It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I have watched a few debates recently and the athiest scientist always talk about the physical or material universe. This is mainly people like Krauss, Dawkins and others. It amazes me that thee scientist don't know there's not a shred of evidence that an objective material universe exist. In fact, all of the evidence points to God creating the universe. Scientist realize a material universe doesn't make send without an intelligent mind. You will see in the evidence presented, how these Scientist give the universe attributes of a mind.

1. The universe is a hologram

The Holographic Universe has been around for awhile and it has a solid foundation in physics. It's based on things like black hole thermodynamics and the Bekenstein Bound. Basically, a volume of space is proportional to information on a 2D surface area surrounding that volume. So your closet can't be filled with actual matter occupying it's total volume or it would collapse into a black hole. It's a holographic projection of information of a 2D surface area surrounding that volume. So the 3rd dimension would be an illusion as said by Susskind and the Scientist in the 1st video below. If there were an objective material universe, why talk about the universe as a hologram?





2. Matter is mostly empty space

This is well known along with you don't actually touch anything. Ask yourself, why is this the case if an objective physical universe exists?







3. The universe is a Quantum Computer

Professor Seth Lloyd and others say the universe is a Quantum Computer. Again, ask yourself, why do you need these kinds of explanations to explain the universe if it's just a material world blindly following these laws of physics that just popped up out of nowhere.



The universe as quantum computer

Seth Lloyd

This article reviews the history of digital computation, and investigates just how far the concept of computation can be taken. In particular, I address the question of whether the universe itself is in fact a giant computer, and if so, just what kind of computer it is. I will show that the universe can be regarded as a giant quantum computer. The quantum computational model of the universe explains a variety of observed phenomena not encompassed by the ordinary laws of physics. In particular, the model shows that the the quantum computational universe automatically gives rise to a mix of randomness and order, and to both simple and complex systems.


arxiv.org...

Why would an objective physical universe need to be a quantum computer? It has the laws of physics and brute materialism. The fact is, an objective material universe is a fantasy.

4. The universe is a simulation

Again, there's no evidence that an objective material universe exists. This is why Scientist keep coming up with these explantions.







5. Donald Hoffman - The Case Against Reality

Donald Hoffman wrote a really good book called The Case Against Reality. Here's an article on him.

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.



I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroscientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to describe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose hasn’t taken it far enough. But most of us, you know, we’re born realists. We’re born physicalists. This is a really, really hard one to let go of.


www.quantamagazine.org...

Here's a Professor of Cognitive Science from the University of California questioning physical reality. Why, if the material world is so absolute as some athiest pop scientist want us to believe.

The Most Famous Paradox in Physics Nears Its End


edit on 12-9-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 06:47 PM
link   
CONT'D

6. Spacetime is a Quantum Error Correcting Code

If spacetime is a quantum error correcting code, then the universe is a simulation of information. This would explain why space is so vast. You need many more physical qubits(space) to encode logical qubits(the universe). Again, why are these theories needed if the universe is just an objective material universe? Spacetime doesn't need to be a quantum error correcting code, it has the laws of physics and dumb luck!



How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code

The same codes needed to thwart errors in quantum computers may also give the fabric of space-time its intrinsic robustness.


www.quantamagazine.org...

Where does this information come from? It could come from Black Holes. A recent study showed that when objects fall into a black hole, the information about the object isn't destroyed but is spread out over the event horizon in an encrypted way. This information can escape the black hole via Hawking Radiation. This makes sense if spacetime is a quantum error correcting code which will decrypt the information leaving a black hole.


He considered an aspect of the process that had been relatively neglected: quantum entanglement. The emitted radiation maintains a quantum mechanical link to its place of origin. If you measure either the radiation or the black hole on its own, it looks random, but if you consider them jointly, they exhibit a pattern. It’s like encrypting your data with a password. The data without the password is gibberish. The password, if you have chosen a good one, is meaningless too. But together they unlock the information. Maybe, thought Page, information can come out of the black hole in a similarly encrypted form.

Page calculated what that would mean for the total amount of entanglement between the black hole and the radiation, a quantity known as the entanglement entropy. At the start of the whole process, the entanglement entropy is zero, since the black hole has not yet emitted any radiation to be entangled with. At the end of the process, if information is preserved, the entanglement entropy should be zero again, since there is no longer a black hole. “I got curious how the radiation entropy would change in between,” Page said.

Initially, as radiation trickles out, the entanglement entropy grows. Page reasoned that this trend has to reverse. The entropy has to stop rising and start dropping if it is to hit zero by the endpoint. Over time, the entanglement entropy should follow a curve shaped like an inverted V.


www.quantamagazine.org...



