can easily reconcile both a.) There exists a G-d who created our universe and b.) The realm in which G-d exists needn't have itself had a beginning -- nowhere in the Bible nor in logic is this a conclusion made.
I agree.

>>9268870
>t. brainlet

>>9270067
I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what >>9270045 has been trying to get you to say for a while. The point is that this problem looks exactly the same whether you believe in god or not.

>>9270112
Ebin /sci/ meme pal :^) I bet you're IQ is 160

>>9270045
Really just understand Aquinas' proofs. All of my answers to your current questions can be easily explained there.

If you still have a counterargument to his proofs after having thoroughly understood what he meant then you are the first.

Protip: neither my view nor your view can be proved for the masses. Not in this world. Such are the laws of reality. The proof you seek lies within. No one can tell you, others can only guide you.

>>9270117
My only problem is that I don't see a problem with G-d being either an entity in or name for the non-physical, eternal realm from which our physical, finite universe is created.

>>9270122
read Kant

>>9267771
>beyond doubt
That language is a little strong, especially for a consciousness drifting through nothingness.

>>9270119
Don't be lowballing me, kiddo.

>>9270122
Which ones do you like? The argument from contingency is clearly no longer relevant to the scientific world view, so fortunately before any discussion we're already down to no more than 4.

>>9270131
Read someone who came after Kant

File: Untitled.png (5KB, 501x372px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 501x372px

>>9270122
Okay, last try.

Look at this picture.

The circle represents everything, all that exists, everything at all.

I now ask you to point out where God is in that picture.

>>9270169
Fuckery

>>9270128
Not a problem. My only point was that either existence began from nothing, or existence never began. Because if existence began but not from nothing, then it was not the beginning of existence. And neither God nor materialism changes this.

>>9270153
Start by contingency then. Prove that existence can just go "on/off" out of non-existence forever and ever.

The big bang is said to have been caused by quantum fluctuations or whatever. The non-space "space" through which those quantum fluctuations occured is also something, as it exists if something came from it.

>>9270177
Excuse me? Are you the Aquinas guy?

>>9270122
I really hate to be the scientismist(?) here, but because we're already mixing the falsifiable with the un-, I'll do it anyways
The discovery of quantum mechanics is drastically shaking the foundations of what we know to be the truths of physics. The proofs concerning the unmoved mover and the first cause are jeopardized by that.

The argument from contingency relies on the assumption that a universe with a beginning MUST have been created by God, so the argument only makes sense if you already agree coming into it.

The argument from degree is simply foolish and can easily be explained by humans working in self interest. The goodness itself that morals are compared to is really "this makes me happy" and the opposite, "this makes me sad." Hence differing moralities from various people and cultures.

Finally, the teleological argument assumes that laws of physics can not possibly be inherent and must have been designed. Even if that is true, the argument again relies on an agreement before the debate even starts

I'm not at all trying to disprove the existence of God, just the idea that God is the ONLY explanation to why we exist. That is an unfalsifiable field, here meaning religion (being unfalsifiable does not mean void of merit to me, it just means that the scientific method can not and should not be applied to it) sticking its nose into a falsifiable field, here meaning science, which I am very against, although I am not against religion in the slightest.

File: Screenshot_20170320-175531.png (76KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 720x1280px

>>9270169
This is a screenshot of my phone.

In this analogy, God is the one viewing this image.

>>9265987
Lemme axe you dis: if i can't seez it, how can it be?

>>9270190
By the way, I am but a simple layman peasant and I have never even read any criticisms of the five proofs. This is just me giving my thoughts on each one. I am sure smarter men than myself have given this more thought

Apologies for any confusion my device-switching causes in this discussion, for context I am
>>9268870
>>9269065
>>9269538
>>9269721
>>9269771
>>9269868
>>9269901
>>9270024
>>9270067
>>9270119
>>9270128
>>9268870

With that out of the way, I'll address >>9270169

>The circle represents everything, all that exists, everything at all.

It is improper to conceive of an everything to begin with, because even something so basic as the state of 'being' itself is something only contextualized through our own understanding of the universe in which we live. If I suppose there "exists" a noumenal realm adjoint to our own, it is automatically given dimension and time similar to those we experience.

However, if I hypothesize merely the influence such a realm has on our own, I arrive at something not too unlike >>9270192 .

File: jpg.jpg (27KB, 501x372px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 501x372px

>>9270169
God is the red in this poorly drawn image.

And He is also smiling.

