Feb 2: Quantum Mechanics and Faith?

 At a recent dinner party with friends, the topic of quantum mechanics came up.  Yes, I know, it takes a special group of people to wonder aloud to each other at dinner about quantum entanglement, light's particle/wave duality, the uncertainty principle and such, but that's how we roll around here.  The context of the discussion was how the phenomena of quantum mechanics were so at odds with our understanding and experiences with the macro world we live in.  And hidden in the background was a feeling that there might be the basis for a religious or semi-religious philosophy here somewhere.  (According to QM theory a thing doesn't exist until we look for it, right?)  

There has been a lot of conjecture that QM has a role to play with consciousness, and many have tried to connect the dots in that way.  I have a book on my shelf called The Physics of Consciousness, by Evan Harris Walker that spells out just such a theory, and has been the basis for a topic for BQ many years ago.  There seems to be something special about QM that lends itself to extrapolation to metaphysical realms in some way, so why not talk about them?

So I asked Bard, the AI:  Is there an element of the supernatural in quantum mechanics?  Could quantum mechanics be the basis of a faith system?

<Bard's Response> 

Whether there's an element of the supernatural in quantum mechanics is a complex question with no easy answer. It depends heavily on your definition of "supernatural."

Here's why it's a tricky topic:

• Quantum mechanics is undeniably strange: It deals with concepts like superposition, entanglement, and wave-particle duality, which seem counter-intuitive and defy everyday experience. This strangeness can lead some to associate it with the supernatural, even though it's firmly grounded in scientific principles and tested through experiments.
• Science and religion often explore different realms: Science focuses on the natural world and explanations based on evidence and observation, while religion deals with the spiritual realm and questions of ultimate meaning and purpose. They can overlap in some areas, but their approaches differ fundamentally.
• Interpretations of quantum mechanics vary: There are different interpretations of quantum mechanics, each with its own implications. Some interpretations, like the Copenhagen interpretation, emphasize the probabilistic nature of quantum events, which can be misinterpreted as "randomness" and fuel supernatural ideas. Others, like the Many Worlds interpretation, suggest the existence of parallel universes, which can also sound fantastical.

Can it be the basis of a faith system?

While quantum mechanics offers fascinating insights into the universe, it's not generally considered a suitable basis for a faith system itself. Here's why:

• Lack of moral guidance: Quantum mechanics primarily deals with the physical world and doesn't offer answers to questions about morality, ethics, or the meaning of life. These are typically addressed by religious or philosophical systems.
• Absence of deities or spirituality: Quantum mechanics doesn't introduce deities, supernatural forces, or spiritual practices, which are often core components of faith systems.
• Focus on evidence and reason: Science, including quantum mechanics, relies on evidence and reason, while faith systems often involve belief and personal interpretation.

However, some people find inspiration in the beauty and mystery of quantum mechanics and use it to strengthen their existing faith or develop their own personal spiritual beliefs. This can involve drawing parallels between quantum phenomena and religious concepts, or simply finding comfort in the vastness and complexity of the universe revealed by science.

Ultimately, whether you see a supernatural element in quantum mechanics or not is a personal decision based on your individual beliefs and understanding. It's important to approach the topic with an open mind and be aware of the different perspectives involved. <end>

Human Beginnings

For a Christmas present I received a book.  Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Harari.  I am several chapters into it by now, and I find it fascinating.  The author is explaining how the several species in the genus Homo (meaning man), including Sapiens (southern and eastern Africa), Neanderthals (northern Europe and Asia), and Denisovians (in the far eastern Asia) all co-existed at one point, but were widely separated by terrain.  Then, about 70,000 years ago H. sapiens moved north, and eventually east, and the Neanderthals and Denisovians "disappeared".  

He speculates that the key element of difference was the development of a better and more articulate language that included concepts that made it possible for the H. sapiens species to overwhelm and defeat the others.  This language was accompanied by an awareness the others did not have which included abstract concepts like gods and religion, among others.  Earliest artifacts from that time are carved pieces that could be interpreted as icons depicting hypothetical deities, half lion, half man, that sort of thing.  This abstract thinking lead, in the author's opinion, to other ideas that could organize what had been a purely hunter/gatherer society into towns and cities, organizations of people and materials that family-based agrarian societies could not muster.  In the clash of species that followed the advancement of H. sapiens, the larger and more cold-adapted Neanderthals never stood a chance of protecting their territories.

He also suggests that DNA evidence shows that Neanderthals and H. sapiens were only marginally compatible, much like horses and donkeys.  Horses and donkeys can produce an offspring, a mule, but mules are sterile.  The rarity of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans, he says, is evidence of this same sort of incompatibility, and the reason for calling each group a separate species.

