QUANTUM WOO Peddler Meets a Skeptic and a Physicist | Matt Dillahunty & Aaron Adair
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Original Episode Here:
In this call, Marcus claims that studying quantum physics led him to believe in God. When pressed for details by hosts Matt Dillahunty and Aaron Adair, Marcus struggles to articulate clear arguments, relying on fallacious reasoning. The discussion becomes increasingly heated as Matt points out flaws in Marcus' logic, leading to interruptions and threats to mute the caller. Marcus ultimately hangs up when challenged on the inconsistencies in his argument about life only coming from life. The hosts then break down the flaws in Marcus' reasoning and discuss current scientific understanding of abiogenesis and the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness.
SUPPORT THE NETWORK
---------------------------------------------------
Patreon: / calltheline
Become a Channel Member:
SUPPORT PRODUCTION
---------------------------------------------------
Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Cashapp: cash.app/$jimm...
Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com...
MORE LIVE SHOWS & CLIPS
---------------------------------------------------
/ @callthelinex
CONTACT US
---------------------------------------------------
contact@qnaline.com
HOSTS
---------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Snow: @JimmySnow
Matt Dillahunty: @SansDeity
Arden Hart: / theardenhart
Katy Montgomerie: @KatyMontgomerie
Forrest Valkai: @RenegadeScienceTeacher
Dr. Ben: @FamilyDrBen
Aron Ra: @AronRa
Shannon Q: @ShannonQ
John Gleason: @godlessengineer
Erika: @GutsickGibbon
Eve Was Framed: / eve_wasframed
Paulogia: @paulogia
Alyssa Ljub: @AlyssaLjub
Eric: @skepticsandscoundrels
Dr. Aaron Adair
ADDRESS
---------------------------------------------------
The Line
110 N Interstate 35
Suite 315-1027
Round Rock, TX 78681
United States
SHOWS ON THE LINE
---------------------------------------------------
Sundays: The Sunday Show
Monday: Skeptalk
Tuesday: Chewed Gum
Wednesday: The Hang Up
Thursday: The Trans Atlantic Call In Show (TACIS)
Friday: Debates and Bonus Shows!
Look out for “HOSTility” and “Cus I Wanna” any day, any time
#CallTheLine
The infamous "I don't really get it, therefore god." But with an *_alleged_* atheist twist.
I don't believe he was actually an atheist... we don't tend to be so ham-handed in describing what we don't believe in (eg aren't convinced of).
The fact he didn't want you to speak makes it all the more amusing he was proclaiming "I am ready..."
I think he sincerely believes he was an atheist relative to where he is in life now, but in reality he thinks he has some special knowledge that few people understand. When he speaks to people who are not as well versed in science, he feels superior when saying things like "l've studied quantum mechanics and have decided that there is consciousness integral to it", but when he speaks to Aaron, he's suddenly not so confident and rambles. The same with philosophy and Matt, Marcus answers basic questions, like "Is God a conscience being", with "well, how is he not?", because he actually lacks the foundation with which to answer the question. It amazes me how someone without even a basic level of scientific or philosophical knowledge calls into a show with trained physicists and philosophers making claims that they can easily combat with basic questions, like "Why?".
They always say they used to be atheist, I think it’s a way of trying to connect with you and seem more reasonable and human but what it really does is expose their dishonesty
A person can totally be an atheist and still have absolutely trash ability for logically processing information and being introspective. I had an extremely negative view of atheists in my earlier school days (despite essentially being one myself, just not labelling myself as such) because the ones I knew were obnoxiously vocal about it but not all that intelligent or reasonable and many of them were coming from a purely emotional space -- and probably were just exhibiting a reaction to religious trauma from authority figures in their life. Essentially they were precisely the sort of atheist most theists apply as a strawman. I don't know if or how many of the ones I knew up through high school may have grown up out of that. But they're exactly the sort of self-labeled atheist that winds up "opening their eyes to god" later in life because they were never really applying sound reasoning / skepticism.
it's so irritating when people attempt to misuse physics to support their fantasies especially when they are not trained in the field !