>>9270169
Atheist here

Stupid fucking argument and you should be ashamed

>>9270192
Dude, you are the densest motherfucker I have ever tried to communicate with in the history of my life.
I was just thinking about this and you are worse to argue with than a brick wall, because at least a brick wall does not answer back with the most obtuse misunderstandings imaginable.
I have no idea what it is about my argument that you don't understand. It's in a way the simplest argument I have ever tried to make anybody understand. I cannot believe that you are a real human being who knows how to live and breathe and eat but is unable to understand this argument.

>>9270211
Like some other anons said itt, neither of us can neither prove our point nor disprove the others' point.

As much as you are inviting me to let your points prove mine wrong, so am I doing the same. But I can tell you I've already been where you are.

>>9270203
what the fuck are you talking about you complete and utter idiot

>>9270203
Atheism is just as faithful as belief in G-d, if you mean the sense that there is only the universe in which we live (in its four dimensions) and no external influence.

This necessitates the eternity of our perceived universe, which although not implausible, seems unlikely. To be completely honest, it is implausible even to suggest that our 3+t-d universe has no external factors influencing it, as we observe quantum entanglement and other such phenomena that act outside of these confines.

>>9270169
The existence of the circle and rotational motion is in fact perfect evidence of the unmoved mover. For any other kind of motion cannot be continuous and eternal, which a primary motion must be if we are to avoid the inference that all motion is accidental, which would allow for the logical possibility that all motion can cease. This is impossible, for if all motion ceases to be then so does time, both of which must be continuous. Rectilinear motion entertains contrary motions simultaneously if it is to be continuous, so the only true and eternal kind of motion is that which rotates. The circle is the prime mover

>>9265987
is friday physical? is meaning?

>>9270222
You just keep fucking doing it. It's incredible. I had a schizophrenic friend once, and even he was easier to communicate with than you, and he was the stupidest and craziest person I've ever known. I'm in a state of total disbelief.

>>9270226
I'm an agnostic atheist though, not a gnostic

I do not believe in god, but I do not believe that no god exists for certain. I have yet to feel God. Once I do I will gladly become religious

>>9270190
Underrated post

File: 3838388838383838383.png (6KB, 501x372px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 501x372px

>>9270228
>fucking kill me right now please

okay, I remade it to help your misunderstanding

You see, the shape of the polygon is not really important to the illustration

Now in this image can you tell me where you would think God goes?

>>9270253
y-you're not going to mock me?

>>9270228
>Rectilinear motion entertains contrary motions simultaneously if it is to be continuous, so the only true and eternal kind of motion is that which rotates.

I'm making this a copypasta.

>>9270211
you are the dumbest boy alive

>>9270228
I love you

File: sdfeefeef.png (6KB, 501x372px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 501x372px

>>9270257
we can even draw a smiley :))) face .)):) on it if that helps you
with God all things are possible

>>9270228
>Rectilinear motion entertains contrary motions simultaneously
That's literally the opposite, a circle implies contrary motions simultaneously, a rectangle implies contrary motions in turn

Also, e^x just goes.

>>9270257
Another propositioning of G-d, one which is far more appealing to me, is that He is the border which separates that which exists from that which does not, i.e. he is the polygon's border, for however hard one might try he cannot contain or classify existence in such a manner without this border.

>>9270190
Not him but I want to see a response to this. This discussion is getting interesting.

File: teheh.png (14KB, 501x730px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 501x730px

>>9270257
>>9270289
Now, I know this is difficult to follow.

But the idea is that if you put God inside the shape, then that means God exists (good!) but it also means that God is part of everything there is (oh no!).

But if you DON'T put God inside the shape, then that means God doesn't exist. Oops!

>>9270323
That's actually not true. I can easily say, I'm thinking of every integer between zero and two that isn't two.

Now I don't need to invoke two to tell you I'm thinking of zero and one.

>>9270203
>>9270284
this should help you understand, I made this for you: >>9270340

>>9270341
Ah, but the metaphysics are not an integral matter, but one of the reals. I can say to you that I think only of the real numbers between zero and one, and you cannot name me all that I conceive without both zero and one.

>>9270340
The issue is that you have the right argument, but not the right debate. This doesn't work to disprove the existence of God, but it does raise interesting questions about creationism and God's relationship to the physical world

>>9270365
>This doesn't work to disprove the existence of God
no, it proves this: >>9269668

>>9270353
But the point is that I don't need zero and one to be in the set (which by analogy is existence)

Or how did you want to actually use your definition of god? Are you actually going to make him a closed contour in space, or does something more spiritual go in your set?

