Why we're immortal

[Sunflowers]

You're on a hopeless mission. You're not going to find any compelling evidence that something can become nothing. All you're doing to do is find gaps in our understanding.

Saying 'nothing caused it' or 'nothing created it' is not an explanation, as everyone - but everyone - recognises in all other contexts.

Again, hire a prostitute and have her lie in your bed. When your wife returns explain her presence in the bed by saying that she just appeared out of nothing and see if she accepts that as an explanation.

She won't, unless she's extremely thick of course.

Again you only answered, what pleased you. Are you eternal or where have your mind before your life? What is your connection to the mind before your life?

And again you only used an bodily example. How should this show anything for simple entities?

Omg! Something. Does. Not. Become. Nothing. Right?

If you think otherwise, provide an example.

You haven't.

And - once more - it is self-evident to reason that something does not become nothing.

By contrast, the claim that something becomes nothing has no rational support and no examples to support it.

So, you don't have a case.

[brimstoneSalad]

Metaphysics isn't physics.

Metaphysics is kind of like the "god of the gaps", it's speculation beyond what we empirically know, but as we learn more its domain shrinks

The claim that something does not become nothing is a metaphysical claim.

You're a couple generations behind, like a theist who has never heard of evolution claiming we can't explain complex life without god

There is no theory in physics that entails it

Yes there is. You just have a bunch of pseudo-philosophers too lazy to catch up on physics and pretending to still have something meaningful to say about it.

there are just lots of non-philosophers who think that if you have a gap in our understanding of how something occurred, then nothing caused it.

Precisely the opposite. For a long time physics has been dominated by dogmatic determinism. Accepting that something was uncaused was VERY hard won. Einstein famously said "I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice." -- that is "god does not play dice", this was in response to growing evidence of genuinely random phenomena in quantum physics. That was nearly a hundred years ago. It turned out that he was wrong, and if you had ANY idea of the progress made in physics over the past hundred years you'd be incredibly embarrassed about your statements here.

Of course you do not know, you do not want to know, and you none the less remain convinced of your own righteous ignorance of physics because you have blind faith that it has nothing to say about what were once the exclusive domains of metaphysics.

Omg! Something. Does. Not. Become. Nothing. Right?

Wrong. Some things do become nothing (e.g particle anti-particle pairs that come from nothing and return to nothing, this has already been explained to you). Some things also become energy as photons or other particles from which they are not constructed -- changing spontaneously and fundamentally in type so the original particle is gone, not just disassembled.

If you think otherwise, provide an example.

You have been provided with examples, you dismissed them.
You don't seem to understand how burden of proof works. You presented the original argument, so you need to address the issue of quantum mechanics if you want to continue the discussion. It is not us who need to convince you.

And - once more - it is self-evident to reason that something does not become nothing.

It's self evident to your personal intuition which has been misinformed by an unconscious inductive fallacy. That is all. You have come to this conclusion through faith, not reason. You don't have access to some magical gnosis that gives you credible knowledge of the universe.

If you disagree, then provide deductively valid argument with non-controversial premises (not a circular argument that starts with your conclusion as an axiom) to prove it. If you can not doing that, then you're shouting about a principle of faith that you and you alone hold to, and no amount of arrogant refusal to engage with physics is going to change anybody's mind.

If you want to have faith in that claim despite physical evidence that's what you'll do, we can't force you to accept science, but you should realize that any sensible person is looking at your claims and laughing at you.

[Sunflowers]

Metaphysics isn't physics.

Metaphysics is kind of like the "god of the gaps", it's speculation beyond what we empirically know, but as we learn more its domain shrinks

No, that's just plain wrong. But you're clearly in the grips of scientism. What are you doing on a philosophy forum, incidentally, given that you think it is science that is actually concerned with what's what and philosophy is just science without the rigour (that 'is' what you think, isn't it?)

The claim that something does not become nothing is a metaphysical claim.

You're a couple generations behind, like a theist who has never heard of evolution claiming we can't explain complex life without god

No, you're like the latter, not me.

There is no theory in physics that entails it

Yes there is. You just have a bunch of pseudo-philosophers too lazy to catch up on physics and pretending to still have something meaningful to say about it.