Untrainable because his “quantum-consciousness-level is 5 only and everyone knows you need 150QCS to attain universe-level to graduate from YT university
@@ImAmirus An important aspect of quantum physics is the nature of probability: is it a reflection of our (subjective) ignorance (as classical physics would have it), or does it reflect genuine objective randomness at the heart of subatomic reality? What's so frustrating is to see all these woo-peddlers (and they are legion) who always want to make an illegitimate association of that randomness with "consciousness", god, etc., They want EVERYTHING to be explained and controlled, so when they see the randomness at the heart of (quantum) reality, they find this unacceptable. Like, just effin accept it and move on, and, as somebody else said above, order a pizza and enjoy life.
It's the Joe Rogan guest problem
I’ve had a number of brain scans for a variety of medical reasons. Hearing theists use their brain to argue the brain is not consciousness or a limited part of it. It categorically absurd.
We see a direct relationship between head trauma and a decline in consciousness.
I have a male friend who had a serious head injury and permanently loss the ability to smell.
When women get this same exact head injury they rarely loose their smell.
Things we don’t know about consciousness will very likely be answered by future advances in science.
But we’re still waiting for magic explains X to make its first break through.
@@kowoh I like the "we haven't found the "one part" of the brain where consciousness is." As if it's just chilling somewhere in the back left of the brain🤣 we haven't found the "one part" of our legs that make us walk. 🤣
Another forty minute phone call, another caller whose argument can be summarized as:
...
Aaaah, the power of the ellipsis...😋
@@apex107lrppowerful, but totally unnecessary in this case.
Sooooo "it's all so complicated and sophisticated that it has to be god"
Yeah, great job. I'm rushing out to buy a crucifix and some really cheesy pictures with psalms on them.
I am so very busy, could you grab me some while you're out? 😅
Marcus: I don’t mean to be argumentative.
I think that’s exactly what Matt doesn’t like about you, Marcus.
As a card carrying PhD in physics listening to this guy being baffled by QM and therefor some god thing makes me go full on whisky tango foxtrot SMH.
This can be Im not a physicist and it me say WTF, id imagine you were banging your head on a desk
Some are born as irrational thinkers... or is this all due to how religion trains young kids to think and damages them?
“ Why did my heart start beating so regularly irregular? Hmm, must be God’s plan, so I guess I need to accept his plan.”
@@paddlefar9175 IMHO, we are all born coherent but irrational and we oft get trained out of coherency. It seems precious few of us are either lucky enough to find our way towards rationality or get trained towards it.
When he said he actually studied QM he's strictly referring to the quantum bubble gum books by the likes of Deepak Chopra. I'm willing to bet that he never once tried solving Schrodinger's equation for even the easiest potential function. I'd ask "what is an observable?" Or insist that he "Describe the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle." I'd ask for him to name a textbook that he used. That said, I hate to say that neither guy on the panel illustrated any knowledge other than what is explained for the layperson.
Sierra Mike Hotel
Nervous or not, it's still fallacious arguments from Marcus
Like Stephen Colbert put it (by now over a decade ago, I think): "there _must_ be a god, because _I don't understand how things work_ ."
An odd admission coming from someone like Colbert, who is religious.
@@puckerings
There is hardly a more typical argument from religious people.
I'm not sure why people are so desperate to have gods. At this point, we could just admit we don't know exactly how the universe got here and go get a pizza. Just don't worry about it. We're workin' on it.
They want it to be the case, so they try to make reality fit their emotions and wants. It's the essence of rationalization.
Ya know, i never believed so I can't say, and at the risk of being reductive, basically all I can come up with is variations of "I don't wanna die."
If agent like God is vain glorious so we're humans.we dictate the animal kingdom and stripping the role master&servant would like to command and be obeyed.l presume the God like agent if he's exists would create Atheist Deist pantheist panantheist existentialist realist idealist as well as Theists then he w'd have get more kick about when we at loggerheads or lock our horns about my being ..........
People are very desperate to have gods so they can be better than you. Funny how people are not desperate to have unicorns. I totally have a unicorn, so fuk their gods.
@@areid5907 I want a unicorn! For now, my dragon will have to suffice.
