To the best of my understanding, the is no particle. Just a symbolic representation (am mindful image) of a particle when it is convenient for purposes. Likewise, the symbolic wave (another image) when it is convenient for practice purposes, as with the double b slot experiment. I believe it is imprecise to discuss it otherwise. There is a chasm of difference between instantiating it as a particle (or a wave) and labeling it a particle (or a wave) and that is what the philosopher may choose to explore. True, one can call it a wave-particle but where does that leave us other than a confused image.

My own preference is viewing it as a wave (not particle) with wave perburtations being viewed as patches but not such. This would be the De Brogle-Bohm version. In such an image, the is no real psyche though the permutations may be mathematically treated as such. As always, I am seeking precision. — Rich

If you are talking about Bohmian mechanics, that is merely one way to interpret quantum mechanics. It fails in several places with some other discipline of quantum physics in terms of how mechanics work. Unlike quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics, Bohmian mechanics fail on the relativistic level, if I remember correctly (although there are several attempts to make Bohmian mechanics relativistic). Quantum field theory more correctly accounts for relativistic level of discussion. In fact, the interpretations and premises of Bohmian mechanics only clarifies some part of Copenhagen interpretation, but otherwise does not provide any practical formulation of things, thus the reason other interpretations are still used today.

Your concern with definition of particle arises from your confusion of a priori and a posterirori knowledge.

If you are talking about the definition of a particle, then that is something else. Likewise, we can say that about every single thing in this world. I'm sitting on a chair right now, but I am not sure if I can call a stone outside that people are treating it as a chair, a chair. If you are confused about the definition of a particle because you are confused about the distinction between a classical particle and a quantum mechanical particle, then we are talking about something else. You are perhaps confusing the difference between how things should be defined, with how things are. If not, then read below.


I'm sorry, but what you said in that post is wrong. In science, there is a specific term to express your description of particle: quasi-particle (in a loose sense. This term is actually used for solid or sometimes in molecules as well, but its definition seems to be rather loose and can be applied to others, recently.) These are actually not, particles, but "seems like" they have the properties of such, and are treated mathematically as particles, thus the term. Plasmon, phonon, exciton, are some of these examples. This is distinguished from actual particles, like the one we are talking about.

Also, an atom cannot be viewed with photon or any microscopes that utilize light source as probes (generally. There are several new methods like PIM (photoionization microscopy) and QEM (quantum entanglement microscopy) that utilizes photon in a very sophisticated way). This is because a photon has a large wavelength that exceeds the resolution of the material we are looking at. I said AFM (atomic force microscopy), TEM (transmitting electron microscopy) as well as STEM (scanning transmitting electron microscopy), STM (scanning tunneling microscopy), APT (atom probe tomography), etc. These probes do not use photon. Out of these microscopic methods, AFM may be the one that most accurately shows what atom should look like, since it is based on repulsion force that minimally interacts with an atom and changes its state, meaning it does not entail disruption of what we are trying to observe.

While you are right, and I agree, that the mathematical formulations of these particles are symbolic, these mathematical methods are chosen with precise care to make sure what we are observing is a real particle. Quantum mechanics works this way. So what we are observing is, in fact, a particle.

You are right in one sense.

But it should be well noted that the Standard Model didn't just come out of nowhere by theorists. They all started from experiments, and then moved on to mathematical formulations to support or explain the obtained results that is consistent with other experiments and science. Finally, they test these theories again by doing controlled experiments. Once they observe what was predicted by theory using apparatus that is logically and scientifically capable for observing what they want to observe, then the theory is confirmed.

So in the end, these particles do "really" exist. Of course, we can't observe them with our eyes, but we use tools that we know for sure that is able to observe them. Once we do, then it really do exist. For example, we can actually observe an atom visually by AFM, SPM, TEM, and some other techniques. There is no problem calling these as atoms, and there is nothing mathematically symbolic about it. Digging that down with science is what allows us to confirm elementary particles.

I am not sure if you are a scientist or not, but they are much much more than just symbols interpreted from mathematical formulations.

He says it is and have been saying it is, no matter how many times other people explained that it is not. Welcome to the other side.

