Scientific proof of god's existence

[gmilam]

The point, if you care to actually take the time to understand it, is that since we can not realise/recognise an event until we observe it, it is logically flawed to conclude that the observation must therefore cause the event.

You would think that this would be painfully obvious. And this is why I have a hard time taking the "consciousness causes collapse" people seriously.

 

[NCDane]

Nor did I mention the price of eggs, but if I felt it necessary to do so to clarify the situation to others reading this thread, then I will.

Baloney.

You are trying to divert attention from your own slipshod
reading habits by pretending to be lending a hand to others.

Here is what you said in post #35:

And many others disagree: there are numerous interpretations of QM and while JvN's is quite a popular view, it is by no means universally accepted.

Here is what I said in the earlier posts (emphasis added):

(Post #3) I think there is an interpetation of Quantum Mechanics...If this interpretation is fully correct...

(Post#16) My impression was that Copenhagen QM defitintiely requires a wavefunction collapse, and situates in it the measuring device...Von Neumann, at least at some point, situated the collapse in the human mind...Eugene Wigner seems to me to have gone even further than Von Neumann, and it was his interpretation I was alluding to...

(Post #22) In most interpretations of QM

(Post #31) John von Neumann situated the collapse in the human mind. Now, this occured in the 1930s, and I do not know how many experts then or now agree with this view. However, the issue is so unsettled ...

I made the existence of differing QM interprtations
perfectly clear to anyone with a normal attention
span and normal reading ability.

Your tone is certainly one of putting JvN's interpretation on a pedestal and the implication (intentional or otherwise) from your posts is that it should be accepted as above the others until proven otherwise.

Actually it is Eugene Wigner's interpreation which I have
singled out as being the one my position relies most heavily
upon. See Post #16 reference above, or better go back
and read the whole thing, carefully this time.

Also, please recall my third sentence in this thread (Post #3):

“If this interpreation is fully correct...”

You know what “if” means, don't you?

Reference to JvN's “greatness” was intended to rebut another
member who seemed not to have been aware of his stature.

Indeed I am. But since you seem to give mere lip-service to the other interpretations and then ignore them to put JvN on your pedestal, I felt it worth pointing them out to you lest you forget that these other interpretations exist.

Indeed you are not, and I guess this time I had better quote
myself in red ink:

(Post #16) Eugene Wigner seems to me to have gone even further than Von Neumann, and it was his interpretation I was alluding to

If you walk along the edge of a cliff and I warn you to be careful, you can indeed rightfully claim that you were never in danger. It won't stop me warning you as a result of the perceived risk.

Except I have not been anywhere near any cliffs lately.

You owe it to yourself to phrase your comments in a way that won't give implications you don't intend.

Addressed.

You have no view on this? No opinion?

Not yet.

How am I placing myself above them,

You are placing yourself above them because they considered
the issue of consciousness-dependent reality to be a real possibiliy
as a matter of science, and you contradict them with accusations
of “flawed” logic and “tangled” semantics.

and how does my location in reference to them make any difference to what I say and the validity/soundness or otherwise of the argument I make?

Because they were more expert than you and where there
is disagreement the most expert opinion should be preferred.

The point, if you care to actually take the time to understand it, is that since we can not realise/recognise an event until we observe it, it is logically flawed to conclude that the observation must therefore cause the event. It remains a possibility, but it is not a logical conclusion.

Do you know what a “Straw Man” fallacy is?

I have nowhere gone beyond suggestion of possibility,
as anyone with a normal attention span and normal reading
ability could not fail to appreciate.

The issue of language / philosophy / semantics is then raised in trying to establish what it is to "realise" or to "recognise", or what an "event" is etc, and what is real, what it is to "exist"

What absysmal prose both as regrards both style and content.

The problem of pseudo-intellectual mishmash such as the passage
above is the reason the great (please excuse my use of that word!)
physicist Murray Gell-Mann really did (as I mentioned before) obtain
a Doctor's presecription against any discussion of philosophy.

the classic case of whether an object exists if there is no one to observe it etc

The classic case being the one expounded by Bishop Berkeley:
esse est percipi; to be is to be perceived. (See Post #3)

 

[NCDane]

We are without sufficiently compelling scientific evidence to be able to conclude that the consciousness causes collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics is an accurate description of reality.

I have not said otherwise. However, evidence is nowhere
near conclusive for any interpretation.

In fact it is one of the more radical ideas...

