Can pseudo-intellectual philosophy sway the masses?

What is a religionists? I believe it took intelligence to design the atoms that follow the rules we call Quantum Mechanics, that are necessary to construct a computer. I believe in Quantum Mechanics (QM). I believe all interpretations of QM (Copenhagen, many worlds etc. . .) are correct. I think the rules we understand as QM require an extreme amount of ordering of the particles of matter. Extreme amounts of order imply intelligence ordered it. When ever I see extreme order, (houses, bridges, Stone Hedge, etc. . .) somebody ordered it. Why is it amusing to assume that pattern always holds true.
Where do you think the order in atoms comes from?

You appear to assume that "order" and also "intelligence" are concepts independent of human origin. If you ascribe them to a 'deity' that would make you a 'religionist'. If you are ascribed them them to 'aliens' you are just removing the 'concern with humans' factor.

But the philosopher might ask...what do you mean by 'order' other than experiencing repetition in time....by being able to predict....i.e. the speciality of humans which accounts for their relative success as a spoecies. But hang on....don't physicists also say that 'time is an illusion'...and that 'causality' is merely a layman's idea ? Does it not follow that 'prediction and control' which appear to have had a certain degree of success in enhancing our life experience and are really anthropocentric games we play of doubtful cosmological significance ? After all, in terms of 'linear time' , if the age of the earth were a roll of toilet paper, the appearance of humans would occupy the last millimetre of the last sheet, and 'scientific activity' far less than that !

So unless you are prepared to go for the circular argument that man's predictive/intelligent abilities are 'in the image or gift of a deity' and you are also prepared to to ignore the infinite regress problem of 'what caused the Prime Mover ?', then you are stuck with with the 'realists' problem of never knowing where 'reality' starts or finishes. The 'dark matter' issue alone should hammer that home.! And this is why the 'pragmatist' dismisses the concept of 'an ordered reality out there' and will only go as far as saying ';reality is agreement about what works for humans in their drive to predict and control'. And 'agreememt is of course open to negotiation.

BTW The word 'repetition' invonvolves repetition of 'things', and 'things' are de facto defined by observers as 'agreed foci for their attention'. Note that there was no agreement about the thinghood of 'atoms' until 1905, and their 'particulate properties' are now subject to review as the word 'particle' has come under scrutiny
Do you see the problem of 'a reality independent of observers' ?

I assume intelligence is not of human origin, because humans can only communicate between each other using matter, namely our bodies. The order I observe in the universe in matter and space was there before men's bodies existed.

Matter is made up of quarks and electrons that have boundaries. The boundaries are defined by spin (every particle is spinning and has an anti particle spinning in an opposite direction). That I think is an accepted fact of physics. Something started them spinning and made the boundaries so every particle is the same. That is repetition.

Time is not an illusion, it is a thought process an intelligent being uses to determine and communicate the order of events.

It is not a circular argument to believe that what we observe and feel is a gift of a Diety. The Diety just needs to be the initial uncaused cause of this universe.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Higgs Boson, and The Higgs Field all are theoretical arguments supporting some kind of quantum mechanical structure to empty space. That structure would make gravity an emergent force, meaning the structure had to exist before gravity can happen. The Big Bang theory states the energy needed to create matter came from gravity, but gravity needs a structure to happen. But since gravity needs order to happen something else had to provide the energy to create gravity. I think it is logical to assume it is a caused or uncaused intelligence. I don't think it's logical to say its a figment of man's imagination. I don't think it's ever logical to say that energy was stored in interlocking spinors of space we call matter, and nobody caused that to happen. Everything that is physically ordered, logically had to be ordered by intelligence.

You are welcome to your assumptions, especially the one about 'uncaused cause'.
The value judgement 'figment of imagination' is meaningless to a pragmatist who is willing to consider anything which 'works'.
You have given what amounts to statements of 'faith' and I wish you well in your dealings with other faith systems.
Thankyou for the exchange.

Where do you think matter came from? Without a structure to space, gravity doesn't exist as a fundemental force. If it is not a fundamental force, where does the energy come from to drive the matter making machine called the Big Bang?

Are you asking me to believe that, there always was some order to space to cause gravity? I don't think so, because order being established without a cause is an uncaused cause. Does the smiley face mean that is not an option for a pragmatist that is willing to consider anything that works, or is that your faith system?

How did we have so much order by accident when it takes order for even gravity to exist? What is your system that works? What is its name so I can research it.

I believe we need a Quantum Creation Event to put a structure to space to allow gravity to work. Maybe that event happened by chance somehow.

Your welcome for the exchange. I hope you can continue to enlighten me.

By the way atoms existed before 1905. It's a scientific fact.