I believe in scientism but I do not do science professionally. What does that make me? A "scientist"?

File: 31607891368907136.png (7KB, 237x212px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 237x212px

>>9270387
THE WORD THE KIDS USE THESE DAYS IS
>scientismist

>>9270387
>I believe in scientism
Alright, fuck off back to IFLScience

Scientism is irreparably flawed. There is no argument for it. Anyone who openly supports scientism (a term that is inherently critical, you know) is simply ignorant in the truest sense of the word. They have thinking to do.

In fact, the fact that you describe yourself as a supporter of scientism leads me to believe that you don't really know what it means

>>9270393
I propose "sciist" (possibly with an 'e')

>>9270339
I think everyone actually defending Aquinas was a memer. Which kind of surprises me, because apparently that's how easily the most important christian thinker goes down even on /lit/

>>9270375
You needn't have zero and one be in the set, and yet they exert influence upon the set in a manner similar to the way the boundary of polygon does.

If we suppose that points in our 3+t-d universe are bijected to the interior points of the circle (or polygon), G-d is indeed such a contour, whose existence is inconceivable to a zero-dimensional point which occupies either of those spaces.

I personally do not believe in a 'spiritual' conception of G-d, but rather that He is a noumenal entity entirely inconceivable by our frame of reference in the universe, one which is altogether phenomenal.

File: 1488127749763.jpg (43KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x500px

>>9270415
how about "sciolist"?

>>9270303
False. Anything in rectilinear motion, if it is continuous, must, when arriving at a point have been previously in motion towards that point and so with all points, such that if something is moving to B from A to get to C, it must also be in the process of moving back towards A while moving towards C, since any rectilinear motion that is continuous cannot be divided into halves/stops/points. If this is the case, then that which is moving along a straight line towards A to C and back most be moving to and from A simultaneously if this motion is continuous. This does not happen with the circle and rotational motion, because motion along a circular line is one and continuous and does not engage in impossible contrary motions

>>9270415
>>9270424
We also need an adjective form that isn't "scientific"

Scientile, scienic...

>>9270190
Always cracks me up to see people who aren't physicists try to talk about quantum mechanics as if they understand a thing. Unless you're working with vector spaces, probability amplitudes, hilbert spaces, and eigenstates then you should just stop spouting shit based off of what you saw on a PBS documentary on Youtube. The bare formalism of quantum mechanics says absolutely NOTHING about the world or reality as such. For that you need an interpretation and there is no consensus interpretation that satisfactorily answers any of the foundational problems of QM. Read a book

>>9270441
I'm not following what you're trying to do, and I'm fairly certain when we talk about motion this is some analogy to cause and effect that isn't actual motion, but it's not true that continuously moving things have to hit points they were at before.

Do you know the three body problem? It's really easy to describe an orbit for the earth and the sun, you just get an ellipse, and the same set of points gets traced forever. If you throw in another object somewhere that's orbiting, too, what happens is that the line the center of the earth makes traces like this donut shape that it never leaves. But it also never hits somewhere it was. It just fills up the donut forever.

What the fuck is going on this thread. It feels like you guys are just discussing semantics

>>9270466
It's very simple. Say you have a line with something moving along it in a rectilinear fashion. If rectilinear motion is continuous, which I assert it is not, then what you essentially are left with is circular motion along a line, which is impossible and brings about contrary motion simultaneously. Something will pass from A to C while simultaneously also being in the process of moving back towards A, because you cannot divide continuous motion along indivisible points that mark a beginning and an end to a specific motion. Only with the primary motion rotation can this be done, because rotational motion is one, continuous, and eternal.

>>9270475
Its actually called metaphysics friend :^)

>>9270458
See >>9270199

That's a completely valid point, I fell into the same trap of pop science that I've mocked people for in the past. I can't be sure of anything relating to quantum mechanics. I appreciate you calling me out on it

If you do know at least a little more than me, perhaps you could clear something up for me

The reason I said that is because from what I understand, closer and closer we examine particles the more they act in ways that break pre-established notions of science. Things like the double-slit experiment, quantum entanglement, things of that nature. Those do have a measurable effect on the world, no? Although at such a small scale that we did not know it until we started looking that closely, from what I understand it's still an effect.

Is it that unreasonable to believe that there is some property of our universe's physics that could allow for something like the big bang to occur?

I hope I don't sound condescending, I really am asking

it's software, but with an infinite code...er something...

>>9270475
All meaningful discussion is an argument of semantics. When everything is fully defined, there is nothing left to discuss.

