I would love to see your answers to this argument.

[Sisifo]

Like it has happened recently, theists using "scientific proof" for the existence of God, fall often into cheap science fiction... As long as they don't believe it as true science, it can be intellectually stimulant... The following was the case of an intellectual argument I simply run speechless. If it wasn't just a tongue-in-cheek conversation over some beers, I am afraid it would almost win me over... Hence I'd really appreciate your answers to it...

I'm not going to elaborate the argument, just write down the ideas of it.

Friend: Quantum physics postulates that anything possible that is not happening, happens in a different universe/reality.

Me: As long as it is physically possible, agreed. It doesn't allow universes where physics laws are different. That's science fiction.

Friend: Agreed. Hence there must be one universe for all possible life evolutions, whether terrestrial or not, human or not.

Me: Agreed.

Friend: Many of those species aren't bound to terrestrial biological laws, although they are to physics... In that sense we can imagine thinking capacity and sensorial capacities that aren't limited by terrestrial organs-like.

Me: Errr. Agreed?

Friend: Among those universes, there must be a species of unlimited intelligence and unlimited sensorial capacity, because if you can imagine an species with a higher conscience, that would be the universe we are talking about. In any case, all the statements lead to the fact that according to this theory there is an species in the Quantum spectrum that holds the maximum capacities allowed by physics. Absolute sensorial capacities, absolute intelligence.

Me: I think I know where you are trying to go, but that species would be limited within their universe.

Friend: Oh, but with their absolute understanding and dominion of the laws of the universe they can replicate any physics fenomenon, including a big bang and creating an universe...

Me: O, my...

Friend: And that universe could perfectly be this one. But even if it isn't, Quantum physics allows the existence of an species so developed, that they would be indistinguishable from God, including their capacity to see and influence other universes...

Me: ...

Friend: Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Please, give me a hand here. He still rubs it in my face from time to time, and I dunno how to hit back!!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

First off, you allowed yourself to be painted into a corner. You agreed to his conditions without challenging them. It's a common trap.

Second, multiple branching don't guarantee every possible outcome. String theory allows for 10500 possible alternate universes. If each and every action was binary we'd have used those up a few billion years ago.

Third, every time he says "there must be", it means he's assuming something that "might be". Then he's taking that as gospel and building his next assumption on that.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Among those universes, there must be a species of unlimited intelligence and unlimited sensorial capacity, because if you can imagine an species with a higher conscience, that would be the universe we are talking about.

This is just the ontological argument by the backdoor. "If you can imagine it, it must exist," is bollocks. Why must it? I can imagine a universe where I win the lottery every week - don't mean it's out there.

Also, ask him what he means by 'unlimited intelligence' - it is a terribly vague notion. Ask him how he can blithely state that "Many of those species aren't bound to terrestrial biological laws" - ALL species, however complex, must be bound by their own biological laws. Similarly, his vague statement of thinking capacity and sensory organs that are not limited by terrestrial organs - no, perhaps not, but they would be linked to some kind of organ and limited by that organ's capacity.

Question every statement in every step and his argument is nothing but a pile of holes.

[Sisifo]

First off, you allowed yourself to be painted into a corner. You agreed to his conditions without challenging them. It's a common trap.

Second, multiple branching don't guarantee every possible outcome. String theory allows for 10500 possible alternate universes. If each and every action was binary we'd have used those up a few billion years ago.

Third, every time he says "there must be", it means he's assuming something that "might be". Then he's taking that as gospel and building his next assumption on that.

The main problem is that I am lost in Quantum physics, but you are changing "the rules" of the argument. Quantum physics is widely accepted. String theory isn't, at least in its several (and often opposite) hypothesis.

Anyway, it's a good argument. Although I would not be able to follow it up. I cannot follow string theory.

This is just the ontological argument by the backdoor. "If you can imagine it, it must exist," is bollocks. Why must it? I can imagine a universe where I win the lottery every week - don't mean it's out there.

According to the multiple worlds theory, it would... Schrödinger's Cat and all that...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The main problem is that I am lost in Quantum physics, but you are changing "the rules" of the argument. Quantum physics is widely accepted. String theory isn't, at least in its several (and often opposite) hypothesis.

From the reading I've done in SciAm, Science Illustrated, etc., string theory is doing fine. As for rules, don't play by his or you'll have to loose, he's setting you up. "Leading you down the primrose path."

[angrychimp]

So he's suggesting one species created another?

Isn't that just 'Turtles all the way down' ??

[AshtonBlack]

Easy peasy, he falls at the first hurdle.

1) In Quantum Physics only the standard model has been tested. (The LHC is looking for something that the standard model infers, the Higgs Boson, for example.)
2) String theory, M-theory, and therefore "multiple universes/dimentions" is a hypothesis and has not been tested by experiment. It has only been postulated mathematically any discussion of such is just a thought experiment.

Therefore, he's talking bollocks.

[Clinton Huxley]

The whole argument is nonsense but this technique is a fundy standard. Best way I've seen similar techniques defeated was in a radio interview with Christopher Hitchens - the argument wasn't about quantum physics but the counter-tactic still applies: simply refuse to go along with even the first premise. Shoot that down. Disagree with every statement and don't let your opponent build his argument.

Hear Hitchens destroy Todd Friel

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... gelica.php

[charlou]

Friend: Agreed. Hence there must be one universe for all possible life evolutions, whether terrestrial or not, human or not.