No. There. Isn't. This is a productive debate we're having, isn't it? I recommend doing some actual philosophy.

Precisely the opposite. For a long time physics has been dominated by dogmatic determinism. Accepting that something was uncaused was VERY hard won. Einstein famously said "I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice." -- that is "god does not play dice", this was in response to growing evidence of genuinely random phenomena in quantum physics. That was nearly a hundred years ago. It turned out that he was wrong, and if you had ANY idea of the progress made in physics over the past hundred years you'd be incredibly embarrassed about your statements here.

Determinism isn't equivalent to the thesis that everything is caused. But anyway, once more just a lot of 'oh, if only you understood the science' hot air from someone who a) doesn't understand the science and b) doesn't understand philosophy either. I mean, you've yet actually to do any.

Wrong. Some things do become nothing (e.g particle anti-particle pairs that come from nothing and return to nothing, this has already been explained to you). Some things also become energy as photons or other particles from which they are not constructed -- changing spontaneously and fundamentally in type so the original particle is gone, not just disassembled.

Convenient that you think it has already been explained to me - that saves you having to do so. Only it hasn't, and you have to explain it.
What you've said above is not an explanation of something becoming nothing. It is an example of something becoming something else. That's not nothing. Baby steps, because I know this is hard: something becoming nothing is not equivalent to something becoming something else. When the eggy weggy becomes a baby waby, that's not an eggy weggy becoming nothing, it is an example of an eggy weggy becoming a baby waby.
And if mummy has an abortion, then that's an example of a baby waby (or perhaps an eggy weggy) becoming a dead baby waby. If mummy's baby waby disappears, however, then that's an example of magic. And it doesn't happen.

You know magic shows are tricks, yes?

[brimstoneSalad]

To sum up @Sunflowers response: "No u!"
One of the lowest forms of argument.

Ohh, and "scientism", I'm trembling from the blow of that insult. It's a claim that says a lot more about the person making the accusation than the person accused -- might as well tattoo your prideful ignorance of science on your forehead.

The problem is you're not capable of evaluating who understands the science or not, because you're proudly ignorant of science believing instead that you can use reason to arrive at important truths about the universe (like whether something can come from nothing) on its own-- despite being unable to actually make an argument for that.

Philosophy has a lot to say about ethics, and scientists often do a terrible job of it when they attempt it, but metaphysics as a branch of philosophy isn't particularly useful anymore (along with theology). Its credible contributions to human knowledge are very limited in light of scientific progress.

You have your faith, I have my evidence. You say science has nothing to say about it and so you refuse to learn, and because of that I'm not really in a hurry to teach you (it's no easy task to teach a pupil who is resistant to education).
I did that here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1829 but teo was a better student because he at least in principle cared about science. I'd have to start with epistemology with you and teach you WHY science is important and how it informs our knowledge of reality in ways reason alone can not.
In terms of you convincing me, again unless you have a deductively valid argument for your claims that doesn't rely on circular reasoning I'm not going to fall for it. I'm not much of one for faith. I'm not going to accept your intuition that "something can't come from nothing" when I have empirical evidence to the contrary (not your obvious straw man of an "eggy weggy", electron-positron pairs) and no sound deductive argument to contradict that.

There's not much point in any discussion on the matter if you can't abide science and I can't abide intuition/gnosis. Thus why I'm not addressing the main topic. The premises are so obviously false that anything but negating them seems like a waste of time. Unless you have evidence or argument to support them (you do not) then there's no point in my giving it any more consideration than that.

If you ever change you mind and are willing to admit that science actually might have something to say about it and you want to learn, let me know.

[teo123]

For a long time physics has been dominated by dogmatic determinism.

As far as I understand it, it's possible we are living in a deterministic universe, if the pilot-wave theory is correct. However, if the pilot-wave theory is correct, then there are also some, as Einstein called them, spooky actions at distance (every particle is governed by an associated wave as big as the entire universe, which we can't prove actually exists), which he also insisted don't exist (and so did Descartes). Also, that "determinism" doesn't mean much to us as we can only observe the particles, not that wave. So, yeah, either way, from our point of view, the universe is not deterministic, and we have no way of determining if it is deterministic in principle.