I believe it was Bohr who said something to the effect that
whatever the truth may be it is bound to strike us as "crazy".
I am sure he dismissed a late theoretical effort by Wolfgang Pauli
as being "not crazy enough".

The point being that radicalism is not a strike against anything.

that enjoys very little acceptance in the physics community...

Maybe not, but how do you know?

The only semblance of a poll I have ever run across was one
in which "Many Worlds" commanded a slight majority or perhaps
plurality out of about 50 physicists queried. It does not get any
more radical than Many Worlds, that's for sure!

I could sit here throw around a whole bunch of criticisms and alternative interpretations that are much more widely accepted but getting bogged down in a discussion about which interpretation makes the most sense is not really the point of this discussion.

OK, and I have not taken sides as to which interpretation
is the most sensible.

This is the reason that I said what I said in my last post. Speculation about the implications of an interpretation of quantum mechanics does not constitute scientific evidence.

No, but if consciousness-based reality (let's call it CBR)
is finally proven to be the correct one, then there must
have been some such present from the Big Bang onward.

To relate it back to the topic at hand, formulating such speculation into a form that could be used to argue for the possible existence of God is philosophy, not science. So in the interests of respecting the nature of the question asked by the OP, we need to admit here that this speculation is insufficient and either move on, or continue this discussion in the philosophy forum.

Make no mistake. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not physics. And whenever you find yourself pondering the implications of an abstract mathematical model or some intriguing experimental results, and ask the question "What might we infer from this about the fundamental nature of reality", it is essentially a metaphysical question that you are asking.

OP asks only for the "possibility" of "some evidence,
one way or another". CBR would IMO fit the bill, and
establising bona fides for CBR is a scientific challenge,
not a philosophical one.

The problem becomes philosophical only when we begin
to weigh the strength with which CBR could support the
liklihood of there being a God.

Having said that, physicists and indeed many other scientists engage in metaphysical discussions and debates all the time. So I don't mean to suggest that such discussions are inherently unscientific. Rather I see them as an invaluable tool for moving science forward.

My impression is that scientific discussion of the fundamental
characteristics of nature consists of interplay between experiment
and theory, both of them solidly grounded on the physical world,
and in no need of the prefix "meta".

 

[Rav]

The problem becomes philosophical only when we begin
to weigh the strength with which CBR could support the liklihood of there being a God.

We are being philosophical the moment we speculate about whether or not a scientific theory can be interpreted to suggest the existence of God because in order to determine that you have to explore a whole lot of metaphysical possibilities.

But, whatever. This seems to be all about semantics now, which is even worse than it being a primarily philosophical discussion taking place a science forum. For the record, this particular exchange between us is only taking place because of my concern about staying on topic with reference to both the original question and the location of the thread. If the OP would like to drop in and clarify perhaps that will solve the problem (even if it is only me who seems to have one). Until then I think I've pretty much said everything I wanted to say already.

 

[dbnp48]

If the OP would like to drop in and clarify perhaps that will solve the problem (even if it is only me who seems to have one).

I put the thread in science rather than religion because I was looking for scientific evidence for the existence of god rather than a philosophical debate. I've been watching the thread but haven't been contributing since I don't have the necessary science background. As I understand it, CBR seems to indicate there must have been a consciousness in the beginning. That would be evidence for me that there is something god-like.

 

[Rav]

I put the thread in science rather than religion because I was looking for scientific evidence for the existence of god rather than a philosophical debate. I've been watching the thread but haven't been contributing since I don't have the necessary science background. As I understand it, CBR seems to indicate there must have been a consciousness in the beginning. That would be evidence for me that there is something god-like.

Fair enough. But nothing presented here counts as scientific evidence of the existence of God. Nevertheless it's your thread and if you're happy with the sort of evidence that is being presented then I guess we can consider all of it on-topic

 

[dbnp48]

Fair enough. But nothing presented here counts as scientific evidence of the existence of God. Nevertheless it's your thread and if you're happy with the sort of evidence that is being presented then I guess we can consider all of it on-topic

I have only a non-scientist's understanding of this.
My understanding is that Quantum Mechanics requires something there to observe at the Big Bang. Is that correct?

 

[NCDane]

I have only a non-scientist's understanding of this.
My understanding is that Quantum Mechanics requires something there to observe at the Big Bang. Is that correct?

There are competing versions of QM arising from the central problem
of observation.

If CRB is THE correct version, then I think yes, something must have
been there to observe the BB. However, it is not yet known if any of
the versions of QM so far proposed are correct: CRB might be right,
or it might be wrong.

