Once you have the natural law theory of morality in place, their arguments fall apart. Without it, anything is permissible.

We reject morality as derived from a capricious divine imperative and argue that it actually emerges from the interaction of individuals or small groups to solve a number of recurring problems. This establishes a class of moral facts on a par with natural facts about the world.

Spinoza’s God is transcendent.

“Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner.” — Spinoza

A transcendent being has no local observables, no back parts for Moses to see. Spinoza’s god does.

God is both simple and a trinity

God the Father alone knows the timing of the Day of the Lord. God the Son alone must honor a human woman (his mother) to remain without sin. God the Holy Spirit alone is protected from blasphemy by Christ declaring such a sin unforgivable both in this age and the age to come.

Libertarianism about free will is compatible with the principle of sufficient reason.

Between the determinism of the time evolution of the wavefunction, which admits no deviation, and the stochastic result of the wavefunction update (or collapse) following an observation, which admits no control, where is the handle by which freedom or will enter?

Kant’s argument that existence is not a property begs the question

To avoid self-reference one speaks only of the properties of things rather than the properties of properties. A primary exists if there exists secondary facts appertaining to it. For example, a reverse spiral track in a cloud chamber is evidence for the existence of a positron.

What is the official problem for idealism? Dualism has the interaction problem, physicalism has the hard problem, and panpsychism has the combination problem. Is there one for idealism?

That ideas are purely mental, so any reality things have by being apprehended by mind under the rubric of idealism are merely mental things. A god that exists in the mind is merely the thought of a god. Meanwhile fusion happily occurs in the core of the sun ignorant of all this.

Why Do Atheists Reject God’s Moral Law?

God’s moral law:

1. Put gay guys and witches to death.

2. Don’t eat bacon or shrimp.

3. Women must learn in silence.

4. Female slaves can never be set free.

5. Don’t wear a blouse that is 50% cotton and 50% polyester.

6. The punishment for rape is a fine of 14 dollars.

That would be a hidden variable, ruled out by EPR

Naw, EPR proposed hidden variables to preserve local realism and Bell showed how such theories cannot reproduce the correlations between space-like separated experiments predicted by QM, with the result that QM is either radically non-local or experimenters have no free will.

Thus removing the interference pattern because we “know” which filter the photon traveled through previously. It’s basically double slit experiment with single photons and “observing” which slit the photon went through.

When you know where the photon is the path had to be uncertain to keep Heisenberg from spinning in his grave. You can obtain the position on the screen behind two slits and get interference, or pin down position at one of the slits where a single path to the light source exists.

As David Kaiser’s article makes quite clear quantum computing wouldn’t work without entanglement.

Fortunately every interaction between particles results in entanglement. That’s the ONLY thing that can happen, and it is maintained until the particles entangle with their environment (decohere) because there’s an entanglement budget (monogamy).

This makes no sense, it comes from equating 4pi/3=1. That’s just a wrong equality as pi is not equal to 3/4.

It comes from surreptitiously dropping the dimensions of r (cubic kilometers, cubic miles, what-have-you), which you’re not allowed to do. I can make E=mc² into E=m by setting c to 1, but I still have units of light-years per year and they damn well better still be represented.

I’m pretty sure Sabine advocates for superdeterminism, which would mean that she does not believe that wavefunction collapse occurs

No, Sabine argues that superdeterminism (which only means the detector outcomes are not independent of the settings of the apparatus) allows a linear deterministic hidden variable theory to reproduce the same non-linear measurement outcome as quantum mechanics.

That’s so sparse that it seems to lack any explanatory power. Ok, observables are only real during interaction. Is anything else real? Can this ontology explain what happens in the two split experiment, and why?

When the position basis of the wavefunction collapses this makes the momentum basis of the wavefunction completely indetermined, so which of the two slits were in the particle’s trajectory becomes uncertain. Both were in play. They acted as two sources and created interference.

seems that any influence of one upon the other counts as superdeterminism, while only complete control counts as determinism.

in a sense, the labels are reversed: QM on one side, determinism on the other, with superdeterminism taking up the space between.