>>9269737
I hate that I know through the osmosis of content this board receives existential comics is a thing that someone is presumably still making at this moment in time. They are horrible, humorless. The manifestation of everything wrong with philosophy majors, who are unbearable to begin with.

>>9266015
/thread

>>9270835
>The reason I said that is because from what I understand, closer and closer we examine particles the more they act in ways that break pre-established notions of science. Things like the double-slit experiment, quantum entanglement, things of that nature. Those do have a measurable effect on the world, no? Although at such a small scale that we did not know it until we started looking that closely, from what I understand it's still an effect.

The experimental physicist in practice is very different from the experimental physicist that occupies the imagination of popular belief. What the double-slit experiment demonstrated is that quantum phenomenon exhibits dual wave/particle characteristics. Interpreting what that actually means and what's *actually* occurring in the experiment is answered in different ways by different interpretations and is primarily a matter for philosophers of physics, not physicists themselves, who are quite content to secure grant funding by reproducing the results anticipated by the mathematics and applying them in practical life without contemplating the metaphysical implications of their experiment, which is why you MUST be wary about ascribing any particular lesson regarding the world to quantum mechanics. The mathematics of quantum mechanics is understood not in terms of "particles" and "waves" like the reified abstractions you might see in a Stephen Hawking book, but by technical mathematical abstractions used to derive accurate predictions in the physical world. The nature of "matter" as such is not as understood as widely believed.

Whether or not quantum mechanics actually breaks pre-established notions of science can only be determined by an experimental verification of one of its many philosophical interpretations, something that as of yet no one has managed to do. So when people bring up things like "quantum indeterminism" to defend their own ideas about determinism and free will and the like, they're talking out their ass, because there are perfectly deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. Superdeterminism is in fact an entirely valid way of looking at a phenomenon like quantum entanglement, for instance.

>Is it that unreasonable to believe that there is some property of our universe's physics that could allow for something like the big bang to occur?

The Big Bang is just a placeholder theory. It's a nebulous construct that will be done away with once quantum mechanics and general relativity are reconciled, something that would presumably get rid of the singularity problem in Einstein's equations.

>>9270947
This was a really good read, thank you anon. I appreciate that there are people like you on this website

This may be a long shot, but do you have any sources I could use to further understand the "place" of quantum mechanics? I'm a non-STEM dumbass so anything very technical would definitely go right over my head, but I think an understanding of what exactly quantum mechanics' place is in both physics and philosophy and what its place isn't would be really helpful to me

>>9270947
"God doesn't play dice" is probably the relevant quote which explains how quantum mechanics got into this. You really think it says "nothing about reality" to say that, even with what now passed as complete knowledge of the system, it's impossible to say which detector an electron will hit? I agree with you that wave functions don't come with a definite way of saying, really, what it all means, but absolutely it means that there could be problems for determinists (and does not mean that there *has* to be)

>>9271531
Somewhat unrelated, but does anyone know if materialism and determinism can possibly be divorced? I strongly agree with the concept of materialism but not determinism. So either there is no logical link between the two, or I'm too dumb to see it on my own

>>9271415
The absolute best resources you could use to better understand this are books on the philosophy of physics, not the pop-sci crap that's usually peddled around here. Some of the best books I've read on the topic:

Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem - Cushing and McMullin
Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations Of Modern Physics - Maudlin
Quantum Mechanics and Experience - Albert
The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics - Ney and Albert
Quantum Nonlocality and Reality: 50 Years of Bell's Theorem - Bell and Gao
Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics - Lewis

This is a pretty small sample of the works in the philosophy of quantum mechanics, but they're incredibly informative and fairly generous to the uninitiated reader who might not be well versed in the physics of it all.

>>9271531
What Einstein was expressing with this statement was his own personal philosophy of physics based on his interpretation of the formalism and the experiments in his day. The place where he uttered this, the 1927 Solvey Conference, was actually pretty hostile to this view, which was seen as unnecessarily reactionary in the face of the remarkable success the theory was producing in experiment. What Einstein was advocating for was a class of interpretations called "local hidden variable theories", something decisively ruled out by the results of Bell's Theorem (a masterclass in the production of its own spooky philosophical implications). The ontology of the wave function, whatever it may be, MIGHT have implications for a very specific class of determinist, but this is impossible to say based on the orthodox theory by itself. It must be attached to some interpretation.

>>9271537
There is no real reason to believe that the relationship between the two concepts is supervenient.

>>9269721
Jokes on you, I have a body pillow.