Am I agnostic, atheist or something else?

[MadMojoMonkey]

The universe doesn't give a hoot about your best description of it.

What does anyone know about if/what the universe "gives a hoot about"?

That the vehicle of probability is so useful in our description of the universe doesn't mean "that uncertainty dominates the microscopic world". You shoulda said uncertainty dominates our understanding of the microscopic world.

OK, point well taken, but that implies that our understanding is uncertain, which is not the case. It is our understanding that uncertainty dominates the observable qualities of particles.

Our understanding is that complex wave functions describe probability distributions, which describe all observable information about a particle. These functions evolve over time in a way that is consistent with the evolution of waves over time. There are many coupled states for which one observable, say position, is the Fourier Transform of another observable, in this example momentum. The more localized the probability distribution is in either, the more non-localized the distribution becomes in the other. A decrease in the error bars on one results in an increase in the error bars on the other. This is not a mathematical error or a measurement error, it is intrinsic uncertainty in the nature of observable qualities.

While it is certain that our understanding is not perfect, any further knowledge of the underlying mechanism which presents itself to us as uncertainty, can only reveal the nature by which these complex probability waves are created and give more detail of what they're composed. If it doesn't support and explain the extremely well documented inherent uncertainty that is observed, then it can not be a "better" model. Just as if QM made predictions that were incompatible with Maxwell's equations and Thermodynamics, it would be a bad theory. The same is true for Einstein's General Relativity.

The difference is stark. On the one side is us and our brains and how they describe the universe and on the other is the universe and how it is carried across all that is.

OK, but now you're calling into question what can be considered knowledge. You're calling into question if observations of the universe can be independent of the true nature of the universe.

OK, I posit that there can be a process by which we, as humans, deal with the fact that we have no certainty that the universe will work tomorrow as it does today.

Let's call it science. The more we do science... the more observations that are collected by independent sources and examined collectively... the more we can find consistent statements. We require that those statement are of a form that they can be disproved, and we try our hardest to disprove them. When we cannot disprove them, after many, many observations, we call those statements knowledge.

Balls in your court on this one. I am no expert on information theory or on the philosophy of knowledge.

And don't think that I'm leading you with some argument. I'm standing in one spot.

Thank you. I'm sorry if I haven't taken you 100% seriously on all fronts.

[a500lbgorilla]

I really can't give a response to your whole post because it is just teeming with so much to latch on to.

And-a-but

What does anyone know about if/what the universe "gives a hoot about"?

But this guy agrees with me



When he says, "One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions."

Or as I said, reality doesn't give a hoot about your description of it.

[a500lbgorilla]

OK, point well taken, but that implies that our understanding is uncertain, which is not the case. It is our understanding that uncertainty dominates the observable qualities of particles.

Ah ha, ha! It does imply that. And it shouldn't.

[a500lbgorilla]

This is not a mathematical error or a measurement error, it is intrinsic uncertainty in the nature of observable qualities.

Yes! And what have I been saying?

To say that the uncertainty is inherent in nature is to say that our ability to observe is complete.

[a500lbgorilla]

While it is certain that our understanding is not perfect, any further knowledge of the underlying mechanism which presents itself to us as uncertainty, can only reveal the nature by which these complex probability waves are created and give more detail of what they're composed.

Sweetlord, sidebar.

What makes you know that there is an underlying mechanism which presents itself to us as uncertainty?

I ain't trapping you here. ya hear?

[MadMojoMonkey]

To say that the uncertainty is inherent in nature is to say that our ability to observe is complete.

No, it does not follow. You misunderstand one of the primary lessons of QM. Read up as much as you can on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Read what motivated it, the fervent opposition to it, and the experiments that have confirmed it.

You will see that the more and more complete our observations become, the more and more they support the inherent uncertainties in QM. The act of observation will never be complete, but the observation-based uncertainties are limited more and more over time.

Currently, the uncertainties based on observation are orders of magnitude less than the uncertainties predicted by QM. The QM uncertainties dominate the total uncertainty, and are as predicted.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sweetlord, sidebar.