Classic example of reaching conclusions from a strong confirmation bias, by gish galloping through multiple subjects and not understanding a single one of them.
Marcus has no expertise in this subject. This is God of gaps
Totally. In this case the "gap" between quantum waves and fields.
@@martin2289right that’s where god is hiding, until we observe there and god is hiding in the next gap. It’s almost like their omnipresent god isn’t omnipresent.
The largest of those gaps is between his ears.
"Trillions of experiments" is just false, unless one is defining "experiment" as something so uselessly broad that the word loses all useful meaning.
And it would be like 30000 years if we did 1 experiment a second. I realize it's not that easy just a silly thought
My god is beyond, outside, beneath and before all of existence. He's unimaginable and only
gullible true believers understand my nonsense.
Yes, only those who ignore stolen concepts need to apply.
Classic example of a caller hiding behind a fuzzy narrative and going silent (through mistrust) at simple fair questions. Their fuzzy ideas are literally their safe space from inquiry.
I hate to say it, but when a theist says they used to be an atheist without a cogent explanation of what made them a believer in magic, I tend to zone out and disbelieve everything else they say. Stop it, just state your beliefs without the dishonest extras, we can tell you were probably never an atheist by your lack of skepticism.
As a physicist working with quantum information theory, I need to point out a correction on Adair's explanation about CO2 and information. When Claude Shannon developed his information entropy equation, he was actually focused in communication theory. Hence, what he quantifies as "information", can actually be understood as "how many bits or how many information needs to be send in order to completely describe a physical system" or, in terms of storage, "how many bits of space are required to store this knowledge in a given memory". To say that a system gains information as the box containing CO2 is opened, is numerically correct, because the entropy of the system indeed increases. But it is not conceptually correct in terms of that conversation: the increase of Shannon's information means a non-zero amount of information will now need to be sent in order to account for the position of the particles of that gas, while before you already knew them, so the necessary information to be sent was zero. That said, there are obvious ways in which nature encodes and manipulates information without the need of a concious being. Sun light gets polarized by the surface of lakes and is properly selected by certain beetle's shells, for example, much in the same way you manipulate the polarization of photons in a lab to do information science.
As a computer scientist, I can support the points you've made here.
But my perspective on Shannon is that he drew upon a question about the relationship between a mathematical concept and its physical realization.
Strictly speaking, we have to take symbols (or expressions composed of them) as representations of concepts, à la Gödel, so Shannon ended up asking a considerably more pragmatic "engineering" sort of question about the communication of symbols in the presence of noise.
No physical properties come into the discussion, however, it's all mathematical as far as it goes. But of course it's driven by the need for an ultimate physical realization for these symbols, and so I suppose, as we push ever harder on transmission speed and storage density we're bound to begin hitting quantum limitations at some point.
Shannon typically gets about one lecture in all of the undergraduate computer science syllabus. I'm a bit ashamed to admit this, because it is really important stuff for the world we live in. And also, going back to my introductory point, the bridge between abstract concepts and their physical realization could hardly be more philosophically fundamental. Here's Shannon being all pragmatic, but in a sense he's kind of hit pay dirt.
Is "quantum" now a magic word, like a spell in Harry Potter?
Unfortunately, there is a whole cottage industry of woo peddlers out there who have done just that: turn "quantum" into some magic word that they use to sell their woo to people who, for some reason, want to believe such nonsense.
Now? Deepak has been abusing that word for a good decade or more
yes. If they can't understand what it is, it becomes "magic"
Yep, it used to be the darling of the Deepak Chopra types, but now it has been co opted by Christian apologists. Lies are presented as facts, science is deliberately misinterpreted, and a huge, amazing, tree of scientific possibilities is chopped down to a single branch with God sitting on it.
"'Quantum' is complicated, and since I can't make sense of it, nobody can. So I will use the word as I interpret it, confident that everyone is as confused by it as I am."
I just wish that when Theists dip a toe into Quantum Physics and concluded it proves their God, instead of calling you, they would dip the rest of the way in and gain an understanding beyond that of High School conceptual physics intro week in what they are talking about.
