No room for Gods in our lives

[peter grimes]

10 minute video of a talk by Sean Carroll about the world we live in, and how well we actually understand it:


Link to video.

The gist of it is that we understand the forces and particles that operate on a macro level - the level of atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies - to be able to set constraints on 'undiscovered' phenomena.

We understand this stuff so well that we can say with high confidence that there are no particle interactions left to discover on this level that are operating in our everyday lives.

This means that if you want to talk about a soul, or miracles, or gods getting angry because you're not following their rules, then you have to try to explain how those gods or souls interact with the macro universe while at the same time being completely hidden from hundreds of years of scientific investigation and explanation.

This is not to say that we already know everything and there's nothing left to discover. No! But the stuff that's still unknown - the known unknowns - and the stuff that we don't even yet know about - the unknown unknowns - cannot interact at the level of everyday stuff. It has to be far smaller than a proton, far less strong than gravity (the weakest of all known forces), far more fleeting than a blink of an eye. For all practical purposes, non-existent.

He makes a really good analogy with Chess - Physics now knows how the board is shaped and the rules governing the moves of all the chess pieces. This has been discovered by watching chess matches - observation - and then trying out different moves to see if they work. We've deduced all the rules. That doesn't mean that we now can say exactly how every chess match will unfold, this is a ripe area of research (complex systems).

I find this very comforting and rewarding - It thrills me that we're alive at a point in human development that we can know this much about the world around us. It's truly awe inspiring.

 

[Gucumatz]

*Cough* Chaos Theory and Singularity *Cough*

 

[warpus]

This means that if you want to talk about a soul, or miracles, or gods getting angry because you're not following their rules, then you have to try to explain how those gods or souls interact with the macro universe while at the same time being completely hidden from hundreds of years of scientific investigation and explanation.

Explaining it would be step 658. How about step 16 - evidence for these things actually existing?

Or step 7 - a hypothesis?

Or step 1 - something, anything, that would make us think that these things exist?

 

[peter grimes]

*Cough* Chaos Theory and Singularity *Cough*

I don't get it - are you saying that Chaos Theory or Singularities have something to do with forces and particles? If so, you'll have to really expand a bit.

If not, please explain?

 

[Borachio]

Where's the damn unified theory of everything? I've seen no evidence of that looming on the horizon. How do you reconcile quantum and macro theories? And if you can't, yet, then there would seem to be obviously something missing from your theory - whether or not your existing, though incompatible theories, can explain physical interactions to your own satisfaction.

I've heard these sorts of claims from scientists before. Then, boom!, "formerly we thought this was impossible, but now we know better."

Really, the more I find out about the world the more mysterious it becomes to me, not less.

edit: now, let me watch this video.

Yeah. It's just the standard hard materialism that science trots out every now and again. Good luck with that. It won't convince anyone except those who are already convinced.

 

[warpus]

I was skeptical at first too Borachio, but the guy in the video makes a lot of good points. There may indeed be unexplained forces out there, but if they were affecting the macro world, we would have discovered them, or at least their influence on the world. I don't think the guy is saying "We know everything". It sorta becomes clear a bit further in the video, maybe 5-6 minutes in.

As for a unified theory, it might not even bring any new forces into the equation - it might just be a new framework that helps to explain all the existing stuff we already know about in a new and clever way. Like for example string theory - it doesn't introduce any new macro forces, just a new way to look at fundamental particles and things smaller than them.

So he could be wrong, but I don't think what he claims is so far fetched.

 

[Thedrin]

This means that if you want to talk about a soul, or miracles, or gods getting angry because you're not following their rules, then you have to try to explain how those gods or souls interact with the macro universe while at the same time being completely hidden from hundreds of years of scientific investigation and explanation.

Doesn't this argument rely on the assumption that such a god exists within the Universe and is constrained by physical laws?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If he isn't within the Universe than he has no effect on it by definition.

 

[peter grimes]

Doesn't this argument rely on the assumption that such a god exists within the Universe and is constrained by physical laws?

Yes, that's exactly his point. It's not an assumption - it's the conclusion. There is no room in this universe for gods as depicted in just about every religion. No room for souls, either.

If you're postulating a god that's outside of this universe that's unable to influence this one, then I think a whole bunch of theologians and believers around the world would say that doesn't describe the gods they talk about.

Or souls.

 

[Thedrin]

@ Hobbs:

Possibly using different definitions of Universe there, so I'll have to rephrase.

Doesn't this argument rely on the assumption that such a god is constrained by the same physical laws as everything that we observe?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Possibly, but that's not a bad assumption to make considering the Universe is everything by conventional definition.

 

[Thedrin]

Yes, that's exactly his point. It's not an assumption - it's the conclusion. There is no room in this universe for gods as depicted in just about every religion. No room for souls, either.

If you're postulating a god that's outside of this universe that's unable to influence this one, then I think a whole bunch of theologians and believers around the world would say that doesn't describe the gods they talk about.

Or souls.

Nope.

I'm not sure why it's automatically assumed that a being looking into our Universe from outside is unable to affect it directly. Or, if I'm using Universe in an unacceptable manner, why a being existing outside of the big bang is unable to reach in and make direct changes.

I'm not a theist by the way.

 

[Thedrin]

Possibly, but that's not a bad assumption to make considering the Universe is everything by conventional definition.

In such discussions I tend to use Universe to refer to the region influenced by the big bang. If you can give me an alternative and snappy term to describe this region, I'll consider using it.

 

[peter grimes]

@ Hobbs:

Possibly using different definitions of Universe there, so I'll have to rephrase.

