Is It Correct to Say There is “No” Evidence For the Supernatural Part 2

[Faizal_Ali]

@Jim

This is just not so. Either you don’t understand my argument, or you are misrepresenting it. On my argument, even if we cannot “see” atoms, we simply follow the relevant evidence where it leads. And if it leads us to conclude that atoms exist, then that is the conclusion to make.

OK. Now apply that to the wave function of a quantum particle, and demonstrate what you believe to be the difference.

[Jim]

@Faizal_Ali

OK. Now apply that to the wave function of a quantum particle, and demonstrate what you believe to be the difference.

What is the evidence for an immaterial abstract object existing as a material concrete object?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Jim

What is the evidence for an immaterial abstract object existing as a material concrete object?

Dunno.

Why are you trying to change the subject?

[Jim]

So you deny that a wave function is an immaterial abstract object?

[Faizal_Ali]

“Deny” is the wrong word. I understand that it is not. Immaterial abstract objects cannot cause physical phenomena, like the interference pattern observed in the double-slit experiment. You disagree?

[Jim]

Before I answer you question, I need you to make clear to me what exactly you think a wave function is if it’s not an immaterial abstract object. Where did the concept of a wave function come from?

[Faizal_Ali]

Screw that. I’m not going to be lectured by you on things I already understand, and have no reason to convince you that I understand them.

You have a grad student in physics trying to educate you about your errors. Maybe ask him if he knows what a wave function is, and see if you approve of his knowledge.

[John_Harshman]

Incoherent phrasing is what is it. A wave function is a mathematical description of an electron, not the electron itself. What you can say is that an electron behaves in the way described by the function. Whether you want to call it an object is a semantic question. Your philosophy of science, such as it is, is hopelessly naive, and you won’t even listen to anyone trying to disabuse you.

[Jim]

@John_Harshman

A wave function is a mathematical description of an electron, not the electron itself. What you can say is that an electron behaves in the way described by the function.

Exactly. It’s a mathematical formula, i.e., an immaterial abstract object, that describes the behavior of a quantum particle. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words it’s not meant as an explanation, only as a description. And the observation it describes isn’t even the actual entity itself, but rather the behavior of that entity.

[John_Harshman]

@Jim

Exactly.

You say that, and then you go off on a stream of incoherence. There’s no way to talk to you.

[Jim]

@John_Harshman

You say that, and then you go off on a stream of incoherence. There’s no way to talk to you.

Just because it’s something that you’re not familiar with doesn’t mean it’s incoherent. I’m more than happy to try and explain what’s going on for those who are having a hard time following my line of reasoning.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

What is the evidence for an immaterial abstract object existing as a material concrete object?

The wave function of a particle is an abstract concept, not an abstract object. You get this wrong every time. All of our theories in science are abstract concepts, and we use the scientific method to determine if they are material concrete objects. The double slit experiment is just that, we can verify or falsify the concept of wavefunctions using the experiment. If the results were two diffraction patterns then the theory would be falsified, but instead we get the interference pattern predicted by the theory.

@Jim

Exactly. It’s a mathematical formula, i.e., an immaterial abstract object, that describes the behavior of a quantum particle. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words it’s not meant as an explanation, only as a description. And the observation it describes isn’t even the actual entity itself, but rather the behavior of that entity.

Then you reject the scientific method. There’s no way around it.

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

The wave function of a particle is an abstract concept , not an abstract object.

I might agree with you here. But first I want to know what you see as the distinction between an abstract object and an abstract concept?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Jim

Seems to me that this is not a case of an abuductive inference, but rather a deductive inference. Either way, I don’t see why it is in any way a serious concern to what I’m arguing.

Then you are flatly mistaken. I’m sorry to have to keep telling you but you don’t seem to really understand what these terms like abductive, deductive, and inductive mean. And no, quoting the definition to me off some website won’t show you understand the difference in practice and can tell one apart from the other.

That the lumps in some surface pictured using a scanning tunneling microscope are the things we know of as atoms is a concrete example of a scientific abductive inference to the best explanation.

[Jim]

@Rumraket

That the lumps in some surface pictured using a scanning tunneling microscope are the things we know of as atoms is a concrete example of a scientific abductive inference to the best explanation.

OK. I’m willing to go with an abductive inference even though I still think it’s debatable that it’s a deductive inference. However, it doesn’t really affect the argument of the op.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Jim

OK. I’m willing to go with an abductive inference even though I still think it’s debatable that it’s a deductive inference. However, it doesn’t really affect the argument of the op.

True it does not affect the argument of the OP. All the rest of my posts have shown that to be a catastrophe, however. So much so that you gave up and stopped responding.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

But first I want to know what you see as the distinction between an abstract object and an abstract concept?

Scientific models are abstract concepts. If you picture the idea of a rock in your head, that is an abstract object. A painting of a flower is an abstract object.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Jim

Exactly the point I was making. I totally agree. Relevant evidence, relevant knowledge, and careful analysis, that’s what’s important.

But you don’t analyze evidence, Jim.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@T_aquaticus

@Jim

Exactly. It’s a mathematical formula, i.e., an immaterial abstract object, that describes the behavior of a quantum particle. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words it’s not meant as an explanation, only as a description. And the observation it describes isn’t even the actual entity itself, but rather the behavior of that entity.

Then you reject the scientific method. There’s no way around it.

That’s been obvious for many months now.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

I’m willing to go with an abductive inference even though I still think it’s debatable that it’s a deductive inference.

From what I have seen, your version of abductive inference is whatever you subjectively think is likely. It is nothing more than a reflection of your own bias.