My first reaction yes, "I understand quantum physics", so no, you don't understand quantum physics, you don't know what you are talking about.
lo and behold more dishonesty from a theist - throws a hissy fit then actually complains about emotions. You really cannot script more hypocritical people than these callers.
Personal incredulity
Is a logical fallacy
where you don’t understand
so you say it was planned
outside of our reality
~Leprechaunal
Oh boy another Dunning-Kruger YT University graduate who is no more cogent in his arguments than your typical flat earther! He has grabbed snippets of ‘science speak’, stitched them together and convinced himself he has mastered physics, give me a break!
“Really, Really deep into it”. Says about all I need to know about your education…
I dig,
You dig,
He/she/it digs,
We dig,
You dig,
They dig.
This is my poem. It's pretty deep.
I love this, "he exists outside of this universe," argument. It means the "god" these people believe in can't be observed. It means there is zero evidence for the existence of such a God.
The, "God exists outside of the universe," argument immediately means there is no way to observe such a God or prove their existence.
Can Marcus spell Quantum?
So, I'm looking at the screen and it says "Marcus (He/Him) OR" and my moron brain is screaming "He/Him OR WHAT?!"
Egon?
Personal incredulity fallacy
Don’t use your nervousness as an excuse for poor thinking.
He spent a few months looking really deeply into the science.
M'kay.
Marcus only needed a few months to master physics
@@Wilhelm-100TheTechnoAdmiral - I feel so dumb.
To be fair he did say it turned into 2 years of study
@@jamierichardson7683 - well that just makes all the difference.
Ngl... wish they'd stick to the nonsensical books. I've heard far too many people try this "sciencey" explanation of misunderstood concepts and word salad.
Like... people who think conciousness plays into the observer effect/cite the double slit experiment.
“What science leds you to god”. Not the science that scientists use. That is for sure. 😂
I'd say that he just wants to believe in god and his vague notions about QM allows him to do it.
To me as a physisist it is very cringe when someone says that QM made them religios.
“The stuff in my head is all true and could never ever be demonstrated.“ Cool…
Of course, Schrodinger's equation or Dirac's equations, both have "consciousness" in it. And their mathematical symbol is... Oh, there is no consciousness symbol! 😂
I've been actively exploring the nature of reality and consciousness for 50 years. I'm perfectly, joyfully comfortable with materialistic explanations for everything.
Despite my training under an Indian guru, I feel more satisfied and liberated by the concept that human consciousness is an emergent property of our brains. Looking back at the many billions of years of slow development of systems that eventually resulted in "me" gives me shivers of awe-inspiring bliss.
To me, the ultimate transcendental source of reality is impersonal, and I'm thrilled by the subject.
No magic required.
Yeah... he was an atheist for sure 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️... then he found some stuff that is not completely clear in quantum mechanics, and consciousness is not completely clear... therefore, the magic guy in the sky is real😂😂😂😂 and there is something outside of the universe... he's gone and investigated and detected the univestigable and undetectable..🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
If this god is not of this universe, "outside" of it or whatever... what are the boundary conditions that enable god-botherers to transfer information (prayers etc.) from this universe to something not of this universe? How is this supposed to work?
Marcus was an Atheist for no good reason, now he is a Theist for no good reason.
Oh, he doesn't understand QM at all.
To be fair, I remember some Physicist saying if you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM.
Feynman
A skeptic, a physicist and Deepak Chopra walk into a bar...that's all I could think of when reading the title. 😂
That's what happens when someone claims to have studied quantum mechanics without actually studying QM.
What sucks is that, when it comes to QM, there are SO MANY hucksters and BS artists out there that take the strangeness and randomness that is found in QM and dress it all up with their own flavor of woo for popular consumption. Look! Strange randomness....must be COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS or some such drivel!!
Unfortunately, people seem to WANT to believe such nonsense.
So how’s your logical fallacy bingo card looking? Mine’s pretty full
Why is it always 'former atheists' with the dumbest arguments ?
Aaron is fantastic...what a great discovery for me!
Kind of a self defeating predicament to have when someone claims to have discovered belief in god through scientific evidence, and then argue that god lives outside this universe. So God is not observable, measurable, unfalsifiable because... What is scientific about that?