Can we test these interpretations, or, at the least, collect more data and evidence to further refine them? Science is not my field beyond some research into it for various reasons, like epistemology and having to listen to people talk about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. — Chany

Yes. In fact, it is continuously being refined. Currently, the most popular interpretation is the Copenhagen Interpretation, one of the older interpretation. There is a reason why it has been accepted for such a long time, for the simple reason that it works well with the currently available knowledge. Nonetheless, Copenhagen interpretation is philosophically a mess and very abstract.
Although it is not strictly an interpretation anymore, quantum decoherence is widely considered to be true (it can be tested experimentally). Copenhagen interpretation, Many-Worlds interpretation, and many other interpretations can still be compatible with the result of quantum decoherence. Therefore, quantum decoherence doesn't really disprove any other interpretation, but it surely is one that encompasses other interpretations, and quite a legitimate one.

Correction: light is observed in experiments to behave as both a wave and a particle and we have found that applying light as both a particle and wave is workable in our models. Explanations that explain why we see this observation and how light can both be a particle and a wave are hypotheses. At this point, unless you are a physicist who deals with quantum mechanics regularly or would be considered an expert in the field, whatever you have to say is conjecture. I do not like when people bring quantum mechanics and use it to justify whatever bad argument they are making at the time, considering that most of them have never done any experimentation involving it in their lives and probably could not do physics at all. I am not versed in quantum mechanics, so I would suggest we submit to the position of scientists working the field and let them sort it out. — Chany

For your information, the particle-wave duality is a classical attempt to understand quantum physical particles. Most physicists consider and accept that quantum physical particle as it is, a particle with properties of classical particle and wave. There is no classical definite analog. Explanations to how and why we observe these properties has to do with interpretations, not hypotheses. That is why it's called Copenhagen interpretation, Many-worlds interpretation, quantum decoherence interpretation, etc.

You are absolutely right that most of those people out there using quantum physics as a way to explain God or some other philosophical argument are simply bogus. Some famous physicians also made the same mistake of applying this to explain heaven. In fact, most of the physicists consider such attempt to be a poor application of reasoning. I've seen people make hilariously bad interpretation of quantum physics and its application to something unscientific because they are not used to the formulations used in quantum physics. They have to rely on the classically intuitive picture, which will always be wrong one way or another.

In the end, trying to interpret any philosophical idea with science or use science to explain philosophical idea generally lead to an illegitimate argument. It is well advised that you don't do this.

You haven't 'addressed' them at all, you've simply ignored them and talked past them. — Wayfarer

This.

No.

lol, five pages of the same crap and this guy still doesn't get it. I bet he is still thinking we are wrong.

Guys, I think it is about time we stop answering to this guy. We have had to answer same thing over and over again about the fallacies for five pages and TheMadFool seems unable to address this issue and claims he is still "scientifically" (but as a matter of fact fallaciously) proving existence of god (fallaciously). His method is fallacious and his conclusion is also fallacious as well as any other claims he makes about science/measurement/logic crap is also fallacious. This is getting ridiculous. He is too ignorant to understand his mistakes no matter how much we point them out.

TheMadFool, I think you should stop for a moment and come back like a week later. Maybe it is better if you read the entire thread again to see how little the discussion has advanced. It is obvious that the last few replies you are reading right now is essentially the same replies you got initially. Why do you think everyone is saying the same thing over and over again?

Then you should agree that...

Mass, volume, charge, velocity, etc. are evidence for the mere belief of electrons, protons, neutrons, in fact the whole of science is nothing more than a belief. — TheMadFool

If you want to talk about electrons, protons, and any of those elementary particles, you should probably study them a little before you make such an awfully wrong statement. Mass, charge, spin are properties of electrons, not evidence for electrons. They were measured to characterize electrons, not to find electrons. Also, a velocity of electrons changes with the applied electric field. Its direction of path can also be manipulated to a degree with applied magnetic field due to intrinsic spin that the particle has. It means there is no intrinsic velocity to an electron. Also, electron is known to work well in quantum electrodynamics, a highly sucessful field of quantum physics, when treated as point particle. This means that the electron itself as a particle do not have any volume. (People mistake electron probability density as electron volume but this, under definition, is wrong.) We can also directly measure most of these particles. Checking wikipedia can still give you basic qualitative background. I wonder why you haven't done it.

That tells me that you understand nothing of science nor scientific method. I wonder why you even thought of trying to apply something you don't understand to something irrelevant.