But you're clearly in the grips of scientism.

What do you mean by "scientism"? And why would one have to believe in "scientism" to think virtual particles exist?

given that you think it is science that is actually concerned with what's what and philosophy is just science without the rigour

Most metaphysics is indeed "science without rigour" and it has horrible track record.

But anyway, once more just a lot of 'oh, if only you understood the science' hot air from someone who a) doesn't understand the science and b) doesn't understand philosophy either. I mean, you've yet actually to do any.

What makes you think @brimstoneSalad doesn't understand the science? To me it seems like you are so incompetent that you fail to recognize competence in others.

It is an example of something becoming something else.

I don't think you get the point here. If your mind becomes something unrecognizable (like a photon turning into energy of an electron), then that which your mind has become can't be you in any sense. The only sensible definition of a person is psychological continuity. If that what your mind becomes doesn't have psychological continuity, that's not you.
Furthermore, I think you'd agree that quantum vacuum is the same as nothingness, it's closest to nothingness as we can possibly get. If so, yes, particles do turn into quantum vacuum, and particles do spontaneously form in quantum vacuum. For particles are fluctuations of the energy fields the space is filled with, and there is always some (usually undetectable by instruments) uncaused noise there.

Baby steps, because I know this is hard

Stop patronizing us, you are one who is pathetic.

If mummy's baby waby disappears, however, then that's an example of magic. And it doesn't happen.

It doesn't happen in a macroscopic world we are familiar with from everyday experience. But it happens with photons every time you touch something (for it's the electric force, transmitted by virtual photons, that stops the atoms in your fingers from merging with the atoms in a wall or a desk). And it happens now and then with electrons and positrons. Very rarely, it happens with bigger particles, such as protons and neutrons. That's what caused Big Bang to happen.

[brimstoneSalad]

As far as I understand it, it's possible we are living in a deterministic universe, if the pilot-wave theory is correct.

There are pilot wave theories that have been tested and found to be false: https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-e ... -20181011/
The alternatives are not theories, but unfalsifiable ad hoc hypotheses.

Early on, de Broglie did offer a kind of compromise, a version of his theory that was promulgated again in 1952 by the physicist David Bohm, and which is now known as Bohmian mechanics or de Broglie-Bohm theory. In this picture, there’s an abstract wave function that extends through space — an entity that’s just as mysterious in this theoretical framework as it is in the Copenhagen interpretation — as well as real particles somewhere in it. Proofs in the 1970s showed that de Broglie-Bohm theory makes exactly the same predictions as standard quantum mechanics. However, with one element of classical reality restored — concrete particles — new mysteries arise, like how or why a mathematical wave function that’s spread everywhere in space is bolted in certain places to physical particles.

Remember in the flat Earth thread how we talked about incomplete ad hoc models that don't add any explanatory power?

However, if the pilot-wave theory is correct, then there are also some, as Einstein called them, spooky actions at distance (every particle is governed by an associated wave as big as the entire universe, which we can't prove actually exists), which he also insisted don't exist (and so did Descartes).

Due to the way spacetime works, the only consistent reading of the wave function clearly indicates Many Worlds, the only way they get around that is by arbitrarily claiming the other branches are "empty". De Broglie–Bohm pilot wave theory has been called MWI in denial for good reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Brogli ... rpretation

[teo123]

There are pilot wave theories that have been tested and found to be false

Didn't know about that one. I thought this silicon balls bouncing on silicon oil double-slit experiment was exactly what revived the interest in the pilot-wave theory. And why do those experiments matter exactly? I mean, if you run a computer simulation of the double-slit experiment with a pilot-wave, you'd get the same result as if you run a computer simulation based on any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. You have to, since they can be proven to be mathematically equivalent. Is it hard to mathematically prove that a wave on the silicon oil would behave exactly like a wave that the pilot-wave theory describes? I mean, it seems like it should be way easier than making weather forecasts. I haven't studied it too much, though.
I thought the biggest problems with pilot-wave theory are like what would that wave be made of (now that we know ether isn't real) and, basically, that it presupposes that wave that can't be detected.

the only consistent reading of the wave function clearly indicates Many Worlds

I thought that this parallel-worlds theory was only slightly less esoteric than the Neumann-Winger interpretation. I mean, it basically implies we are immortal, that we get to live forever in some parallel worlds.