People like Marcus are TERRIFIED by the idea of not being smart enough to understand reality, so he feels the need to just make up fairy tales to fill in the gaps in his own knowledge and then expects other people to recognize his "brilliance".
It is so strange how people equate materialism with determinism when the information we have about the universe suggests that materialism can deliver outcomes indistinguishable from non-determinism.
So many words spoken, so little actually said
So it sounds like he also can't explain how electricity works so is there no such thing now? Or is God powering my PC? Same for rocket propulsion. Nuclear physics. Neuroscience. Damn the list seems almost endless.
Should I pretend to know that an undetectable supernatural realm exists, filled with all-powerful, all-knowing entities, who monitor every human thought and act with the purpose and duty to micromanage every aspect of human existence? Marcus: How could it be otherwise?
The Cosmic Accountants
What does physics has to do w consciousness?
😮😮😮
"Consciousness is an integral part of existence" The planet earth exists and except for this tiny film of water and life on it's surface, it is entirely made up of; iron at it's core, then molten rock and then hardened rock. Is he saying that these things are conscious or is he saying that these things don't exist?
"I studied the sciences, like really really got into them"
Well, I'M CONVINCED
On behalf of the Markus’s/Marcus’s. We don’t recognize this man as our own or his views.
Marcus couldn't understand Science so magic. Marcus now concedes the basis of his slide into mythology was incorrect but he has invested too much to admit he is in error now.
If you want to say quantum weirdness is explained by an intelligent type of consciousness .. okay … so why God?
I used to be an atheist and then I studied the science and now I'm a believer...that makes no sense. How does studying science lead one to believe in imaginary beings?
God, Matt has patience of the saint, I hate people who answers my question as soon as I asked 1/3 of it
Nonlife is required constantly to maintain life. e.g. we need water or we die. Water is not alive. But our continued life depends on it.
Aaron, I liked your quote from "The Sound of Music".
Isn't it strange that they refer to their god 99 percent of the time as a he?
We are all lucky to have lived in the same time as the caller's genius.
"My arguments are shite because I'm nervous."
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.... “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
Of course, he could be wrong and
watching a lot of RUclips videos from people who don't understand either is all it takes.
QUANTUM physics led me to God. I smell a big ole fallacy on the way. Or truckload or them. Richard Feynman: "If you think you know Quantum Physics, you don't know Quantum Physics."
Marcus immediately understood the fatal mistake with his thinking; that's why he shut down. It was an obvious, undeniable shut down of his line of thinking, and he clearly couldn't handle that. Grow up, Marcus. Do better.
I don't particularly like "jargon". There are times when we have to have very specialized language, and in many cases it's about convenience. Using one word in place of a full sentence makes conversation far less cumbersome. The problem, though, is that by it's nature jargon is easily misunderstood by those not in-the-know. People not initiated into a given field or hobby or occupation, etc.
Case in point, "observation" as a term in quantum mechanics is very misunderstood by outsiders. It got me at first as well. Until I realize it was being used in place of "interaction". Why the one word is used and not the other I don't know enough to say. I'm expecting there's a good reason. But also scientists are people and could easily do a goof and use a word that _implies_ something they do not mean to imply. And honestly, even _"interaction"_ could potentially cause some amount of misunderstanding. Language is imperfect.
Another issue is that a lot of science-education-for-the-general-public has a problem with simplifying things in a way that easily leads to misinformation / misunderstanding. Sometimes that's because the science communicator themselves doesn't really understand the subject (thanks, YT). Quasi-science and pseudo-science both make great sources for YT videos that'll get lots and lots of views.
Getting mad at this person... I get it. But it's not 100% their fault. They should be more circumspect, and take more care with jumping to conclusions about subjects they have a lot of gaps in knowledge about. But that's only a part of the overall issue. And of course you mix in some magical religious thinking with the poor science communication and you get _so much_ woo.
Does he realise that the basis of Quantum Mechanics and Physics is in excess of 100 years old.....so I do not think he was around at the start of the theories.