 

[Sarkus]

You are trying to divert attention from your own slipshod reading habits by pretending to be lending a hand to others.

Ungracious as well as arrogant. Nice combination.

I made the existence of differing QM interprtations perfectly clear to anyone with a normal attention span and normal reading ability.

Thank heavens you deem me "normal". Indeed you did make it perfectly clear, but your tone subsequently made it clear there was only one strand of interpretations worthy of consideration.

Reference to JvN's "greatness" was intended to rebut another member who seemed not to have been aware of his stature.

There are better ways that aren't as misleading.

(Post #16) Eugene Wigner seems to me to have gone even further than Von Neumann, and it was his interpretation I was alluding to

Ah yes, the wildly different interpretations of Wigner and JvN. Perhaps you could remind us of the vast differences that mean we shouldn't ever group them together?

Except I have not been anywhere near any cliffs lately.

I assumed you were intelligent enough to know that a warning to you is not based on your own perception of your danger, but from the perception of the one giving the warning.

You are placing yourself above them because they considered the issue of consciousness-dependent reality to be a real possibiliy as a matter of science, and you contradict them with accusations of "flawed" logic and "tangled" semantics.

First it would not be a matter of science - as such a position is not really falsifiable, as one can always try to trace back "consciousness" (i.e. through the measuring devices etc - as you have done in this very thread) and continue along the reductio ad absurdam.
Further I do not contradict them, I merely advise that while they would remain a possibility until proven otherwise, to conclude that it is true would indeed rely on flawed logic, and that the very issue of concsiousness and reality were and indeed ARE clouded in philosophy.
Even you, by your own admission, are saying that they remain a possibility - and this puts you similarly "above" those who believe them to be true (e.g. Wigner, JvN).

Because they were more expert than you and where there is disagreement the most expert opinion should be preferred.

"Preferred"? Preferred for what? You "believe" one interpretation to be true? Or do you just hold them all to be possibilities until evidence to the contrary - as do I?
And out of the various interpretations - you consider one to be from more of an expert than another?
And are you not capable of independent thought? Or do you just regurgitate what you have read?

Do you know what a "Straw Man" fallacy is?

If you could point out how my comment had zip to do with the issue in hand, perhaps I might even think that you know what one is.

I have nowhere gone beyond suggestion of possibility, as anyone with a normal attention span and normal reading ability could not fail to appreciate.

So you have put yourself above Wigner and JvN. Nice.

What absysmal prose both as regrards both style and content.

Ah, the classic double usage of "both"- such a "schoolboy error". Rather ironic.

The problem of pseudo-intellectual mishmash such as the passage above is the reason the great (please excuse my use of that word!) physicist Murray Gell-Mann really did (as I mentioned before) obtain a Doctor's presecription against any discussion of philosophy.

So to highlight what many would consider key philosophical issues, and that these would most likely need to be addressed, is "pseudo-intellectual mishmash"?
While I am aware that there are people who have no interest or desire to get involved with such discussions, to not do so can lead to rather a singular view that is dependent upon specific definitions accepted by all parties. Are you aware of specific definitions for such things as "existence"? How about "reality"?
When dealing with specifics, such matters can indeed obfuscate (e.g. Gell-Mann had no need for philosophy in his field of expertise) but when dealing with issues of "consciousness", for example, can you really avoid them?

 

[Sarkus]

There are competing versions of QM arising from the central problem
of observation.

If CRB is THE correct version, then I think yes, something must have
been there to observe the BB. However, it is not yet known if any of
the versions of QM so far proposed are correct: CRB might be right,
or it might be wrong.

A well phrased and clear post. Thank you.

However, I do disagree that there "must have been" something to observe the big-bang.
Why can there not be something now that observes a past event that effectively collapses the wavefunction in the past? This would mean that the wave-function of the BB will not actually collapse until it is observed. One could say therefore that either there was something that observed it, or that there will be something that observes it.

Further, and I apologise if this is "messy" as I am only working through it as I type - it is not something I have formulated before:
If the BB was the result of an observation, then we are either still being observed or not.
If we are, then why does quantum uncertainty still exist, when surely the observation should collapse all wavefunctions and thus such uncertainty should simply not exist.
If we are not observed, given that we still exist, surely that provides evidence that things exist when not observed?

Now for the latter it can be argued that we are now our own observers... but it would mean that the universe would have to have been observed at least until consciousness was around internally to observe it?

 

[keith1]

No. Once you have proof of God, then God goes from theology to physics - and what we know as God no longer exists.

