/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10241422
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- A.Einstein

>>10241422
>fundamaterialist
Go commit sudo su rm -rf /

>>10241422
>www.fakequotes.com/einstein

>>10241437
>>10241422
we live in a simulation, what we call god is really our creator aka the intelligent entity that programmed all this. what his/her intentions are will likely never be known to us.

I think quantum theory, the holographic principle alongside our knowledge of computers is pretty much enough to say that this scenario is atleast the most likely one as it gives a pretty good explanation to most things we can measure/observe which materialism does not.

I think Einstein might have changed his position if he knew that quantum entanglement would be proven to be true via a repeatable experiment, sadly he didnt live to see it.

>>10241787
>we live in a simulation
-_-
>this scenario is atleast the most likely one as it gives a pretty good explanation to most things we can measure/observe
Name one such observation

Also, your (theory) reeks of turtles

>>10241962
>your (theory) reeks of turtles

Name one theory ever which does not

>god did it!

Where did god come from?

>the big bang just automagically happened out of nowhere!

And where did all that matter, time, and space just automagically come from?

>>10241422
>the evidence for life after death
Stopped reading there.

>>10241973
>And where did all that matter, time, and space just automagically come from?
We literally don't know and it's okay to say we don't know. Forming falsifiable hypothesis to try and explain it is religion not science. Fuck outta here.

>>10242271
>falsifiable
unfalsifiable

>>10241422
Materialism is false, consciousness whatever it is, is fundamental. Wave function collapse requires observation - for the shut up and calculate folks this just means a photon hits something. But this view is in blissful ignorance of the measurement problem. If a victim requires a photon to collapse it, how does the photon's wave function collapse? Another photon collapses the 1st photon, but this regression will last infinitely. The measurement problem implies no wave function collapse, but this is clearly not the case.

There must be some act of observation which collapses a wave function without requiring collapse itself. This opens the door to God and Consciousness as a potential solution. If you've got a better answer I'm all ears.

>>10242368
brainlet herewhat does it mean that a wave function colapse? My understanding of quantum mechanics is only from semiconductor physics knowledge

>>10242948
All you need to know is that anyone who claims that consciousness causes collapse is a black science man tier retard.

>>10242271
>We literally don't know and it's okay to say we don't know

Yes but you are still stuck in turtle-land, which was the whole point of the comment: There is nothing wrong with having a theory which involves turtles.

>>10241989

Which just proves the point of the paper. You think a priori that there can not be evidence for an afterlife, and thus there is no reason to investigate the issue.

This is fundamentally no different from when a fundamentalist religious person won't read a science textbook because the bible just has to be true anyway.

>>10242970
Including Schrodinger

>>10242948
Wave function collapse means you go from not being able to know both position and momentum of a particle with certainty to being able to know both position and momentum of a particle with certainty

>>10241422
>falsify it as a scientific hypothesis
get out with your popsci >>>/trash/

>>10244019

Someone gets demonstrably upset when their dogma is highlighted

*giggles*

>>10241422
One thing I can't truly explain with materialism is the awareness of experience. But it is still possible we just don't know enough about the mechanism.
On the other hand, I think every religion promoting dualism is deluded.

>>10245659
>t. I learned about science from fedora subreddits and not textbooks

you gotta go back

>>10241422
That's actually an interesting quote, whether or not Einstein every said it.

Basically, what it is saying is that the "professional atheists" are those who were indoctrinated into religion in their youth, but who later left religion (or were "liberated") and are now trying to liberate others from religion.
But all the speaker says is that he does not share that spirit of trying to bring people out of religion, which suggests that the speaker is not religious and could even be taken to imply the speaker is an atheist who doesn't really try to convert people from religion.

Which means whoever made the image macro doesn't understand the quote, wherever it came from.

>>10245659
>falsify
The moment you take your first Taylor series and erase terms, your results are falsified. Science doesn't give a shit.
The moment there are unexplained exceptions, your theory is falsified. Science doesn't give a shit.

If it's good enough some of the time, it's science.

>>10245693

>Got churned through the academic industrial complex, has post-education stress disorder, is incapable of understanding that science != materialism

Nawh

>>10241787
This is your brain on science fiction instead of a healthy dose of math and sound epistemology.

>>10243966
You're just going to say anything is evidence of an afterlife, because that's what you want to believe. If there was actual evidence it would be mainstream science.

This is fundamentally no different from when a fundamentalist religious person cites the bible because the bible just has to be true.

>>10247721

>You're just going to say anything is evidence of an afterlife

Strange, I do not consider the hotness of the sun as indicative of the existence of an afterlife. Instead, I consider people in the millions who claim to have actually visited the afterlife while close to death or while actually to be indicative of the existence of an afterlife. I consider the fact that they can see and hear everything around them (and even sometimes things at great distances) during a cardiac arrest to be indicative of a separation of consciousness from the brain. How strange and random, right? And totally just what I want to believe! If I found oblivion comforting instead, this evidence would automagically just disappear xD

>If there was actual evidence it would be mainstream science.

No, because that assumes that we are hyper-rational entities without emotions, that politics and paradigms do not play a role in academia, etc. And none of that is true, as the history of science in the context of its culture has documented again and again.

Many people in academia really are fundamaterialists. I am not saying that jokingly or in a derogatory way, I am saying it as a matter of fact. They simply can not comprehend the notion that materialism itself might be empirically false. You simply can not argue with them either, because the answer to every discussion will always boomerang back to the necessary truth of materialism for them, come what may. It really is, unironically, like arguing with a fundamentalist.

Also, NDE and survival research in general is gaining in respectability every single day, little by little. It is still controversial, but things are definitely changing. Old paradigms and ways of thinking do not go gently into the night, they go kicking and screaming. Science advances one funeral at a time, and the data is overwhelmingly against materialism, but there is usually a generation time gap (or two) between the data and its widespread acceptance.

>implying turtles is a problem
universe is a simulation
>well where did THAT universe come from
It's not necessarily beholden to our sense of reason or causality, it could be uncaused and an eternal existence.
The good thing about not running on our universe physics is that this hypothetical universe (and I'm only using that term because it might be such that we cannot comprehend or describe it) doesn't have to run on ANY of our physics. Of which time is a part of.