Measurable effects of God:

1. How many people pray?

2. How many times do people pray?

3. How many people avoid a certain kind of food item?

4. How many people undergo circumcision?

Etc. — TheMadFool

Logical fallacy, like me and everyone else mentioned so many times.. Those are measurable effects of our concept of God, not the existence of God itself.

Well someone has already done so, scientifically. I know you disregarded it. So I don't feel like doing the same thing.

Besides, if you are going to start on ontology, which you have already made huge fallacy out of it on this thread, I do not believe you will be able to understand.

I know. I was being generous with him.

and for gazillion times, I am saying that is exactly the fallacy you are making.

This is you on this thread:

You: I like apples better because they are healthier than oranges considering that they have fewer calories.
Others: Well, oranges have much more good nutrition than apples. Besides, an apple is only 2/3 of the calories of an orange. It's not much of a difference.
You: Well you have admitted that apples have fewer calories than oranges. So apples are more healthy and better.
Others: Like I said, the calories difference is not that significant, and there are so much more good nutrition that oranges have than apples. Besides, higher calories don't necessarily mean bad for health.
You: I am just simply stating I like apples.
Others: I know, but your reasoning behind it is not legitimate.
You: Like I've said thousands of times before, I am only simply saying that I like apples because they have lower calories and is better for your health.
Others: WTF?

You see what is wrong here? First, you are not addressing other people's concern correctly. Second, you are simply making a mistake that lower calories are always better. This is exactly what you are doing in this thread, so much that this thread isn't a discussion anymore. Can you actually, for once, correctly address what other people is trying to say? Can you actually, for once, at least attempt to understand the logical fallacy you are making that other people are telling you so many times, instead of stating same fallacious statement over and over again?

Seriously? Are you even reading anything other people are saying?

Good point. Thanks. However it follows that you also accept, given your stance, that atoms, chemical reactions, physical laws are also simply beliefs — TheMadFool

Also, this is just simply wrong. I don't even slightly understand why you even thought that follows?

You mean this?

Briefly, my point is the application of the scientific principle on existence when applied to God leads us, clearly, to affirm god's existence. We can very very easily observe the effects of God on people. Therefore, scientifically, God exists — TheMadFool

Well, you have replied to most of the counter-argument other people made, but it does not correctly address the actual point they have made. It is like saying you like apples when someone is asking if you like swimming or not. In fact, your response to Chany does not correctly refer to the argument Chany made either. What were you reading?


People have already mentioned this, but I'll rephrase it with my own words.

One of the logical fallacies you have made is the disagreement in the target of "existence." It is our concept of God and the entailing religion that affects our lives, not the existence of God itself. Some people few millennia ago created the concept of God in an attempt to explain the world. That is not the same as actually observing a god. Unless one is actually affected by this - borrowing your words - unequivocally existing God, we cannot say that our lives are affected by God.
What you are saying is analogous to saying unicorns exist because we know unicorns from fantasy books.

Another is your claim that you are "scientifically" proving the existence of God. Just because you are using the same logic in the scientific method on the existence of God does not mean you are doing science. If you apply scientific method anywhere other than science, then that method itself is already pointless. That is not science but just some other logic. It is more commonly known as philosophy. And you don't even know if that logic can be legitimately applied to this argument. So no, you are no way "scientifically" proving anything.

Well many people on this discussion already told you about the many errors in your reasoning, so it's not my position to restate what they've said (that's a hideous work). But one word pretty much summarizes your errors: fallacy.

Whether you accept it or not is not my concern at this point. Your replies to the other posts have shown that you are not easily convinced regardless of the legitimacy of their argument.

I think he's pulling your legs guys. Best let him stay beneath the bridge. — Thorongil

I agree. I could not help but to laugh at that statement: "Scientific proof"...hahaha, I'm sorry.

I'm a scientist myself, so it makes it worse...lol

I agree that a god, as a human created being in our minds, affected and still affects our lives one way or another in the way we behave, the concepts we have in terms of faith, and even the fact that we are having this argument in the first place.

Under that logic, I would say anything imaginary like unicorns, Harry Potter, Big Brother, and any of those fictional beings exists. They all have affected our lives whether it may be significant or minor.

Is there anything new here?

