Judging existence- the epistemic fallacy

According to Bhaskar, the 'epistemic fallacy' is answering a question about 'ontology' (by which he means whether some particular thing exists) with an answer about our knowledge of it, i.e., 'epistemology', as if whether something exists were the same question as whether we know it exists.

Atheism as a belief does not have to present intellectual credentials within academia. Yet to hold beliefs means giving reasons for doing so, ones which may be found wanting. Instead, atheism is the automatic default setting within the academic world.

When Pluto was reclassified in 2006 from a planet to a dwarf planet, there was widespread outrage on behalf of the demoted planet. As the textbooks were updated, the internet spawned memes with Pluto going through a range of emotions, from anger to loneliness. But since the release of New Horizons images showing a very prominent heart-shaped feature on the surface, the sad Pluto meme has given way to a very content, loving Pluto that would like to once again be visited by a spacecraft.

The overwhelming majority of matter's mass or weight is composed of protons and neutrons, which are both composed of three quarks. Nevertheless, the cumulative mass of three quarks is below 1% of that which constitutes a proton or neutron. The strong nuclear force, which binds particles, is theorists' estimate of the entity accountable for 99 percent of the mass.
Comparable to the vacuum of the night sky are atoms. On the contrary, matter that exhibits a solid appearance results from the mutual repulsion of the negative exterior electrons of these cavities. A disintegrating star undergoes a transformation from atomic voids to pulsars, solid masses exclusively composed of neutrons that have a minimum mass of 10 million tons per thimbleful, due to the influence of intense gravity.

the indeterminacy of quantum physics is a terrible way to prove the existence of God. A much better way would be to say that, since particles are not self-existing, there must be some self-existent being that sustains them in existence at each moment. Or, you could point to the fine-tuning of the over 100 types of subatomic particles, each with their various properties, to combine in amazing ways to provide the texture for the world we see around us, in order to show that there must be a designing mind behind them that also designed the universe.

Quantum mechanics is science’s most precise, powerful theory of reality. It has predicted countless experiments, spawned countless applications. The trouble is, physicists and philosophers disagree over what it means, that is, what it says about how the world works. Many physicists—most, probably—adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, advanced by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. But that is a kind of anti-interpretation, which says physicists should not try to make sense of quantum mechanics; they should “shut up and calculate,” as physicist David Mermin once put it.

Philosopher Tim Maudlin deplores this situation. In his 2019 book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory, he points out that several interpretations of quantum mechanics describe in detail how the world works. These include the GRW model proposed by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber; the pilot-wave theory of David Bohm; and the many-worlds hypothesis of Hugh Everett. But here’s the irony: Maudlin is so scrupulous in pointing out the flaws of these interpretations that he reinforces my skepticism. They all seem hopelessly kludgy and preposterous.

Maudlin does not examine interpretations that recast quantum mechanics as a theory about information. For positive perspectives on information-based interpretations, check out Beyond Weird by journalist Philip Ball and The Ascent of Information by astrobiologist Caleb Scharf. But to my mind, information-based takes on quantum mechanics are even less plausible than the interpretations that Maudlin scrutinizes. The concept of information makes no sense without conscious beings to send, receive and act upon the information.

Introducing consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity. Moreover, as far as we know, consciousness arises only in certain organisms that have existed for a brief period here on Earth. So how can quantum mechanics, if it’s a theory of information rather than matter and energy, apply to the entire cosmos since the big bang? Information-based theories of physics seem like a throwback to geocentrism, which assumed the universe revolves around us. Given the problems with all interpretations of quantum mechanics, agnosticism, again, strikes me as a sensible stance.

Christians contend that theology can be harmonized with science. Both disciplines pursue the same object—truth—and by that common object are unified. Even methodologically, science and religion are complementary. As Pope St. John Paul II duly observed, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Among the many scientists who would agree with John Paul II, one of the greatest modern advocates for the complementarity of science and religion has been Sir John Polkinghorne, the distinguished particle physicist and Anglican priest.

Polkinghorne, who recently died at the age of ninety, obtained a doctorate in quantum field theory from Cambridge in 1956. He obtained a second doctorate in elementary particle physics in 1974. A few years later he left his research post (to the shock of many) to pursue theological studies, eventually being ordained as a priest in the Church of England in 1982. Polkinghorne became a key proponent for the reciprocal complementarity of theology and science (writing almost thirty books on the topic), and of the unique ability of the Christian worldview to broaden and deepen one’s vision of reality in both its physical and metaphysical domains.

Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously contended that science and religion constitute “non-overlapping magisteria.” He proposed the idea of a hard separation between the domains of science and religion. As a result of this separation, the domains may in no way be said to be in conflict with—or to complement—one another. His theory had the favorable effect, perhaps, of maintaining the fact that scientific thinking is not in conflict with Christian doctrine. But, ultimately, the theory is too radical. It goes too far.

non-overlapping magisteria

So folks, let's encourage stupidjones to continue stealing other's work and reposting it as his own. It will teach us all how to NOT use AI effectively.