The article continues:

Over the past two years, physicists have shown that the entanglement entropy of black holes really does follow the Page curve, indicating that information gets out. They did the analysis in stages. First, they showed how it would work using insights from string theory. Then, in papers published last fall, researchers cut the tether to string theory altogether.

Again, why if there's an objective material universe?

7.Subatomic particles aren't particles

Quantum Field Theory tells us that what we call subatomic particles are excitations of underlying quantum fields not anything like a material particle of sand or salt. Here's some quotes from Werner Heisenberg that illustrate this:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” ― Werner Heisenberg

8. Scientist are saying the universe is conscious

Here's some articles that simply show that an objective material universe can't explain anything and scientist have to look elswhere.

QUANTUM PHYSICIST SHOWS HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CAN CREATE REALITY

mindmatters.ai...

Is the Universe Conscious?

Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.


www.nbcnews.com...

Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?

www.space.com...

Some Scientists Believe the Universe Is Conscious

www.popularmechanics.com...

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?

www.scientificamerican.com...

Is the universe conscious? It seems impossible until you do the maths

www.newscientist.com...

9. Here's a few articles that show Scientist are just giving the universe the attributes of a Mind because an objective material universe makes no sense.

Stephon Alexander interview: Is the universe a self-learning AI?

www.newscientist.com...

The Universe Is a Machine That Keeps Learning, Scientists Say Basically, we live in one giant algorithm.

www.popularmechanics.com...

The Universe Might Be One Big Neural Network, Study Finds

www.popularmechanics.com...

I can go on and on but I will stop here. The point is, there's no evidence of an objective material universe and Scientist keep bumping into God as they try to explain the universe. I will leave you with another Heisenberg quote:

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ― Werner Heisenberg



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Great Thread !
S+F



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:06 PM
link   


Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?




Literally the last 4 billion years of history preceding the rise of the human race. Not counting the 10ish billion years of astrophysics before that.



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I once heard on one of the science shows on TV that a French mathematician stated that the universe could have been programmed with a few lines of code .

So , who was the dev ?
That would mean that the subject would come right back around to creationism .



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

We always reinvent better instruments of sight & measurements. In 10 thousand years a molocule will be extremely large in comparison to what is discovered. Before figuring out what the universe is, humans must first know how small matter gets.

I don't subcribe to any modern theory of this sort. I can say our universe is very tiny & we have a lot more to figure out before we can grasp just how small it really is.



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Wow! That is a complete (read: long) thread. I admit completely that I have not gone through it all yet, but I did want to take a quick moment to jump in on the initial premise of your thread which you state in the beginning. I am a man of faith (I figure, right or wrong, that you are as well). I can't stand the debate between science and faith...it's so stupid. I have a Bachelors in Science, and I have never felt that there was a discrepancy between the two. Einstein believed in God. Newton believed in God. Were they kooks and crazies? I would argue not. I believe that when God created, well, creation, He did so with a certain Divine mechanism that, as we've come along as a species, we have found more and more ways to decipher. This is what science is! It's our breaking down the code of creation. It proves rather than disproves it.

If you have an hour and half free...watch the following movie. It's very well done and EXTREMELY telling. Worth a watch.




posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
I once heard on one of the science shows on TV that a French mathematician stated that the universe could have been programmed with a few lines of code .

So , who was the dev ?
That would mean that the subject would come right back around to creationism .



“If things work out as I expect, there will come a day when one can hold the lines of code that created the whole universe in one’s hand,” said Wolfram, who revealed his big idea in a 1,200-page self-published opus titled “A New Kind of Science.”


If I didn't know better, I would say the pursuit of god isn't to shake his hand, but evict him and take his keys for our own purposes.



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Gothmog
I once heard on one of the science shows on TV that a French mathematician stated that the universe could have been programmed with a few lines of code .

So , who was the dev ?
That would mean that the subject would come right back around to creationism .



“If things work out as I expect, there will come a day when one can hold the lines of code that created the whole universe in one’s hand,” said Wolfram, who revealed his big idea in a 1,200-page self-published opus titled “A New Kind of Science.”


If I didn't know better, I would say the pursuit of god isn't to shake his hand, but evict him and take his keys for our own purposes.


Shotgun! Called it!



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Gothmog
I once heard on one of the science shows on TV that a French mathematician stated that the universe could have been programmed with a few lines of code .

So , who was the dev ?
That would mean that the subject would come right back around to creationism .



“If things work out as I expect, there will come a day when one can hold the lines of code that created the whole universe in one’s hand,” said Wolfram, who revealed his big idea in a 1,200-page self-published opus titled “A New Kind of Science.”


If I didn't know better, I would say the pursuit of god isn't to shake his hand, but evict him and take his keys for our own purposes.


Shotgun! Called it!


Are you sure you don't want to drive?



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
I once heard on one of the science shows on TV that a French mathematician stated that the universe could have been programmed with a few lines of code .