Superdeterminism is a bad term invented by Bell, it just means run-of-the-mill determinism, but extended to encompass detector settings. People think it rules out free will. Then again Bell reinvented the word ontology by coining “beables” too. As for the other thing… shrug.

I agree that ordinary determinism seems the same as super determinism to me. Determinism rules out free will as far as I can tell.

Nothing stops you from setting the dial on your apparatus anywhere you want, it’s just impossible to say what you wanted wasn’t predetermined.

Isn’t it the case that retro-causality is justified theoretically by linking causality with time? Time being relative and the arrow of time being somewhat circularly defined, retro-causality would be possible.

The arrow of time is not apparent on the level where quantum mechanics holds sway, only at the classical limit where we can look at a scrambled egg say, “Ah yes, that exists in the future of the raw egg.” Down there all you have events at different times and no way to order them.

Godel proved that even mathematics can’t be entirely trusted. Sierpinski showed nothing is absolute. The best one can hope for is “it appears to be.”

Actually Godel gives you a choice: If you make your mathematics entirely trustworthy, you have to leave something out, but if you make your mathematics entirely complete it can “prove” something that is obviously false.

another good example! anyone who can follow a directed acyclic graph can see these verses’ similarities and differences.

i wonder if there exists a formal duality between them. converse, contrapositive, deMorgan doesn’t quite get me there yet

But DeMorgan does get you from de law of non-contradiction to de law of identity.

∄(a & ~a)
∃(~a + a)

The next time a Bible believer asks how can logic can exist without God, tell him you need logic to nullify logic, so logic is self-asserting.

Isn’t W a probability? Deterministic systems don’t have a probability.

There’s a deterministic traffic light that spends 50 percent of its time red, 45 percent of its time green, and 5 percent of its time yellow. I keep nodding off when it’s red and miss the green and yellow times. To me it’s just a red light. To the people honking at me it’s not.

It also means you can’t choose what experiment to perform, how to orient your apparatus, or which button to press.

I once thought a time machine could take you to the future to find out what you did, then you return, do something different and prove free will. But that doesn’t work because the round trip gets rolled up into the events that led to your choice and you’re back to square one.

What is different with quantum mechanics?

If you put the two necklace charms into paper sacks and take one to Tokyo, they are still correlated. You don’t know which state you have (R or L) until you open one bag up and observe it. Then you instantly know the other charm’s state.

With QM, unlike with necklaces or socks or gloves, particles are in indeterminate states until they are observed. You’re putting the distant particle in a determinate state without observing it. That’s spooky, even if you can’t prove that’s what happened until you compare logs.

What caused the universe?

The universe was never caused, because time is part of space-time, which is identical to the gravitational field, so time itself is part of the universe that would have been caused if it was caused, but that is impossible because before there was time no cause could operate.

We all have exactly the same evidence, (Matty’s razor) therefore… #Faith is believing in something that you can’t see because of evidence.

In the NT, faith is defined as “the evidence of things not seen”. But this evidence takes the form of an interior assurance that invisible things exist. Thus the Bible claims that emotions are epistemological tools. (Teresita’s Observation)

Faith is believing in something that you can’t see (like atoms and molecules)
because of evidence.

Hebrews 11:1 (paraphrased)

Believing is always in something you can’t see. If you can see it, then you would perceive it rather than believe in it.

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Not testable.

Also, it’s based on the false premise that gravity is a property of the existence of matter/energy.

Gravity was created on the second day, so matter, space and time existed before gravity.

Say Goodbye to the Newton/Einstein paradigm…

Your text has water existing before God said. “Let there be light”. But light is electromagnetic field flux, and the atoms of water (and also the electrons and protons that comprise those atoms) requires the electromagnetic field to be held together.

Where the past is concerned, that it still exists is a rather standard textbook argument based on Einstein’s theories

It exists as the present for somebody, but not for you. Only the present exists for you because only the present can be observed and manipulated by you.