Yes that is correct as here exampled:

The Silver Surfer enters the universe at it's inception (or in the approximate proximity allowed for his/her/it's mass, in accordance with spooky action at a distance).
Future sensors that probe closer to the inception event, spot the gnarly wave rider in action (just a photo of a past gone event).

He/she/it would be gone (along with a prayer of any communication means...beyond an event horizon).
There would be a brief window of opportunity for The Great Surfer to hold an advertisement sign or some carried form of "communication in passing"...

 

[gmilam]

I have only a non-scientist's understanding of this.
My understanding is that Quantum Mechanics requires something there to observe at the Big Bang. Is that correct?

As a laymen, my understanding is that this is not correct.

There is a school of thought that is more philosophy than science that seems to get some mileage (aka - book sales) out of the idea of the observer interacting just by observing, but this is (IMHO) based on a misunderstanding of the measurement problem. Basically, you can't measure the very small without interacting with it. (To "observe" a "wavicle" you have to throw another wavicle at it. This obviously fucks with it. It's not that hard of concept to grasp.)

 

[NCDane]

Ungracious as well as arrogant. Nice combination.

I save the grace and humility for those who deserve it.

Thank heavens you deem me "normal"

I have not deemed you normal.

Indeed you did make it perfectly clear, but your tone subsequently made it clear there was only one strand of interpretations worthy of consideration.

Having made myself clear in my first three posts to the thread
I should not have to attach disclaimer to every occurrence of
the names Von Neumann and Wigner.

But to drive the point home even more than already have, here
are two citations I did not mention before:

(Post 24) What we are discussing has bedeviled, as a matter of science, many of the greatest of our cutting-edge scientific geniuses for about 85 years, and no end is in sight.
(Post 25) It is one of the greatest problems in the history of science, it has been so literally since the Day One of Quantum Mechanics, and it remains 100% completely unsolved.

26-29-34 omitted reference to contending QM interpretations
because there was no need to reintroduce it in the context of
the exchange.

There are better ways that aren't as misleading.

There was nothing misleading about it.

Ah yes, the wildly different interpretations of Wigner and JvN. Perhaps you could remind us of the vast differences that mean we shouldn't ever group them together?

Sure. In JvN’s interpretation the need for an observing
consciousness is restricted to the act of measurement.
In Wigner’s interpretation an observing consciousness is
needed for all of reality. See link which I posted earlier:

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/

I assumed you were intelligent enough to know that a warning to you is not based on your own perception of your danger, but from the perception of the one giving the warning.

You assumed correctly. I assumed incorrectly in taking
you to be intelligent enough to realize I was really in
no danger.

First it would not be a matter of science - as such a position is not really falsifiable,

You yourself posted a link in which the authors aimed to
falsify JvN’s weaker theory, as expressed by Schrödinger
in a famous thought experiment. If a weaker theory fails
then it takes down with it anything stronger, including Wigner.

as one can always try to trace back "consciousness" (i.e. through the measuring devices etc - as you have done in this very thread) and continue along the reductio ad absurdam.

You lost me here, Bubba.

Further I do not contradict them, I merely advise that while they would remain a possibility until proven otherwise, to conclude that it is true would indeed rely on flawed logic,

Take another look at what you wrote:

…to then argue that the conscious observation is the cause is logically flawed…

Your targets might be able to overcome objection that their
theories are “semantically tangled”, and “philosophic”, but a
logical flaw?- a logical flaw does not leave any hope for salvation.

Furthermore you seem to be going even more overboard by
denying scientists the right to believe in the truth of their
own theories! According to you science is allowed only to
be descriptive and experimental.

and that the very issue of concsiousness and reality were and indeed ARE clouded in philosophy. Even you, by your own admission, are saying that they remain a possibility - and this puts you similarly "above" those who believe them to be true (e.g. Wigner, JvN).

I am in no position to dissent professionally, but Albert Einstein
Erwin Schrödinger and many others experts were, and did.

Where experts disagree I am allowed to straddle the fence.
That does not have quite the force of you telling Wigner
and JvN that they are illogical, does it?

"Preferred"? Preferred for what? You "believe" one interpretation to be true? Or do you just hold them all to be possibilities until evidence to the contrary - as do I?

I have not ruled out any possibilities, but you have.
You have ruled some out as being logically flawed.

And out of the various interpretations - you consider one to be from more of an expert than another?
And are you not capable of independent thought? Or do you just regurgitate what you have read?