[brimstoneSalad]

@teo123 It's hard to model things like that, it requires a bunch of assumptions, so seeing what actually happens can be pretty important (particularly since it's going to be harder to find people to scrutinize your code). Computer models are pretty useful, though.

The article describes a setup where the interference pattern can't be generated by the pilot wave but can by other interpretations.

In this hypothetical “gedanken” version of the double-slit experiment, the particles, before arriving at the slitted barrier, have to pass to one side or the other of a central dividing wall. In standard quantum mechanics, this wall can be very long, and it won’t matter, because the wave function representing the possible paths of a particle will simply go both ways around the wall, pass through both slits, and interfere. But in de Broglie’s picture, and likewise in the bouncing-droplet experiments, the driving force of the whole operation — the particle — can go only one way or the other, losing contact with the part of the pilot wave that passes to the other side of the wall. Unsustained by the particle or droplet, the wavefront disperses long before reaching its slit, and there’s no interference pattern. The Danish researchers verified these arguments with computer simulations.

It's interesting, but I think any local interpretations really fail from the start due to larger issues (entanglement).

In a quantum reality driven by local interactions between a particle and a pilot wave, you lose the necessary symmetry to produce double-slit interference and other nonlocal quantum phenomena. An ethereal, nonlocal wave function is needed that can travel unimpeded on both sides of any wall. “To get the real quantum mechanical result, it’s really important that the possible paths of the particle enter in a democratic way,” Tomas Bohr said. But with pilot waves, “since one of these sides in the experiment carries a particle and one doesn’t, you’ll never get that right. You’re breaking this very important symmetry in quantum mechanics.”

And no, MWI is fine; it's just taking the math literally and not adding on the assumption of observation driven collapse as a real phenomena (it's only a phenomena from *our* perspectives). It's actually conceptually simpler, some people just don't like the implications. That, and experimentally it's identical to copenhagen (from our perspectives) and adequately explains all experimental results. Hidden variable has trouble with that.

If you're actually going with Occam's razor, MWI makes sense. If you misunderstand Occam's razor then you might think it favors Copenhagen (despite more assumptions, people believe fewer universes is "simpler"). Mostly physicists don't care and they use Copenhagen because that's what they were taught and how they teach and they don't think it matters anyway as long as the results are the same.

[brimstoneSalad]

I mean, it basically implies we are immortal, that we get to live forever in some parallel worlds.

Well we don't exactly know what counts as possible. Is there a world where you're a space pirate riding around in a giant pink bunny-shaped space ship? Maybe, or maybe that's not actually a possible configuration.

[teo123]

In standard quantum mechanics, this wall can be very long, and it won’t matter, because the wave function representing the possible paths of a particle will simply go both ways around the wall, pass through both slits, and interfere. But in de Broglie’s picture, and likewise in the bouncing-droplet experiments, the driving force of the whole operation — the particle — can go only one way or the other, losing contact with the part of the pilot wave that passes to the other side of the wall.

Now, obviously, if the wall is very long, the electron will be more likely to pass through the wall, rather than to pass through either of those slits at the end of the wall.
I don't know now, my perception is that nearly all physicists agree that it's impossible to determine via experiment which of the mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct.

I think any local interpretations really fail from the start due to larger issues (entanglement).

And why exactly would it be impossible for entangled particles to communicate faster than light? I mean, quantum mechanics forbids us from sending information faster than light by interacting with the entangled particles, but that doesn't mean the particles themselves can't communicate faster than light, right? And neither does the theory of relativity, it says that a particle can't accelerate to the speed of light, that doesn't mean the space isn't full of particles that have been going faster than light since the beginning of the universe and that can carry some information, right? Those particles don't even have to be completely impossible to detect by us, neutrinos may be going faster than light, although it's hard to tell.

Well we don't exactly know what counts as possible.

And why would a world in which some person gets to live forever be impossible (rather than just highly improbable)?