George,

This is a perfect example of what I was referring to regarding theists using the weirdness of quantum physics to shoehorn their god into reality:

<<Unfortunately, with quantum mechanics we have no such single moment of “simplicity” only a chain of perplexities connected with a theory that works but we don’t know why. Hence the need “to tie ourselves up in knots with complexity” when wanting to understand reality.>>

If that was supposed to be a subtle analogy with religious belief (and in my experience, it always is), then there are enough differences between the weirdness of quantum physics and theology to render it a false analogy fallacy.

Not only is quantum physics observable, but the simplest explanation, that makes the least assumptions is the one we'd go with until it was discredited. Additional steps and assumptions would only be added if, and when, they became absolutely necessary. We won't "tie ourselves up in knots with complexity" in order to avoid simpler explanations as theists do with their gods.

The weirdness of quantum physics does not make religious belief any more rational.

Poirot,

What you describe in the last two posts is Einstein’s discovery, that inertial mass and gravitational mass can be identified.

>>I'm not so sure there won't be a moment of "simplicity" when everything falls into place in a thought on quantum physics. A lot of things had to come together in both Einstein and Darwin for their thought to "crystallize" <<

Newton’s, Darwin’s and Einstein’s innovative ideas came about, and had consequences, (mostly) within their respective branches of science (physics or biology). Although Einstein’s Special relativity affected also how we view reality as such (by shattering the Kantian idea of an absolute space and absolute time) it has not lead to nearly as many perplexities about the very nature of reality as did quantum physics.

There are no speculations about this or that interpretation of Einstein’s theories. If you understand the theory (its mathematics) you also understand the reality they try to describe. However, there is a vast literature about interpretations of quantum mechanics, all of them being much more weird than what follows from Einstein’s theories (and I would suggest, Darwin’s as well). Today the leading contenders are presumably the Copenhagen and Everett’s many worlds interpretations, the one mixing consciousness of the observer with physical reality he/she observes, the other seeing reality as consisting of many increasingly divergent, branching, non-communicating parallel universes.

Of course, nobody can guarantee that there will not come >> a moment of "simplicity" when everything falls into place<<, but if so, it would have to be much more groundbreaking in our understanding of the world we live in than what Darwin or Einstein gave us. So far even within physics all attempts at a (mathematically) “unified theory” of physical reality, (implying both Einstein’s theory of gravitation and quantum physics as special cases), that Einstein and others have worked on so hard, have failed. Perhaps this failure - to "know the mind fo God" as he put it - is what lead Stephen Hawking to speak of “model-dependent realism”, see e.g. my article www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp.article=14464 .

AJ Philips,

>>using the weirdness of quantum physics to shoehorn their god into reality<<

If this refers to my article, please give an exact quote of where I am doing the shoehorning.

>> The weirdness of quantum physics does not make religious belief any more rational.<<

I do not see where I claim it does.

As far as I can understand what you wrote, you seem to suggest that only theists - physicists or not - are perplexed by the possible implications for the nature of physical reality. So below just a random choice of some quotes from physicists who were/are atheists:

“(T)hose who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. (Niels Bohr)

“[While] solipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, monism in the sense of materialism is not.” (Eugene Wigner, one of the prominent backers of the Copenhagen interpretation, although he later switched his allegiance)

“While it may be premature to imagine that the present philosophy of quantum mechanics will remain a permanent feature of future physical theories, it will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality." (Eugene Wigner)

“We always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do…” (Richard Feynman)

“...the "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ‘ought to be.’” (Richard Feynman)

And one quote from one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, albeit not an atheist (a Lutheran) that you probably will not like:

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” (Werner Heisenberg)

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” (Werner Heisenberg)

God is in the dregs?

>>God is in the dregs?<<

Sorry, it is too late to ask Heisenberg what he meant by the metaphor. I do not think he expected everybody to see things his way, but he probably would have agreed that metaphors, like jokes, one does not explain. You either get it or don't get it.

george..<see e.g. my article www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp.article=14464 >>

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464

GEORGE/QUOTING EINSTEIN..<<''These mental concepts..are the only reality we can know...There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."

george<<What this means is that physics/science cannot provide any guarantee ("evidence")..that there is a reality*..independent of what "model",..one uses to represent(describe)..it with.

<<Nevertheless,,,for practical purposes
one cannot live without the assumption ("belief"?)..that there exists such a reality,..that there is a "truth" about this reality,..that scientists are striving to know>>

all seems true..and still..it seems too general..ideally yes scientists..[heck why limit it to scientists]..we all would strive to know..yet most seem reluctant to leave the reality they constructed in their mind.

this is particular-ily noticeable in the next 'life'
where our mind models..[illusions of mindset]..are projected before each of us..for all to see..they make these phantasms real..to only themselves [the rest of us see they lack true solid living presence...but even then..yet fail to see our own delusions]

its us who make our own reality real..for us
thats why blind faith..in true death[no afterlife/the lie of judgment day..no god etc..are so dangerous..[ie many are only in hell..because of ignorance..based on blind faith

[jesus said much about the blind leading the blind
thats why those of science [to who much was given..so much more was to be expected]..

if its not provable/replicable [ie falsifiable]....its not science..

nor infallible...
lie built on lie..is building on sand..

in the end..we learn god is true living loving logic grace/mercy..
dont throw that away...on mere modeling bling

or faith in a lie..that feels true
or we hope..true

it must be all true..or its fraud science

on my own topic im getting to the math bit
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5899&page=

around page 149
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Evolution_Of_Evolution.pdf