  The author spends a lot of time talking about the timeline of human development, and how this 70,000 year old inter-species interaction was, geologically and biologically speaking, like it happened almost yesterday.  These peoples had language, social structures, a sense of themselves, and so on, so that if you met one today they might go unnoticed.  He points out that one group migrated through modern Indonesia and into Australia about 45,000 years ago, and were essentially isolated since then.  You want to see what humanity looked like 45,000 years ago, watch the movie Crocodile Dundee!  Darwinian evolution certainly was taking place all this time, but the forces of change were not very severe.

I raise this with my BQ regulars mostly as a heads-up that I am reading this book, and that topics from it might show up in future BQ blogs.  Let me know if you decide to read the book, and if enough people do, let's set a time to talk about it together.  Obviously I am interested in the topic.

Humans and Nature: A shared destiny?

 <Des>  I asked Bard for a topic for this Friday's meeting. He (it) responded with this:

<Bard> Ah, the relationship between humans and nature - a rich and complex topic perfect for a Big Questions discussion! Here are some ways you can approach it to make for a stimulating evening:

Focus on specific aspects:

• Stewards vs. exploiters: Explore the evolving perception of humans in relation to nature. Has our role shifted from co-existence to domination? How can we move towards a more sustainable relationship?
• Biophilia and the human need for nature: Discuss the innate human connection to the natural world and its impact on our physical and mental well-being. Does technology replace or exacerbate this need?
• Nature's agency and rights: Challenge the anthropocentric view and delve into the concept of inherent value in nature itself. Should ecosystems have rights? How does this change our interactions with the environment?
• Indigenous perspectives: Learn about traditional ecological knowledge and the deep respect many cultures have for nature. How can these perspectives inform our own conservation efforts?

Go beyond the theoretical:

• Case studies: Analyze real-world examples of successful co-existence or devastating exploitation of nature. Discuss the underlying factors and lessons learned.
• Personal reflections: Encourage participants to share their own experiences and relationships with nature. How do these shape their values and actions?
• Creative activities: Incorporate art, music, or writing exercises to explore the topic in a non-linear way. This can spark new insights and foster empathy.
• Actionable outcomes: Don't let the discussion end with ideas! Brainstorm concrete steps individuals or the group can take to improve their relationship with nature and promote sustainability.

Additional tips:

• Invite a guest speaker: Consider inviting a conservationist, ecologist, or philosopher to share their expertise and perspectives.
• Use multimedia: Images, videos, and quotes can enrich the discussion and spark new ideas.
• Create a safe space: Encourage respectful dialogue and diverse viewpoints.
• Have fun! The goal is to engage with a complex topic in a meaningful and enjoyable way.

I hope this provides a good starting point for your Big Questions meeting! Remember, the key is to choose an aspect of the human-nature relationship that resonates with your group and leads to a lively and thought-provoking discussion. Have a great time!

Drawing 2023 to a Close

 Thank you to all of the BQ participants this past year!  We made it through a tough year for philosophy, it seems.  At least we didn't spend a lot of time rationalizing all the bad and crazy things that happened in the world in 2023.  Let's hope 2024 brings better things.  Have a happy holiday season, and we can get together again in January! 

Atheism as a Valid Religious Point of View - Dec 15

 In our recent meeting a link to a "debate" was shared between Stephen Colbert and Ricky Gervais over the extent of  differences in beliefs between those that believe in one God, and those who do not believe in any god.  In one case a "believer" (Colbert) denies the existence of all the gods that have ever been identified but one, and a non-believer (Gervais) denies all those plus even this last one.  Ricky points out that Stephen rejects 2,999 of 3,000 gods, and Ricky rejects all 3,000.  So, what's all the fuss about?

Thinking about this argument strategy, I thought it might be a good time to revisit the concept of atheism.  I asked Bard to develop an outline that could be used to justify that atheism is a valid religious point of view.  Bard responded:

<Bard> Sure, here is an outline of an argument that atheism is a valid religious point of view:

Introduction

• Define atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
• Explain that atheism is not the same as agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
• State the thesis that atheism is a valid religious point of view.

Body Paragraph 1: Atheism as a Belief System

• Discuss how atheism has a coherent worldview that explains the universe and human existence without the need for supernatural forces.
• Highlight the ethical and moral principles that many atheists uphold, such as humanism, compassion, and justice.
• Address common misconceptions about atheism, such as the idea that atheists are immoral or that atheism is a rejection of spirituality.

Body Paragraph 2: Atheism in History and Culture

• Provide examples of prominent atheists throughout history, such as philosophers, scientists, and activists.
• Explore the cultural and religious diversity within the atheist community.
• Address the historical persecution and marginalization of atheists in various societies.

Body Paragraph 3: The Legal Recognition of Atheism

• Discuss the increasing legal recognition of atheism around the world.
• Examine the arguments for and against the inclusion of atheism as a protected religion.
• Address the challenges and opportunities for atheists in promoting their beliefs and practices.