The assumtion that gravity created matter and the universe through the Big Bang at the beginning of this universe, is pseudo-intellectual philosophy. Masses of scientists seem to be swayed by that, who in turn swayed the masses. Even if gravity is still producing matter today in Super Novas, that is pseudo-intellectual philosophy, because we can't observe it, replicate it, or our prove it. We can't even prove any matter has been produced since the initial matter at the beginning of the universe.

Sorry, but unless you can commune with the idea of 'existence' being relative and not absolute there is nothing more I can say.

I have referred from time to time to the fact that frogs in a tank surrounded by what we see as 'dead flies' will starve to death in the presence of that potential food source, because their perceptual systems are only receptive to moving insects. As far as the frog is concerned 'dead flies don't exist'. And I merely ask, are we not merely another type of frog with selective perceptual systems directed by species specific needs ? Is there any limit to the number and nature potential 'things out there' to which we are not (yet) attuned? Is there any way of knowing how the retuning is going to go such that 'existences' (like 'the aether' for example) can rise and fall ?

I leave you with a reminder of Heisenberg's point...'we never observe nature directly...only the results of the questions we ask of it'.

I believe existence in this universe is relative to matter and a possible structure to space.

Just because the frog can't see the flies, they are still there. If a frog had an imagination he would ask, "why do all these things surrounding me that look like flies, but aren't moving like flies are here". With a little deductive reasoning (something we humans can do) that frog will realize they are dead flies and probably still are good for food and eat them.

No, we are not like frogs nor any other creature. We are different in that we can reason abstractly, and then deduce at a later date when more data is acquired, if our abstract idea fits with reality.

The only limits on our understanding of the universe is, it has to match reality, and we only have a certain amount of time to learn it. I doubt we will ever figure it all out the universe is massive, and Quantum Mechanics is minuscule. Our sensors are limited to matter but our imagination seems unbound.

I guess Heisenberg is saying our understanding is relative to how well we ask the questions (which are guided by our imagination and world view) and how well we observe the results.

Errr no they don't.

Try recent texts like
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Astronomy-Cosmology-Science-Nature-Books/b/ref=dp_bc_2?ie=UTF8&node=277886

Try reading up on state transition theory or genetic epistemology.
Perceptual system in state 1 sees world 1, which impacts on perception moving it to state 2, which sees world 2 ...and so on.

And note that your 'we are not like other creatures' borders on the biblical !

You try them. Time is an essential variable in physics. No physicians I know of says it's an illusion.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einstein

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/05/according-to-einstein-time-is-illusion.html#.Wagz4dSGOW8

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/causation_BJPS.pdf

You should know better than believing click-baiting "journalists". Read pieces written by actual scientists, if you can, and you will see that none of them sees time as an illusion.

Okay. Lets shoot the messengers, but Brian Green is legit !

. That is a scientific fact accepted by most of the scientific community and society. Comparing the way a frog thinks to the way we think is not a valid comparison.(so, I believe, not relative). Please use relatable comparisons. What is biblical about the statement? The word creatures? Or, the fact man is different in our ability to reason abstractly, and I pointed it out.

I will read and respond. Thank you for the references.

The key difference that is usually cited is 'nature of human language' which does appear different in creative degree fom other animals and seems to underpin what we call 'thinking'. As one biologist/philosopher has put it 'languaging is a behavior which co-ordinates behavior'. In this way he avoids getting into the quagmire called 'consciousness studies' but on the other hand he deflates 'thinking' to be be merely another aspect of adaptive 'behavior' which is a general aspect of all successful lifeforms.
The biblical reference is with respect to 'man in the image of god' or 'man being given dominion over other animals' which is obviously antithetical to genetic findings relating us to primates etc.
I humbly suggest that you would intellectually benefit by reassessing some of your assumptions since we are all conditioned by covert aspects of our culture (like anthropocentrism).

The point being made is that time is relative and therefore SIMULTANEITY is an illusion, not time.

Well we can toss this one about, but as I understand it (and it is underscored if you read Rovelli, cited above, for example) that the variable or dimension we call 'time' can be dispensed with as far as mathematical modelling is concerned. We are already familiar with the concept of 'space time' which removes 'time' as an independent parameter, and recent focus on 'gravity' has lead to a re-evaluation of the 'space' component.
The general point is that 'common sense notions' which we all use in normal life seem to have little value in frontier physics. Even concepts like 'matter' which Brian here takes to be fundamental, become nebulous in recent in modelling.

NB the point about the relativity of simultaneity is that simultaneity of 'events' is how we measure time...e.g. a clock hand passing a point on a clock. The first level of measurement is 'nomimal' or 'naming' which is a human linguistic activity. Put these points together and the fact that 'events' are observer defined, and you can see how the 'status' of time can be deemed 'psychological'.