Well if you are discussing the actual details of science and how religion can be compatible, then you are right. But I would talk about it from the other perspective, like I did in the above post (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/45969), which you might have missed or wasn't convincing enough that you didn't think it was worth replying.

So you see there's nothing wrong in combining religion and science. — TheMadFool

I think he is referring to the fact that if you believe in a religion and science at the same time, then you will have to 1) religion your science out, and 2) science your religion out.

If you religion your science out, that is totally fine because you can just say science is merely a method to understand what a divine being has made. However, if you science your religion, then since religion is not experimentally or theoretically provable, religion is unscientific to believe in(I am not saying it is false but unscientific). Because believeing in a religion is unscientific, if you believe in both religion and science, you contradict yourself by believing something unscientific.

In actuality, this is like a vicious circularity. If you science your religion, you will have to conclude that believing in religion is an unscientific thing to do. However, you have just now done science, which is a discipline to understand what a divine being has made. But that itself is unscientific to believe in because you can't prove that scientifically...And so on. Therefore, believing in both science and religion is paradoxical.


(There is also another option, though: refuse to think about it, which is what most religious theists that believe in science do.)

Do you have an easy-to-understand conception of this ''something'' you refer to. My imagination fails me.

Also ''both God but not God'' is a contradiction provided that ''God'' refers to the same thing. — TheMadFool

I think it is easier to understand it by interpreting it from the other end. We have this "something" that is supposedly the cause of the universe, and it is up to us to interpret it as whether this is God or not. In the current situation, we do not have a clue in understanding this "something," and I think this makes up much of the reason for having so many interpretations "something" that contradicts each other. One of those interpretations happened to be God, and still, we have tons of interpretation regarding the concept of God too (think about how many religion we have).

What I am arguing in the example given in the OP is that, if someday we have better and better understanding of "something" by obtaining more evidence, then it is very likely that our current available interpretations are adjusted by the people who believe them so that they are made compatible in light of the new evidence. If we continue on with obtaining evidence, each of the interpretations will eventually go to the same direction, ultimately converging into one single objective understanding of "something".

Of course, I don't know what this "one single objective understanding of 'something'" is; no one does at the current stage because we don't have enough evidence to make people believe in the same thing.

That is surely one of the possible interpretation of the current situation. But what is important is what I've said after that part.

I don't have any general disagreement/agreement in what you've said. But just to clear things up.

Well the god-like thing I was talking about is more like an example. There are still some arguments out there that does not consider god as a being but in a form of something else, that is theist and atheist alike. So when I say "one of the possibility", it is just "one" of the several possibility I had in my mind when I think about cases like convergence of ideas. I just chose the one that many people may be familiar with. I would like the discussion to be more general and inclusive of many theories out there.

I agree that religious theists may have more difficulty in adjusting their views in light of new evidence. If the more logical ones of the theists (meaning those who thought themselves out to think that god exist, instead of just blindly believing it) were to see this new evidence, I am quite sure they will adjust their views. That is of course if they are honest, but that goes for atheists too.


Just to note, I actually don't believe that it is necessary that there is a cause to everything. Precisely, I am not saying there doesn't have to be a cause to everything. My view on this "cause and effect" metaphysics thing is more agnostic than anything else. I, myself is an atheist, but I don't necessarily completely reject theism (as long as they are logical).

So the OP is purely based on what I see, as a third-person, of the situation regarding people arguing whether God exist or not. So what I actually think about of the situation regarding God exist or not is irrelevant for now.

The book is too long to read for a little given time I have.

Do you have some short summary of what this new method is?

I agree that science is based on empirical derivation of what can be observed and interpreted from a phenomenon, making it a logical fallacy to believe them to be indisputable truths of the world. Nonetheless, like you said this "empirical derivation" makes good sense, and it works. Not only does it work by itself, but works across many other scientific disciplines and works well. This is true since almost all technological advancement is based on science, and we can actually use them with confidence most of the time. We put faith in what we discover because it works.


So do you suggest you have a better non-fallacious basis that works better? Why would anyone ever come up with questions like "meaning of life" without empirical basis? Science or not, it does not make a difference that we can only come up with questions that are based on what we can experience and interpret from it. Arguments like existence of God is still based on experience because the concept arises from the fact that most of what we experience seemingly have a beginning and our attempt to explain this.