Not trying to be rude or anything; but It's curious that you can claim certainty about a complex element of quantum mechanics; yet admit to not being able to model the basic phenomenon of light traveling through a dual slit.
reliv3
joined 2 years ago
Curious, how do you explain the dual slit phenomenon?
Science isn't actually "physicalist". In fact one major theory in science, Quantum Mechanics, would probably challenge physicalism since quantum suggests that there will always be unknowable physical quantities regarding any given particle of matter. It also suggests that particles of matter (and light) must interact with an observer in order to exist in a state where some physical quantities can be known; else these particles exist only in an exotic state of indefinite probalistic fluctuations.
I must say though, even though quantum challenges physicalism, quantum's model of the universe truly rejects the possibility of any omniscient entity. Omniscience requires the ability to know everything about the universe and quantum suggests that this is in fact impossible; therefore a truly omniscient god would be impossible. It was for this reason that god-fearing Albert Einstein rejected quantum mechanics up until his death bed.
This argument is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. It reminds me of the classic "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then does it make a sound?". The purpose of this statement is to question whether the observer is a requirement for something to be real.
Ultimately, I think science doesn't have a solid answer to this question. Quantum mechanics might suggest the answer to be "no", since matter exists as a probability function until something measures (observes) it. This would suggest that a lack of observer would leave matter in an exotic state which would not allow such a definite process as falling in the woods. On the other hand, general relativity would suggest that the tree would make a sound because all matter affects the spacetime continuum whether an observer is there or not. This would suggest that the tree's existence is independent from an observer. The tree's matter will bend spacetime and will still be subjected to the effects of existing within a curved spacetime geometry. Therefore, the tree would exist and fall resulting in a sound.
Of course, the big issue in science right now is that we have failed to disprove both quantum mechanics and general relativity; but these two primary theories of science are incompatible with eachother. Ultimately, this means that this question regarding physicalism is presently unanswerable by science.
You truly believe the semantics of the English language disproves the point? English and the way it defines "I" is greatly affected by things seperate from biological definitions (one being the spiritual concept of the "soul")
Also, there did exist languages in other cultures that did not have the same concept of "I" as the English language. Your counter-argument is very weak.
You are correct, the person was on life support. But they grew and went through puberty like any other normal functioning human. (I believe the person was born brain dead, and the wealthy parents couldn't let go so they kept the person on life support at home).
Cells are living things by definition. So it is alive, though the body functions more like a tree than a mammal at that point. But a decentralized nervous system grew around the different vital organs.
The real flip side of your question is: do you think you'd still be you as a "brain in a vat" without any body?
Ultimately this whole discussion boils down to challenging the definition of "you" or "I". Biologically every "singular" person is the result of many living things working together, so the concept of "I" is an illusion. Physically, there is no "I", but only "us".
This makes the discussion easier. If the hand is removed, then of course "we" are different because "we" lost a piece of "us". This would also be true if "our" brain was removed.
Nevertheless, there have been cases of brain dead people's body adapting to the lack of central nervous system, so the body is more independently alive than we tend to give it credit.
Blender can be CUDA accelerated which does give Nvidia an edge over AMD. In terms of video encoding, both nvidia and AMD cards are AV1 capable, so they are on par for video encoding; unless a program does not support AV1, then the proprietary nvidia video encoders are better.
It's not about the content, but rather the skills gained when becoming an expert on the content. For example, physics degrees are often sought after in the financial realm because of they're expert ability to model things with mathematics.
Philosophers are generally expert thinkers, writers, and debaters. Not a lot of jobs are hiring philosophers for their content knowledge, but instead, they're hired for their skills.
view more: next ›
I doubt you know that. Modeling matter and photons as a non-deterministic wave function is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. If this has been debunked, then quantum mechanics would have been debunked.
The bottom line here is you are incorrect. The question is whether you're willing to update your viewpoint or not. But that's for you to decide.
I think this might be where my role ends as the random internet guy trying to help you realize the error in being overly confident about a concept you clearly know little about.