I assume an attitude of humility before all the authors
of all QM interpretations so far referred to in this thread
and that list is not close to being exhaustive.

You would make yourself appear less foolish if you followed
my example instead of casting outlandish aspersions at these
great geniuses for imagined logical incompetence.

If you could point out how my comment had zip to do with the issue in hand, perhaps I might even think that you know what one is.

You created a Straw Man when you accused me of considering
CRB to be fact rather than possibility.

So you have put yourself above Wigner and JvN. Nice.

Previously addressed.

Ah, the classic double usage of "both"- such a "schoolboy error". Rather ironic.

Wrong again. Proofreading mistakes are a form of error,
but schoolboys are not the only people who make them.

So to highlight what many would consider key philosophical issues, and that these would most likely need to be addressed, is "pseudo-intellectual mishmash"?

Someone else might not make such a complete mishmash
out of it as you. Don’t try again, though. Please don’t.

While I am aware that there are people who have no interest or desire to get involved with such discussions, to not do so can lead to rather a singular view that is dependent upon specific definitions accepted by all parties. Are you aware of specific definitions for such things as "existence"? How about "reality"?

My impression is that scientists prefer not to get bogged down
in trying to come up with definitions of “existence” and “reality”
which please everyone. Indeed, I wonder if such definitions are possible.

When dealing with specifics, such matters can indeed obfuscate (e.g. Gell-Mann had no need for philosophy in his field of expertise) but when dealing with issues of "consciousness", for example, can you really avoid them?

Gell-Mann has been intimately associated with QM for his
entire career (as JvN and Wigner were after QM was discovered
when they were in their prime).

However, I do disagree that there "must have been" something to observe the big-bang.
Why can there not be something now that observes a past event that effectively collapses the wavefunction in the past? This would mean that the wave-function of the BB will not actually collapse until it is observed. One could say therefore that either there was something that observed it, or that there will be something that observes it.

“Must have been” refers to the constraints of Wigner’s version
of QM. What you suggest is a different interpretation.

Further, and I apologies if this is "messy" as I am only working through it as I type - it is not something I have formulated before:
If the BB was the result of an observation, then we are either still being observed or not.
If we are, then why does quantum uncertainty still exist, when surely the observation should collapse all wavefunctions and thus such uncertainty should simply not exist.

I am afraid that observation simply does nothing to eliminate
uncertainty from QM.

If we are not observed, given that we still exist, surely that provides evidence that things exist when not observed?

You are again posing an interpretation which differs from
Wigner's. Wigner seems to me to insist that we must be observed.

Now for the latter it can be argued that we are now our own observers...

My guess is that Wigner would approve of self-observation.

but it would mean that the universe would have to have been observed at least until consciousness was around internally to observe it?

Lost me again.

 

[Sarkus]

Your targets might be able to overcome objection that their
theories are "semantically tangled", and "philosophic", but a
logical flaw?- a logical flaw does not leave any hope for salvation.

Rather depends on the flaw - many can be addressed by leaving their conclusion as mere possibility rather than as a claimed truth - as you seem to accept.

Furthermore you seem to be going even more overboard by denying scientists the right to believe in the truth of their own theories! According to you science is allowed only to be descriptive and experimental.

I deny them no such thing. Not all that "scientists" do is science. Science is not concerned with belief. And when such a person starts believing unproven claims as truth then they are doing so outside the bounds of science. Their theory may be the best fit, the most acceptable by dint of Occam's razor, but belief that it is true? To me that is outside science and should be recognised as such. Science itself SHOULD be only descriptive and experimental.

Where experts disagree I am allowed to straddle the fence.
That does not have quite the force of you telling Wigner
and JvN that they are illogical, does it?

They are illogical only in their assertion of truth. Unless, of course, you can show me where they proved their interpretation correct?

I have not ruled out any possibilities, but you have. You have ruled some out as being logically flawed.

And you accuse me of not reading. Will the irony not end! I have said that they remain possibilities - the logical flaw is to conclude them as truth.

Wrong again. Proofreading mistakes are a form of error, but schoolboys are not the only people who make them.

Do you genuinely think that only schoolboys make errors referred to as "schoolboy errors"? Would rather defeat the purpose of the descriptor if that was the case.

My impression is that scientists prefer not to get bogged down in trying to come up with definitions of "existence" and "reality" which please everyone. Indeed, I wonder if such definitions are possible.

Possibly not. But the issue remains when scientists try to attribute as a cause something that is more the purview of philosophy than science - such as "consciousness". Or is "consciousness" adequately defined by science?

