Author Archives: Bruce Nielson

Explaining Quantum Physics – The Nature of Reality

Posted on by

In this post I’m going to attempt the impossible: I’m going to explain (at a high level) Quantum Physics using math while trying to keep it interesting. I’m basically going to use a dumbed down and somewhat modified example I’ve taken from Roger Penrose’s book called Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness.

I believe people willing to persevere through this post will find themselves surprised by the end by the rather starling philosophical implications of quantum physics. I also believe that, if you take it slowly, the math is understandable to any high school graduate. I am personally very bad at math and can only handle this example because the math is so easy. If you don’t assume you can’t understand it, you’ll find that you can.

Forget What You Think You Know

Unless you are a physicist, start by emptying your mind of what you think you know about quantum physics through popular books because there is a substantial gap between what people say about Quantum Physics and the real theory. It seems to me that Quantum Physics currently gets used as the new ‘magic’. It’s become common for the fad magical (or sometimes even religious) worldview of the moment to slap a ‘quantum’ label in there somewhere to add a scientific veneer. [1] The reason this happens is because quantum physics has a deserved reputation for being really ‘weird’. But keep in mind what ‘weird’ means. It only means “something I’m not familiar with.” Claiming something is ‘weird’ says nothing ontological about the object/idea in question and actually serves as a statement about the speaker’s state of ignorance of the subject. (A point I often bring up when we talk about Mormons or other religions being “weird.”) Continue reading →

42: Science, Religion, Philosophy, and Everything

Posted on by

I have wanted to do a series of posts discussing various topics I find interesting. I love trying to find the cross section between science, religion, and philosophy. Sometimes I have to look really hard to find such a cross section. At any given moment, any two of these areas of knowledge are likely going in such opposite directions that there is no hope of them ever meeting without a major paradigm shift. But I find it fun to try all the same.

Exploring the intersection of science and philosophy through the lens of AI offers a fascinating glimpse into the evolving dynamics of knowledge and belief systems. AI, with its immense processing power and ability to analyze vast datasets, provides new insights into age-old philosophical questions about consciousness, existence, and the nature of reality. This technological advancement challenges philosophical perspectives, pushing us to reconsider our understanding of these domains.

On the MindPrison site founded by Dakara, such explorations are essential, as they encourage us to question and critically evaluate the implications of AI on our intellectual and spiritual lives. Moreover, the integration of AI into philosophical discourse opens up new avenues for dialogue and discovery. AI’s capacity to simulate human thought processes and predict outcomes can illuminate the ways in which science intersect, often in unexpected and profound ways.

I once did a series of posts for Wheat and Tares (M* got pointers to the posts) on epistemology. Epistemology is a fancy word for “theory of knowledge” or, in other words, it’s a word for a theory on how we gain knowledge.

Karl Popper’s theory of epistemology is in the forefront of all other theories of knowledge because his theory is superior to all contenders. However, Popper’s own presentation had some flaws that I felt Thomas Kuhn filled in nicely. (Though Kuhn’s conclusions that there is no such thing as scientific realism seem patently false to me.) My posts made an attempt to integrate some of Kuhn’s better ideas into Popper’s overall framework. In addition, I threw in some of David Deutsch’s improvements on Popper plus some ideas from John Polkinghorne. For those interested, see my summary of this epistemology here. Continue reading →

Betting on Romney

Posted on by

Seth R and I have a bet now as to who is going to win the nomination. I’m betting on Gingrich (or at least someone other than Romney) and he on Romney. Frankly, all things being equal, the odds are on his side. This article here explains why. In the article, we have a PhD explaining why the predictions market still favors Romney over Gingrich. Essentially, it boils down to what possible scenarios will play out for the first states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida) and how they anticipate the Republican bosses reacting.

One interesting idea in the article is that the anti-Romney crowd, seeing Gingrich can’t win, promotes Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul instead leading to a victory over Gingrich.

So I can see why Seth and others feel like Gingrich is only an outside chance. Continue reading →

Some Additional Thoughts on the Evangelical Anti-Romney Candidates

Posted on by

Ginger White’s Story and Herman Cain

First, read this article here. It’s enough to make me want to weep for the children of men.

It wasn’t long ago that we all talked about rating the candidates. At that point I had already decided that, based on the available evidence, that Herman Cain was probably guilty of sexual harassment so I couldn’t vote for him in good conscience.

A lot of new information has come out since then, all of it bad news for Cain. I’m honestly curious what Rameumpton thinks that this point given the new evidence to evaluate. (If he still believes in Cain, that’s cool. This isn’t a challenge, just a question.)

Me personally? I’ve gone from believing Cain ‘probably’ did it to feeling that if I was in a court of law and I was a juror that I’d have no issue (at least given the current state of the evidence) convicting him as guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course new evidence could easily change my mind. But I have my doubts counter evidence is on the way.

Ginger White’s testimony, when bolstered by the other four women accusing Cain of sexual harassment plus the fact that his wife didn’t even know he was financially supporting Ginger White, is certainly enough to convince me beyond reasonable doubt that Herman Cain is a bona-fide monster. Continue reading →