Conclusion

• Reiterate the argument that atheism is a valid religious point of view.
• Emphasize the importance of respecting the beliefs of others, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.
• Call for greater understanding and tolerance of atheism in society.  <End>

<Des>  Bard does not provide the hard facts and data that they suggest form the supporting basis of their suggestions, which I think is a good thing.  The reader is left to ask the right questions and find the information Bard points out in the outline.  That is what Google is for.  

Philosophy of Invasion - Nov. 17

 Broadly speaking, can one country invade another and use any of the philosophical perspectives noted below as a justification?  I asked Google's Bard AI to identify the philosophical basis for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Bard nicely outlined several, and offered supporting and contradictory points of view on each.  Basic human evil even made the list, in both radical and benign versions.  We have discussed the nature of evil in the past, but have not really dissected it into these particular types, although WW2 could certainly be invoked as a key example.

My hope is that we can go down the list and consider the issues as Bard has presented them.  What list would Bard have generated if we considered the Hamas/Israeli war?

<Des> What philosophical issues were raised when Russia invaded Ukraine?

<Bard> Russia's invasion of Ukraine raises a number of philosophical issues, including:

• Just war theory: Is the invasion justified under just war theory? Just war theory is a set of ethical principles that govern the use of military force. It holds that war is only justified as a last resort, in self-defense, and to achieve a just peace. Some philosophers argue that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified under just war theory, as it is a response to NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's alleged genocide of Russian speakers in the Donbas region. Others argue that the invasion is not justified, as it is not a last resort, it is not proportionate to the threat posed by NATO or Ukraine, and it is unlikely to achieve a just peace.

• Self-determination: Does Ukraine have the right to self-determination? The right to self-determination is a fundamental human right that allows people to freely choose their own political status and form of government. Russia has argued that Ukraine's right to self-determination is limited by its own security interests. However, most philosophers and international law experts agree that Ukraine has the right to self-determination, and that Russia's invasion is a violation of this right.

• Humanitarian intervention: Is it permissible to intervene militarily in Ukraine to protect civilians? Humanitarian intervention is the use of military force to protect civilians from human rights abuses, without the consent of the government responsible for those abuses. Some philosophers argue that humanitarian intervention is permissible, even when it violates the principle of state sovereignty. Others argue that humanitarian intervention is only permissible when the human rights abuses are very severe, and when there is a good chance of success.

• The responsibility to protect: Does the international community have a responsibility to protect civilians in Ukraine? The responsibility to protect is a norm in international law that holds states responsible for protecting their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a state is unable or unwilling to protect its own population, the international community has a responsibility to intervene. Most philosophers and international law experts agree that the international community has a responsibility to protect civilians in Ukraine.

• The nature of evil: What does Russia's invasion of Ukraine tell us about the nature of evil? Some philosophers have argued that the invasion is an example of radical evil, which is evil that is committed without any moral qualms or regard for the suffering of others. Others have argued that the invasion is an example of banal evil, which is evil that is committed by ordinary people who are following orders or simply going along with the crowd.

These are just a few of the philosophical issues raised by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The war is a complex and challenging event, and there is no easy answers to the questions it raises. However, by thinking critically about these issues, we can gain a better understanding of the war and its implications for the future of international relations. <end of Bard's response>

Nov 3 - Be skeptical, Very skeptical...

 I recently listened to Bergstrom and West's new book Calling Bullshit.  The authors are UW professors, one in biology and one in information science.  They highlight popular topics, scientific papers, political statements, and more, and show how statements made are misleading, data used to support topics is not valid for any of several reasons, hypotheses are incomplete or developed after the study was underway, and so much more.  It is a full course given at UW, condensed to some extent to be presented in just over of 10 hours if all you do is listen.

I thought we might discuss how we each protect ourselves from the ubiquitous barrage of dis- and mis-information that surrounds us every day.  Perhaps you can bring your favorite BS statement that we can debunk, or at least dissect.

The publisher's blurb taken from Audible.com:

Bullshit isn’t what it used to be. Now, two science professors give us the tools to dismantle misinformation and think clearly in a world of fake news and bad data.

Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news abound, and it’s increasingly difficult to know what’s true. Our media environment has become hyperpartisan. Science is conducted by press release. Start-up culture elevates bullshit to high art. We are fairly well equipped to spot the sort of old-school bullshit that is based in fancy rhetoric and weasel words, but most of us don’t feel qualified to challenge the avalanche of new-school bullshit presented in the language of math, science, or statistics. In Calling Bullshit, Professors Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West give us a set of powerful tools to cut through the most intimidating data.

You don’t need a lot of technical expertise to call out problems with data. Are the numbers or results too good or too dramatic to be true? Is the claim comparing like with like? Is it confirming your personal bias? Drawing on a deep well of expertise in statistics and computational biology, Bergstrom and West exuberantly unpack examples of selection bias and muddled data visualization, distinguish between correlation and causation, and examine the susceptibility of science to modern bullshit.

We have always needed people who call bullshit when necessary, whether within a circle of friends, a community of scholars, or the citizenry of a nation. Now that bullshit has evolved, we need to relearn the art of skepticism.