Quantum theory question

[alex04]

Hope i've posted this in the correct forum!

Was looking up Quantum Theory vids on youtube (don't groan, i like to see and hear people explain stuff!), and came across a Richard Dawkins vid.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jJcmYILypMI

Two of the posted comments (same author) ;

I use to teach Quantum Physics and just because you can refine a prediction, It is still just a prediction. Just because you can make a precise predictions on a small areas of a theory, does not mean you understand the entirety of the foundations behind it. All science is a series of predictions we know nothing of the underpinnings of anything.
---------------------------------------
Both science and religion make assumptions based on very limited information. For those of you that truely understand Quantum Theory -- there are parts of the theory that are just as unbelievable as God creating earth and man in six days - If fact if you believe the farthest reaches of Quantum Theory you will find that God theory might be somewhat reasonable in the Quantum World. It all depend on which magic you choose to believe - God Miracle or accidental Singularities.

_____________________________________


I'm thinking he's basically saying that science and religion are equally believable, given his study into quantum theory.

The problem i have with it, is that i guess you could equally believe every other manifestation of the human imagination (ghosts, FSM etc.).

I thought science was about observation. Quantum theory may have given rise to ideas that don't make sense, but i don't understand how a comparison can be made when there's no actual starting point for evidence of 'god'?

ugh, not sure if i'm making sense, but is my skepticism valid at all? For the record, i don't have the qualifications that this guy apparently does.

 

[~enigma~]

For the record, i don't have the qualifications that this guy apparently does.

And what makes you sure this guy has qualifications? He didn't mention the fact that faith isn't falsafiable yet science is (when it's wrong).

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm thinking he's basically saying that science and religion are equally believable, given his study into quantum theory.

Quantum mechanics is notoriously mis-understood by most people, including some very smart folks, primarily because it describes a universe which is so damn weird that it seems right out of an acid trip. The thing to realize though is that quantum theory is perhaps one of the most validated physical theories in history, and we have hoards of technology based upon it (such as the laptop upon which I type this message). So we know that it works because it has passed the bar of testing/experimentation and we can make cool gadgets using it.

I doubt religion can make those same claims

Now, how he makes some kind of connection between science & religion via quantum theory I have no idea. It is not uncommon for people to mis-represent quantum theory (either intentionally or not) and take things off into some wacky philosophical realm. This gets especially sticky when one starts discussing the various interpretations of quantum theory, in and out of the scientific community. For example, just read up on the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory.

The problem i have with it, is that i guess you could equally believe every other manifestation of the human imagination (ghosts, FSM etc.).

Yes, that could make things rather problematic. Not having some kind of "reality filter" is a major defect, imo.

I thought science was about observation. Quantum theory may have given rise to ideas that don't make sense, but i don't understand how a comparison can be made when there's no actual starting point for evidence of 'god'?

Science is about observation, but also much much more. You must also have hypotheses, testing, peer-review and the whole bit (I'm paraphrasing in the extreme here) in order to fit within the generally accepted mold of "science".

Imo, the entire "god" question is a philosophical, as opposed to a scientific, one.

ugh, not sure if i'm making sense, but is my skepticism valid at all? For the record, i don't have the qualifications that this guy apparently does.

I'm not entirely sure of what you are skeptical. Could you clarify?

Cheers - Mattus

 

[sol invictus]

ugh, not sure if i'm making sense, but is my skepticism valid at all? For the record, i don't have the qualifications that this guy apparently does.

After reading the quotes you gave, I can assure you the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. For one thing, "Quantum Theory" is not a proper name and should not be capitalized - a small thing, but telling. And then there's the fact that what he says about it is nonsense.

 

[MattusMaximus]

After reading the quotes you gave, I can assure you the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. For one thing, "Quantum Theory" is not a proper name and should not be capitalized - a small thing, but telling. And then there's the fact that what he says about it is nonsense.