Doesn't this argument rely on the assumption that such a god is constrained by the same physical laws as everything that we observe?

He talks about just this idea starting at 2:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1ypyVjSaj4w#t=169s

The idea is that if the postulated god were to interact with something in this universe, it has to happen in a way that the matter (or energy) is subject to his force. Watch from where I tagged the video, he explains it better than I can. He uses the example of a hypothetical xilbot particle that grants free will - but we can talk about it as perhaps the particle that the gods use to cause miracles if you like. If such a particle exists, its interactions are constrained by what we already have confirmed about the universe such that it must be very rare, or very high energy, or very short-lived in space and time.

That's not like the gods people talk about believing in.

 

[Thedrin]

He talks about just this idea starting at 2:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1ypyVjSaj4w#t=169s

The idea is that if the postulated god were to interact with something in this universe, it has to happen in a way that the matter (or energy) is subject to his force. Watch from where I tagged the video, he explains it better than I can. He uses the example of a hypothetical xilbot particle that grants free will - but we can talk about it as perhaps the particle that the gods use to cause miracles if you like. If such a particle exists, its interactions are constrained by what we already have confirmed about the universe such that it must be very rare, or very high energy, or very short-lived in space and time.

That's not like the gods people talk about believing in.

I'm unable to watch it currently, but I will later.

I do hope this statement:

the postulated god were to interact with something in this universe, it has to happen in a way that the matter (or energy) is subject to his force

is more than just a postulate since that's an assumption I won't automatically make and any argument built on it is, consequently, suspect. (edit: I do realise that my wording makes it seem that I'm misreading the use of the word "postulated" in that statement)

 

[peter grimes]

I'm unable to watch it currently, but I will later.

I do hope this statement:



is more than just a postulate since that's an assumption I won't automatically make and any argument built on it is, consequently, suspect. (edit: I do realise that my wording makes it seem that I'm misreading the use of the word "postulated" in that statement)

I'm the one who may be using the word 'postulate' wrong.

Let me rephrase?

"the postulated hypothetical god were to interact with something in this universe, it has to happen in a way that the matter (or energy) is subject to his force..."

I think you might be saying that you aren't automatically accepting some of the laws of thermodynamics, classical mechanics, and QFT?

For example, if HG (Hypothetical God) were to safe my life by raising me from the dead - just like Lazarus - then he'd have to do the equivalent of unscrambling an egg: running an exothermic reaction in reverse with no input of energy. That's like pushing a rock uphill, and having no change in kinetic or potential energy. It's like changing the mass and length of a pendulum, yet the period stays constant.

And you are not ready to rule this sort of thing out? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Borachio]

I was skeptical at first too Borachio, but the guy in the video makes a lot of good points. There may indeed be unexplained forces out there, but if they were affecting the macro world, we would have discovered them, or at least their influence on the world. I don't think the guy is saying "We know everything". It sorta becomes clear a bit further in the video, maybe 5-6 minutes in.

As for a unified theory, it might not even bring any new forces into the equation - it might just be a new framework that helps to explain all the existing stuff we already know about in a new and clever way. Like for example string theory - it doesn't introduce any new macro forces, just a new way to look at fundamental particles and things smaller than them.

So he could be wrong, but I don't think what he claims is so far fetched.

Oh no it's not at all far fetched. But it's all a bit simplistic in my opinion.

I can't possibly untangle all of this (being a hard materialist myself!), but take his claim that there is "no life after death."

Well, plainly there isn't. By definition. You can't exist in two states at once, both dead and alive. (You might say he isn't saying this, of course.)

But this misses the point by a mile (in much the same way I think most fundamentalists do too, but for different reasons).

1. He's thinking of "life after death" in the same terms as he's thinking of "life before death." And there's absolutely no reason to do this.

2. People's concern with "life after death" has very little to do with science. People are concerned about their own experience of death. Or rather, of dying. Which is a process that we all have to go through one way or another and is a fundamental part of an individual's life.

I suppose what I object to is simply the facile dismissal of this sort of issue that I'm trying, badly, to allude to above.

Fine, the guy doesn't believe in the existence of an immortal soul. Neither do I, at the moment*. But so what? I'm still confronted with what appears to be the fundamental mystery of my own existence right now.

*But I'm hardly likely, at the moment, to stand up on my hind legs and declare to any who care to listen that this is now known for sure. Which is what he seems to be doing. I've said it before, in my paradoxical way: there's nothing certain.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In such discussions I tend to use Universe to refer to the region influenced by the big bang. If you can give me an alternative and snappy term to describe this region, I'll consider using it.

The region influenced by the big bang is everything there is and that can be observed.

 

[lovett]

The idea is that if the postulated god were to interact with something in this universe, it has to happen in a way that the matter (or energy) is subject to his force. Watch from where I tagged the video, he explains it better than I can. He uses the example of a hypothetical xilbot particle that grants free will - but we can talk about it as perhaps the particle that the gods use to cause miracles if you like. If such a particle exists, its interactions are constrained by what we already have confirmed about the universe such that it must be very rare, or very high energy, or very short-lived in space and time.

There is no reason God could not simply break the laws of nature.

 

[strijder20]

There is no reason God could not simply break the laws of nature.

We would observe that.

Unless you're saying he's intentionally fooling us too and therefore hiding it from our eyes, making it look the laws of physics aren't broken. In which case I'm not willing to have a discussion with you, as such an assumption takes away our entire idea of logic and science and therefore makes discussions meaningless.