No laws of physics, let alone Quantum Physics or Mechanics require consciousness.....this person uses it in the sameway as we try and put human traits etc on pets.
When they figure their god can't be inside spacetime...so that means HE must therefore be OUTSIDE spacetime...
Without considering the "so maybe it just not-exists" option.
[add new age bullshit generator quote here] so, checkmate, atheists! Caller was correct if he could only have described his thoughts more clearly.
What would happen to consciousness if we disconnect all sensory input to the brain or even worse that a brain evolved without any sensory input, zero internal and external information?
Would that still be called a conscious brain?
There's people who are unaware of the fallacies they're making, and there are people who don't care if they're making fallacies.
Refuses to listen and runs away like a coward when the flaws in his reasoning is pointed out to him. Typical
22:37 "fortunately, our investigation was more thorough" STTNG
Don't need the preamble, just get to your damned point caller
👽👽"Curses! I think he found us Phil"
Serenity Now...Serenity Now ...
In regard to the references to Roger Penrose's publications & ideas, the brain evolving to usefully manipulate quarks & perform ideations at quantum levels is already thought to be an overwhelmingly-unlikely biological scenario. Then again, my assertion here may simply be my own personal incredulity at work.
The processes that are needed to gain information from QM have to be done in nano-seconds. There is nothing in biology that works at that speed. Penrose didn't explain how that can be overcome.
There is a fascinating study, which discusses how bird brains use quantum mechanics to “see” the earths magnetic field.
The field affects the spin of electrons just enough to alter the ratio of products in a chemical reaction… something that we can very definitely detect on a cellular level.
The rapid speed of the reaction and the rapid processing which occurs in a bird’s brain appear sufficient to overcome decoherence.
"He's not made of anything from in this universe, he's outside of this universe." Statements like this demonstrate that the person making the statement does not have a conceptual understanding of the concept "universe". The universe is the sum total of everything that exists, has existed, or ever will exist. The universe is existence, all of it, so the idea that something could exist outside of it is patently absurd. This person's understanding consists of words he accepts as the given and does not question.
Yes and no. As of now you are technically correct. But we have no way of determining whether this universe is the only universe that does exist and has existed in the broader cosmos. Being that there is some debate amongst scientists surrounding things like a multiverse, it is not fair to assert that everything that exists, has existed or will ever exist must be part of our local presentation of the universe.
What I'm saying is that while clearly this caller is a complete tool and a clown, you are not necessarily correct either - ESPECIALLY conceptually or logically.
I define the universe as the sum total of what exists. If other "local presentations" exist, they are part of the total. That's what the word means. It comes from the Latin uni, meaning one, and verses, meaning turning. Universus means turning into one or a whole. This is not an arbitrary definition since it fills a cognitive need, i.e., we need a term for the totality. I don't think of the cosmos and our local presentation as different. We will always be limited in what we perceive of the universe, but I don't see any justification for dividing the concept of existence. The universe and existence as such are one and the same. I was talking about this when I said the caller does not have a conceptual understanding of the word universe.
@@kitchencarvings4621 Not sure why my comments are getting deleted, but if that's the case you are just arguing over pointless semantics. The first two words in your response are the problem. While that may be how YOU define the word, it is not how everybody defines the word. I'd argue that with the understanding of science we have today, a majority of people don't share that definition. So it's not surprising the word is derived from Latin, in case you didn't know back at time when the knowledge of what WAS the universe (and it's sum of parts) was far more limited than it is today.
You also have the problem of big bang cosmology- the singularity. Being that the laws of physics breaks down at that part, it wouldn't be correct in assuming what was essentially the birth of the universe happened within the universe. To a similar extent, you have the same issues with black hole singularities.
The important part is that if you claim this local presentation is the entire universe, you need to defend that assertion. So provide your evidence, or I will withhold judgement until ACTUAL experts make advances on the matter. In the same way, if I were to claim a multiverse exists or has existed or will exist, I would need to provide evidence.
@@kitchencarvings4621Hmmmm no. As others have said, there could be multiple universes, and that larger all encompassing body you seem to be talking about is actually called The Bulk.