Agreed. It seems to me like the guy basically wanted to make himself sound like he was making a good point, so he decided to throw some b.s. about Quantum Theory in there. He seems to me to be like the Christian version of the Ramtha "What The Bleep?" weirdos.

Oy vey, will the tide of woo ever cease? I already know the answer -- doesn't mean I'm psychic though

Cheers - Mattus

 

[alex04]

Science is about observation, but also much much more. You must also have hypotheses, testing, peer-review and the whole bit (I'm paraphrasing in the extreme here) in order to fit within the generally accepted mold of "science".

^understand that (guess i should have explained my understanding further)

Imo, the entire "god" question is a philosophical, as opposed to a scientific, one.

I'd agree with that, when the question is 'why', as opposed to 'how'

I'm not entirely sure of what you are skeptical. Could you clarify?

Cheers - Mattus

Sure,

pretty much this post -

Both science and religion make assumptions based on very limited information. For those of you that truely understand Quantum Theory -- there are parts of the theory that are just as unbelievable as God creating earth and man in six days - If fact if you believe the farthest reaches of Quantum Theory you will find that God theory might be somewhat reasonable in the Quantum World. It all depend on which magic you choose to believe - God Miracle or accidental Singularities.


I'm skeptical of him saying that 'god' is as equally believable as observed & tested phenomenon, regardless of how strange it seems.

 

[alex04]

For one thing, "Quantum Theory" is not a proper name and should not be capitalized

Never even thought of that actually! Speaks volumes about myself

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm skeptical of him saying that 'god' is as equally believable as observed & tested phenomenon, regardless of how strange it seems.

Yeah, well, here's how I handle that when it comes up in conversation (which, believe it or not, it does). I tell them that if they want to make their "proof" of god a scientific question, then they need to propose an experiment that could falsify their god hypothesis.

Funny thing is that they're never able to come up with a way to potentially falsify god. And that's when I explain the difference between science and religion to them.

For religious people, this is a particularly hard point for them to grasp. Some are just jerks about it, trying to make crap up and "preach to the unbelievers", but some honestly cannot grasp the distinction very well.

Cheers - Mattus

 

[Mobyseven]

And what makes you sure this guy has qualifications? He didn't mention the fact that faith isn't falsafiable yet science is (when it's wrong).

[nitpick]Science (a scientific hypothesis or theory) doesn't have to be wrong to be falsifiable, but if it is falsified then it is (at least in part) wrong. A correct theory would also be falsifiable - it just would never be falsified.[/nitpick]

 

[alex04]

And what makes you sure this guy has qualifications? He didn't mention the fact that faith isn't falsafiable yet science is (when it's wrong).

Now you know why i used the qualifier 'apparently'

ETA: Profile says Professer of Theoretical Physics (<<verbatim, including capitalisation)

ETA (2): also says 'Smartest man in existence!' ... alright, maybe his posts are a joke?

 

[alex04]

Anyway, thanks for the feedback guys, much appreciated!

 

[Cuddles]

I'm skeptical of him saying that 'god' is as equally believable as observed & tested phenomenon, regardless of how strange it seems.

You have it exactly right here. Believability is irrelevant. What matters is how ideas actually match up with reality. When it comes to quantum mechanics, there are an awful lot of predicitions that match reality as closely as we can currently measure. There isn't a single predicition made by any god ideas that even comes close to being verified scientifically.

The problem is always this "common sense" thing. Common sense is basically an evolved trait to help us cope with and understand the world we live in. This means it's generally pretty good at dealing with things on human scales, but has absolutely no idea about things which weren't issues when we were evolving. God is an easy concept because even though it has changed over time, it is still mostly just a person who happens to be bigger and more powerful than us, which is something everyone can relate to. Quantum effects just don't exist on the human scale, and so we aren't equipped to deal with them. Abstract thought and the scientific method allow us to explore such things, but for those who haven't specifically studied them, there is just no familiar ground for them to grasp, and so it seems unbelievable.