Gell-Mann has been intimately associated with QM for his entire career (as JvN and Wigner were after QM was discovered when they were in their prime).

Sure - but I understand his (Gell-Mann) forte was in the actual particles themselves rather than matters of wavefunctions - i.e. he was investigating such matters post-observation.

"Must have been" refers to the constraints of Wigner's version of QM. What you suggest is a different interpretation.

Your "must have been" implies an observation at that time, whereas I am not aware that Wigner's interpretation insists upon observation at the time of the event, but rather allows for future observation to collapse the wavefunction of that past event?
I admit I do not know for sure whether his interpretation is specific on the issue or not.

I am afraid that observation simply does nothing to eliminate uncertainty from QM.

Apologies, you are correct - I meant to refer purely to the collapse of wavefunctions... i.e. if we are constantly being observed (by an external agency) then why do uncollapsed wavefunctions exist? My use of "uncertainty" was purely with regard an uncollapsed wavefunction.

You are again posing an interpretation which differs from Wigner's. Wigner seems to me to insist that we must be observed.

I agree, his interpretation insists on observation (although I question the necessary timing of that observation - as per above). My point is as follows:
Assume the following timeline: (1) BB --- (2) no consciousness exists in the universe --- (3) consciousness exists in the universe.
Wigner's interpretation insists on observation of the BB. Assume, as you appear to, that observation needs to happen at the time of the event. This therefore requires some external agency to observe the BB.
My question here, as above, is: if the agency continues to observe the universe why are there still uncollapsed wavefunctions - when collapse requires, per Wigner, conscious observation? If the external agency is still observing us, all wavefunctions would surely have collapsed, and we would not even have the concept.
One possible answer could be that we are no longer observed by that initial agency.

If this is so, AND IF that agency stopped observing the universe during the period when there was no internal consciousness for self-observation, this would suggest - following Wigner's interpretation in this scenario - that things can indeed exist without observation.

The only other conclusion I can think of (assuming we are no longer observed), following Wigner's interpretation, is that the external agency stopped observing the universe at the point the universe became self-observable i.e. at (3).

Perhaps you are still lost?


One question I do have - according to Wigner, if a wave-function collapses on observation, is subsequent non-observation sufficient to reinstate the previous superposition state?

 

[NCDane]

I am getting tired of this dialogue and will probably not continue
after this post.

…a logical flaw does not leave any hope for salvation.

Rather depends on the flaw - many can be addressed by leaving their conclusion as mere possibility rather than as a claimed truth - as you seem to accept.

As a matter of deductive logic any argument in which the conclusion
is a necessary consequence of its premises is logical, even if it is not true.

This deductive syllogism is logical:

(Premise 1) NCDane is human.
(Premise 2) All humans are immortal.
(Conclusion) Therefore NCDane is immortal.

The logical conclusion is false because premise #2 is false.

Experiment may eventually falsify Wigner’s theory with evidence
that one or more of its premises are false, but I believe I can
safely guarantee his theory contains no deductive logical error.

I deny them no such thing. Not all that "scientists" do is science. Science is not concerned with belief. And when such a person starts believing unproven claims as truth then they are doing so outside the bounds of science. Their theory may be the best fit, the most acceptable by dint of Occam's razor, but belief that it is true? To me that is outside science and should be recognized as such. Science itself SHOULD be only descriptive and experimental. They are illogical only in their assertion of truth. Unless, of course, you can show me where they proved their interpretation correct?

No scientific theory, no matter how well supported by experiment,
can be proved, in principle.

However, we are permitted as a matter of inductive logic to assert
the truth of a fitting, parsimonious theory; inductive logical validity
is based on the strength of supporting evidence.

Although I do not know enough to judge how Wigner’s interpretation
of QM stacks up against any other interpretation, I am confident that
someone as smart as him would only have advocated a theory having
as good a foundation in evidence as any other theory of the time. If so,
then Wigner did not, contrary to your misunderstanding, stray outside
the bounds of the inductive logic of science.

 

[Sarkus]

I am getting tired of this dialogue and will probably not continue after this post.

Probably a good thing as you're now basically posting nothing but the price of eggs, as interesting as you may find them to be.

 

[oladitan]

Proof?

does science prove or disprove religion?

 

[mathman]

does science prove or disprove religion?

No to either choice.

 

[spidergoat]

does science prove or disprove religion?

Disproves some religions.

 

[mathman]

Disproves some religions.

Could you give an example where science disproves a religion and how it does it?