What makes you know that there is an underlying mechanism which presents itself to us as uncertainty?

I ain't trapping you here. ya hear?

Nothing has indicated to me that such a mechanism exists.

Just as nothing had indicated a sub-structure of an atom a while ago, but that was wrong. Nothing predicted the sub-structure of a proton, but that has been discovered as well.

If there is a sub-structure to what are currently understood at complex-valued probability distribution functions, that could shed light on the nature of the inherent uncertainty. It can not make the uncertainty go away. Even if there is some model that is fully compatible with QM which does not involve wave functions, but which looks like wave functions in the special case of particles, the fact that it looks like wave functions (if nothing else) introduces uncertainty.

[a500lbgorilla]

On the one hand, these conversations, over the internet, devolve into something very silly.

But on the other hand, these conversations are an aspect of the free exchange of ideas.

I'd like to believe the reason that the overwhelming majority of young people in America support gay marriage is tied to the infrastructure of the internet and how it allows for these stupid and complicated sorts of conversations to be run-through time and again.

[oskar]

Maybe I have a misguided understanding of the definition of atheism, but I always understood it to be a rejection of theism, not a position of categorically denying even the possibility of the existence of the supernatural, but the mere rejection of the god hypothesis as being baseless and pointless. I like that because I do not want to call myself an agnostic something, which brings connotations of being a fencehopping simpleton who thinks everything unprooven is equally improbable.

Anyone who calls himself an agnostic-atheist has thought things through enough to reject any theistic deity as completely absurd and astronomically unlikely, but to someone with a less stable grip on reality it sounds like you are a seeker who just hasn't heard the right proverbs yet.

That's why I'd rather not deal with that agnostic nonsense: You reject every major religion as equally absurd, and your level of uncertainty has a devider of Grahams number? Call yourself an atheist! Otherwise we can just throw out the definition alltogether because it applies to noone.

[oskar]

If you don't believe that one or more gods exist, then you're atheist (opposite of theist).

What I'm getting to is that if that really is the definition, then it's a stupid word to begin with. Why would you take it on belief that a superstition is untrue? You say: I haven't been presented sufficient evidence for your hypothesis, therefore I reject it. You wouldn't call yourself an agnostic A-Santaclausist on the base of your rejection of the Santa Claus hypothesis. You just say: you are stupid, that's Garry's dad in a red coat!

[spoonitnow]

What I'm getting to is that if that really is the definition, then it's a stupid word to begin with. Why would you take it on belief that a superstition is untrue? You say: I haven't been presented sufficient evidence for your hypothesis, therefore I reject it. You wouldn't call yourself an agnostic A-Santaclausist on the base of your rejection of the Santa Claus hypothesis. You just say: you are stupid, that's Garry's dad in a red coat!

You're dumb.

[oskar]

No, you're dumb!

[a500lbgorilla]

Anyone who calls himself an agnostic-atheist has thought things through enough to reject any theistic deity as completely absurd and astronomically unlikely, but to someone with a less stable grip on reality it sounds like you are a seeker who just hasn't heard the right proverbs yet.

Hey man, we're like all seekers.

When you, like, hear the right proverbs... maybe it won't be with your ears. Maybe they won't be from a book... maybe like... one day... it'll click and you'll know, man.

On NPR yesterday they were talking about religious experiences induced by psilocybin. I wish I could find the podcast online and I sent an email to the station without word back.

But they had 20 guys who were going to some religious school that preps priests. On an Easter they took them to the basement of a church and gave 10 a placebo and 10 magic mushrooms.

This one dude had this incredible story about his experience, how he was standing in this circle with colored light emanating in each direction taking him to some other place and time and he had to choose one but he couldn't. It began to tear him up inside and eventually he heard some old dude's voice that he knew say something like "I will die for you this one time, Death. But that is all I will do." and then he died.

After the experience, 9/10 of the mushroomers went on to become full-fledged preachers while 0/10 of the placebo did.

I thought it was pretty cool.

[d0zer]

joe rogan's right: we should require our elected representatives to have tripped on mushrooms at some point in their lives