Me: Agreed.

Friend: Many of those species aren't bound to terrestrial biological laws, although they are to physics... In that sense we can imagine thinking capacity and sensorial capacities that aren't limited by terrestrial organs-like.

Many of those species? What species? Your friend is leaping from the agreed postulation that there must be one universe for all possible life evolutions, whether terrestrial or not, human or not, to assertion about the existence and characteristics of species.

Friend: Among those universes, there must be a species of unlimited intelligence and unlimited sensorial capacity, because if you can imagine an species with a higher conscience, that would be the universe we are talking about. In any case, all the statements lead to the fact that according to this theory there is an species in the Quantum spectrum that holds the maximum capacities allowed by physics. Absolute sensorial capacities, absolute intelligence.

Among those universes (plural)? If that's not a grammatical error on your part Carlos (if it is, no problem, consider it overlooked), your friend previously agreed there must be one universe for all possible life evolutions, etc. The rest of that paragraph is just a bunch of assertions with no logical foundation and no supporting evidence. Use of phrases like 'must be', 'would be', 'fact that', 'there is', 'that holds', and 'absolute' (x2), is asserting truth, for which, in this case, there's no established basis.

[Sisifo]

It can work, but for the record, he is not a fundie. I'm not even sure what's his religion if he has any. It was an argument game we play often, usually wasted and usually without answers... This time, though, he got me flat...

If I recall correctly, after that one, we passed to discuss if the morning hard-on, was friend or foe...

[Mr P]

Friend: Quantum physics postulates that anything possible that is not happening, happens in a different universe/reality.

Taking the advice of the honourable Mr Huxley esq. I'd say this first premise is based solely on Hugh Everetts many-worlds interpretation of QM which, while useful for performing interesting philosophical thought experiments, is by it's very definition untestable. Your reality can never interact with any alternate version so rendering the concept irrelevant.

Ask you friend how he can reconcile his views with the Copenhagen interpretation or Feynmans sum-over-paths interpretation, or even if he can give a good description of the mechanism behind decoherence... that should stump 'em

[Mr P]

Another aproach you could take is with his description of this ultimate entity.
Suppose you accept the quantum bunkum presented as given and that in some reality somwhere exists this being he describes:

Friend: Among those universes, there must be a species of unlimited intelligence and unlimited sensorial capacity, because if you can imagine an species with a higher conscience, that would be the universe we are talking about. In any case, all the statements lead to the fact that according to this theory there is an species in the Quantum spectrum that holds the maximum capacities allowed by physics. Absolute sensorial capacities, absolute intelligence.

Me: I think I know where you are trying to go, but that species would be limited within their universe.

Friend: Oh, but with their absolute understanding and dominion of the laws of the universe they can replicate any physics fenomenon, including a big bang and creating an universe...

A being that is defined as existing within a universe can't be of ulimited intelligence, as defined in my previous post these realities never interact so this being can't have knowledge of events outside of its own universe. His definition of unlimited intelligence can be used to tie him up in a series of paradoxes that render the concept logically impossible.

[Sisifo]

Friend: Quantum physics postulates that anything possible that is not happening, happens in a different universe/reality.

Taking the advice of the honourable Mr Huxley esq. I'd say this first premise is based solely on Hugh Everetts many-worlds interpretation of QM which, while useful for performing interesting philosophical thought experiments, is by it's very definition untestable. Your reality can never interact with any alternate version so rendering the concept irrelevant.

Ask you friend how he can reconcile his views with the Copenhagen interpretation or Feynmans sum-over-paths interpretation, or even if he can give a good description of the mechanism behind decoherence... that should stump 'em

He only needs to be right in one interpretation. I can only win the argument within the many worlds hypothesis, or denying the many worlds hypothesis... Otherwise, he wins based in a scientific theory, which was the goal of the game...

And again, I insist: this is an intellectual game among friends, so anti-fundy tactics would be kinda rude... like breaking the deck...

[Sisifo]

His definition of unlimited intelligence can be used to tie him up in a series of paradoxes that render the concept logically impossible.

That can work. Ellaborate, please.

[Mr P]

His definition of unlimited intelligence can be used to tie him up in a series of paradoxes that render the concept logically impossible.

That can work. Ellaborate, please.

This entity has unlimited intelligence, so your friend is saying that it is omniscient, it knows all about it's existence, has full knowledge of every particle, field and quantum fluctuation within its reality. Any conscious activity this entity performed would generate new information that was previously unknown to it and so rendering the concept of unlimited intelligence logically impossible.

Also this entity is basically Laplaces demon in all but name.

From the Wikipdeia page:

There has recently been proposed a limit on the computational power of the universe, i.e. the ability of Laplace's Demon to process an infinite amount of information. The limit is based on the maximum entropy of the universe, the speed of light, and the minimum amount of time taken to move information across the Planck length, and the figure was shown to be about 10120 bits. Accordingly, anything that requires more than this amount of data cannot be computed in the amount of time that has elapsed so far in the universe.

Another theory suggests that if Laplace's demon were to occupy a parallel universe or alternate dimension from which it could determine the implied data and do the necessary calculations on an alternate and greater time line the aforementioned time limitation would not apply. This is, in fact, mandatory since if a Laplace's demon was in the reality that we occupy it would have to account for itself in addition to every other aspect of matter and energy, and the grand total cannot exceed the smaller portion.

Hope that helps