So , who was the dev ?
That would mean that the subject would come right back around to creationism .


Exactly!

That's the point. All of these theories lead to the same conclusion. They all conclude the universe was created whether they say it's a self learning AI, a neural network or a simulation. They're all accepting creation in different ways but you could know the universe was Created just by reading the Bible:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm



Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?




Literally the last 4 billion years of history preceding the rise of the human race. Not counting the 10ish billion years of astrophysics before that.


Were you there?



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf
a reply to: neoholographic

Wow! That is a complete (read: long) thread. I admit completely that I have not gone through it all yet, but I did want to take a quick moment to jump in on the initial premise of your thread which you state in the beginning. I am a man of faith (I figure, right or wrong, that you are as well). I can't stand the debate between science and faith...it's so stupid. I have a Bachelors in Science, and I have never felt that there was a discrepancy between the two. Einstein believed in God. Newton believed in God. Were they kooks and crazies? I would argue not. I believe that when God created, well, creation, He did so with a certain Divine mechanism that, as we've come along as a species, we have found more and more ways to decipher. This is what science is! It's our breaking down the code of creation. It proves rather than disproves it.

If you have an hour and half free...watch the following movie. It's very well done and EXTREMELY telling. Worth a watch.



Expelled was a good Documentary.

I like when you said:

I am a man of faith (I figure, right or wrong, that you are as well). I can't stand the debate between science and faith...it's so stupid. I have a Bachelors in Science, and I have never felt that there was a discrepancy between the two.

Great point and I see it the same way.



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dalamax

originally posted by: TzarChasm



Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?




Literally the last 4 billion years of history preceding the rise of the human race. Not counting the 10ish billion years of astrophysics before that.


Were you there?


No one was there. That's the point.



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 07:57 PM
link   
If you weren’t there, where do you get your figures from?

a reply to: TzarChasm



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf
a reply to: neoholographic

Wow! That is a complete (read: long) thread. I admit completely that I have not gone through it all yet, but I did want to take a quick moment to jump in on the initial premise of your thread which you state in the beginning. I am a man of faith (I figure, right or wrong, that you are as well). I can't stand the debate between science and faith...it's so stupid. I have a Bachelors in Science, and I have never felt that there was a discrepancy between the two. Einstein believed in God. Newton believed in God. Were they kooks and crazies? I would argue not. I believe that when God created, well, creation, He did so with a certain Divine mechanism that, as we've come along as a species, we have found more and more ways to decipher. This is what science is! It's our breaking down the code of creation. It proves rather than disproves it.

If you have an hour and half free...watch the following movie. It's very well done and EXTREMELY telling. Worth a watch.



Expelled was a good Documentary.

I like when you said:

I am a man of faith (I figure, right or wrong, that you are as well). I can't stand the debate between science and faith...it's so stupid. I have a Bachelors in Science, and I have never felt that there was a discrepancy between the two.

Great point and I see it the same way.



Cool. Very glad to hear, and thanks for saying so. These threads can become so divisive that it's nice to receive a positive comment. I literally just dropped out of my own thread (the one below that is about the Lutheran church making a trans-person a Bishop). There was one person who, no matter what I said or how I said it just kept coming back with fallacy after fallacy. They finally wore me down to the point where I just wasn't going to engage any longer. Not because I was succumbing to their fallacious position, but because I just wasn't going to continue to go round and round.



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Dalamax

Are you arguing that the planet isn't 4.5 billion years old, or that experts can't confirm no people existed until the last million years? (Assuming neanderthals can be called people)


edit on 12-9-2021 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I once asked a 4 year old if something can come from nothing.

He said "No, silly".

Some 4 year old's are smarter than scientists.

Some just can't acknowledge God.

Rom 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 
Rom 1:21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 
Rom 1:22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Now you have done it .
I started thinking about the "Great Expansion" and for some reason my thoughts went back to my youth .
The TVs back then , when powered on , started as a dot in the center and expanded the screen to the edges .

??????



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
QUANTUM PHYSICIST SHOWS HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CAN CREATE REALITY

mindmatters.ai...
There is a bit of a rebuttal contained in your own link:

In a review of Bryan Magee’s The Philosophy of Schopenhauer (1985), Roger Kimball notes that his concept of Will is not exactly encouraging:

An endless and ultimately purposeless striving, the will shows itself as much in the pull of gravity or the germination and growth of plants as in man. In most of the will’s manifestations, then, the question of “intentions” does not arise.


Alan Sokal made an offer to people who think their consciousness or will can create reality without gravity etc:

"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)"


originally posted by: TzarChasm
No one was there. That's the point.

That's a good point, which is why it makes no sense to over-inflate the relevance of human consciousness in the universe when humans weren't even around for most of the existence of the universe.




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join