@@Studio732JRL-k7y The way people use words is not necessarily correct. The fact is we need a concept to denote the whole. In my sentences, substitute the wider cosmos for the universe if it makes you feel better. What you don't understand is that definitions are objective, and the meaning of a concept is the things that it subsumes. Trees, all trees everywhere and every time, are the referents of the concept 'tree'. The concept 'universe' is open-ended like all concepts, and it references everything that exists. Anything that exists is part of the total, including things we don't yet know about. So I see no justification for saying that there is some existent out there that is not part of the total of what exists. This is completely incoherent and evinces a rationalistic approach to knowledge.
It's never quantum physicists claiming that quantum mechanics points to the existence of a god, it's always desperate believers who "research" quantum mechanics by watching What The Bleep Do We Know.
I love all the people that say they've been watching Matt for years, and yet somehow don't understand that 1) Not answering his questions and 2) Talking over him are surefire ways to send him into a rage and have him eviscerate you. If Matt is being chill and letting you talk, then answer his questions and don't poke the bear lol
I'm getting tired of hearing "life can only come from life". "Life" is not magical, the main definition of "life" is something WE defined, not that the universe did. Bacteria is "alive", viruses are "not alive" by OUR definition. If we saw viruses mutate from their current state to a new state and gain additional processes and now actually have the required processes "for life" it not mean that "non life made life", it simply means WE reclassified it because it changed enough to belong into another class.
Pluto was a Planet, now it's a Dwarf Planet. We invented those terms. We moved Pluto because otherwise we have to start calling A LOT of other small planetoids "Planets". They are all frigging "Planets", we just use the extra classifications for convenience.
Viruses ARE a form of "life", we simply don't classify them as "alive" because they don't contain ENOUGH characteristics to fit our extended criteria, which WE defined to start with anyway.
If you suffer a brain injury, you can have what we call "brain death". Technically speaking, you are "no longer alive" because your brain no longer contains any high level enough functionality to keep your body running without being hooked up to machines, yet I'm pretty sure every other cell in your body is "still alive" because if your body is fed oxygen and nutrients "everything keeps running", you are simply considered "not alive" because we classify "a certain level of brain activity" as a line in the sand in the "alive" or "not alive" definition.
You are made of Atoms, and they are "not alive". You are only "alive" because WE invented that classification and decided to put you in it. If I had a machine that could strip individual atoms from an object ONE by ONE, and used it on your brain, I would (technically) get to a point where ONE atom difference would turn the balance of you being "alive" to "not alive", so can we now say that "one atom" is what differentiates life from non life?
You are not special because you are "alive" anymore that bacteria is, the only difference is you mutated a lot more and now you are bacteria that pays taxes and complains about the weather. Life is not magical, it's just the results of a VERY long run of chemical reactions, nothing more.
I would love if a caller would just ask and answer questions without needing to defend their idea. It’s okay to end a discussion with, “Huh, okay, I’m unable to argue my ideas any further, but I think it’s my fault and not the idea’s. I’m going to think this through some more. Thanks for the back and forth.” The ability to set aside the ego of needing to be right is so much more admirable. I work daily with some of the world’s most accomplished scientists and every one of them to a soul hears me out and accepts criticism, despite my considerably leaner CV. That’s not in spite of their brilliance, it’s the reason for their brilliance.
So he went from thinking like a skeptic and rationalist, to accepting woo because he was all "double rainbow" about Quantum Theory? I never aspire to have that knowledge-- bores the stuffing out of me. It's "neat" that is all. Whatever. That would not make me change from free-thinker rationalist to theist.
I really have trouble believing Marcus’ claim of being an athiest who ‘started dabbling in quantum physics’ and really had his athiest ‘worldview’ assaulted by questions that science can’t answer (yet).
The ‘evidence’ that so-called ‘former athiests’ give wouldn’t be considered evidence by someone who wasn’t coming at the ‘God’ question without a predetermined conclusion that ‘God is real’. 🤨
Faith based nonsense. Consciousness is produced by a material brain. The evidence for this is overwhelming. It is not a problem harder than untangling the basics of visual perception or our ability to use spoken and written language. Calling it the "hard problem" is meaningless. By what measure is it a "harder" problem? This is woo, promoted by folks who have no concept of how science and hypothesis testing work, and who by and large know little to nothing about basic, clinical, or cognitive neuroscience.
