3 ms·

Q1: Why didn’t God just make the universe classical and be done with it? What would’ve been wrong with that choice? Why mention God? If you're attempting a sci

Q1: Why didn’t God just make the universe classical and be done with it? What would’ve been wrong with that choice? Why mention God? If you're attempting a scientific stance, starting your initial question with an unproven deity who doesn't want us to eat meat on Fridays part of the year, why? Why include that, it's an instant turnoff to any evidence-based reader.

messe 5y ago
I think you're reading far too much into that. Anecdotally, I'm as atheistic as they come, and I don't have a problem with that. It even echoes Einstein's famous quotation "God does not play dice with the universe".
criddell 5y ago
Many evidence-based readers don't mind when a bit of poetic language creeps into technical or scientific writing.
MathCodeLove 5y ago
I think your assumption that he meant the Christian monotheistic god may be the problem. Maybe that's precisely what they meant, but I find more often in these kind of discussions its meant as a placeholder for "The event/entity/unknown source of the universe." I'm an atheist myself and find no issue in the use of the word God here. We don't know with any certainty how the universe was spawned into being, using God as a sort of shorthand to state as much isn't a problem.
platz 5y ago
Religion isn't relevant to the question scott is pursuing and neither is your aversion to it.
GuB-42 5y ago
Why assume a specific deity? There is nothing in that text that assumes that this is the god Christians believe in. For all we know, it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't think there is a problem in mentioning God as a shorthand for "whatever caused the universe to be the way it is and cannot be proven". Like axioms in maths, you need some unproven assumptions to do something, otherwise you get ridiculous situations like Boltzmann brains. Q1 could be understood as "why is the universe so weird as to require quantum mechanics?" It is undecidable, just like god is, but it makes the point that quantum mechanics may take us a bit too far. For example, it may result in said Boltzmann brains, and once you get to that point, the science become meaningless. The maths of quantum mechanics check out, this is unquestionable, but the article is about the deeper implications, at the limit of philosophy. If you are in the "shut up and calculate" camp (which is fine), it may be meaningless to you, but I don't think it is an unscientific debate.

messe 5y ago

I think you're reading far too much into that. Anecdotally, I'm as atheistic as they come, and I don't have a problem with that. It even echoes Einstein's famous quotation "God does not play dice with the universe".

criddell 5y ago

Many evidence-based readers don't mind when a bit of poetic language creeps into technical or scientific writing.

MathCodeLove 5y ago

I think your assumption that he meant the Christian monotheistic god may be the problem. Maybe that's precisely what they meant, but I find more often in these kind of discussions its meant as a placeholder for "The event/entity/unknown source of the universe." I'm an atheist myself and find no issue in the use of the word God here. We don't know with any certainty how the universe was spawned into being, using God as a sort of shorthand to state as much isn't a problem.

platz 5y ago

Religion isn't relevant to the question scott is pursuing and neither is your aversion to it.

GuB-42 5y ago

Why assume a specific deity? There is nothing in that text that assumes that this is the god Christians believe in. For all we know, it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't think there is a problem in mentioning God as a shorthand for "whatever caused the universe to be the way it is and cannot be proven". Like axioms in maths, you need some unproven assumptions to do something, otherwise you get ridiculous situations like Boltzmann brains. Q1 could be understood as "why is the universe so weird as to require quantum mechanics?" It is undecidable, just like god is, but it makes the point that quantum mechanics may take us a bit too far. For example, it may result in said Boltzmann brains, and once you get to that point, the science become meaningless. The maths of quantum mechanics check out, this is unquestionable, but the article is about the deeper implications, at the limit of philosophy. If you are in the "shut up and calculate" camp (which is fine), it may be meaningless to you, but I don't think it is an unscientific debate.