Oprah Winfrey/Deepak Chopra brand "understanding" of quantum physics woo spoken here....
This is a bunch of "WhAt ThE bLeEp Do We KnOw?" hogwash. I watched that movie back in high school and thought it was the most amazing thing ever. Thankfully I got to know some skeptics that pulled me out of that abyss.
When talking about scientific principles, why do you have an "interpretation" instead of just.. an "understanding"?
Right from the starting gate, this caller is a kook whoae sister wants Matt but not "Marcus." Mr. French would be beside himself. Goodnight, Gracie.
If Marcus was researching for "years", why is he fixated on "what atheists said" as opposed to actual scientific facts one would learn if one spent 1-4 years actually studying? and how on earth can he think theres an invisible force that created everything, yet cannot be shown to exist, or leave any evidence of ever having existed. Was he studying philosophy and creative writing or accounting for years?? maybe science classes would have helped him a bit more.
As a physicist myself, it is painful to listen to these theists trying to reason with a professional physicist or anybody really with a working brain. It's painful and a waste of time, thanks but I'm out :)
what kind of "information" does Marcus think stomach acid is? and how does that information know how to break down the chemical bonds in food and get the necessary minerals to the correct parts of the body that need them?
Does it have little tiny buckets and wagons?
something gives rise to something. yes. but only if theres an all-knowing zebra nearby who feeds it lettuce.
I understand Matt's frustration, but IMO he didn't need to lose his cool, Marcus was doing just fine burying his own arguments so no need to jump on him. ETA: I think Matt is mistaken to equate "there have been models that present the 'possibility' does not negate the fact that 'life coming from non life' has never been demonstrated.
What comes to mind through this type of discussions is that it is not about religion but about the oldest discussion in philosophy between philosophical idealism and materialism. In recent years idealism has become more popular. Panpsychism (Chalmers), cosmopsychism (Kastrup) are examples of recent idealism. These philosophers see consciousness as fundamental which opens the path to speculations about, not so much god, but a cosmic mind, which comes close, I guess. Maybe you can give some attention to this development.
I hope you won't consider this pettifogging, but at 18:15 Aaron said that emptying a canister of compressed CO2 in a room increases information. That's incorrect. The dispersal of the CO2 throughout the room increases its entropy, and entropy is inversely proportional to information.
I wish people would stop thinking that it's insulting to be told you're wrong about something you don't actually understand.
Caller looked into quantum mechanics for a few years and figured it out. o7
This guy could never been an atheist....because the basis of his theist belief is so weak and poor I am not unsure how he could justify to himself why he now believes in a god.
I am nervous....it's not your guys first rodeo.....you do not have a good enough argument that stands up to challenge from someone that has 'actual' knowledge of the science that you believe proves your god.
That idea that quantum effects might be present in the brain has been around since Eugene Wigner (1961) and been speculated about to the present day. At one level this is mundane - anything involving atoms and electrical activity can be described using quantum theory. I don't see any serious suggestions that brain states are other than physical, so the jump to a deity or some vague "quantum consciousness" is unsupported. To be ridiculous about it, if there was a quantum deity, it would be in a constant state of flux, having multiple states until it was observed - thus we could say that from a physics point of view that we make god.
Why do people NEED to go to church every fucking Sunday to hear the exact same messages and stories they've heard their entire lives? Jesus loves you. Is that so damned hard to remember? No. It's not.
They need to hear it every week because they NEED it to be true in order to have the "whole" life experience the church told them about.
It doesn't matter that the church made it all up. It doesn't matter even a little bit.
If you're desperate, terrified, and lost, any regular, repeatable, shared experience can make you feel like you're on solid ground, even for just a little while.
Religion creates the horrorshow and provides the silver lining, thereby maintaining control.
I've had like one course on quantum physics in my bachelor's training, and even I can tell that this guy studied his QM at the school of Deepak Chopra.