GCB Existed Before Time
I'm arguing for the independent existence of God from time in terms of God being equivalent to the Greatest Conceivable Being.
I'm defining time according to Merriam-Webster: "the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues." To put it more simply, time is the measurement of change.
I'm offering the following proof as evidence that God existed when time did not exist:
1. When the universe did not exist, nothing existed except for the GCB.
2. The GCB is, by nature, immutable.
3. Therefore, when the universe did not exist, nothing that existed was changing.
4. If nothing that existed was changing, time could not measure any change, because there is no change to measure.
5. If time is not measuring change, it is not meeting the definition of time.
6. Therefore, time did not exist when nothing existed except for the GCB.
A possible objection to this argument is against premise 3, by claiming that while the GCB did not himself change, his thoughts changed. However, if you accept that the GCB is also the greatest knower (omniscient), then he does not exhibit any change in his nature when he thinks, because he does not acquire knowledge. So the GCB's thoughts are also not susceptible to change. It is only when the GCB enacts change that change occurs.
Another objection lies in the concept of undifferentiated time. This changeless state, some argue, does not necessitate timelessness, but merely calls for undifferentiated time. But what exactly is undifferentiated time? Because time is the measurement of change, it doesn't seem like there is any point in identifying the absence of change as "undifferentiated time." That's like defining light as "the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible" and then calling darkness "undifferentiated light." Yeah, you can call darkness that, but that doesn't change it's actual identity: a lack of light.
I'm defining time according to Merriam-Webster: "the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues." To put it more simply, time is the measurement of change.
I'm offering the following proof as evidence that God existed when time did not exist:
1. When the universe did not exist, nothing existed except for the GCB.
2. The GCB is, by nature, immutable.
3. Therefore, when the universe did not exist, nothing that existed was changing.
4. If nothing that existed was changing, time could not measure any change, because there is no change to measure.
5. If time is not measuring change, it is not meeting the definition of time.
6. Therefore, time did not exist when nothing existed except for the GCB.
A possible objection to this argument is against premise 3, by claiming that while the GCB did not himself change, his thoughts changed. However, if you accept that the GCB is also the greatest knower (omniscient), then he does not exhibit any change in his nature when he thinks, because he does not acquire knowledge. So the GCB's thoughts are also not susceptible to change. It is only when the GCB enacts change that change occurs.
Another objection lies in the concept of undifferentiated time. This changeless state, some argue, does not necessitate timelessness, but merely calls for undifferentiated time. But what exactly is undifferentiated time? Because time is the measurement of change, it doesn't seem like there is any point in identifying the absence of change as "undifferentiated time." That's like defining light as "the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible" and then calling darkness "undifferentiated light." Yeah, you can call darkness that, but that doesn't change it's actual identity: a lack of light.
Comments (51)
Im not sure I follow...what is the difference between ummutable and a changless state? They seem the same to me, making your argument circular.
Yeah, thank you. That was circular. I changed the argument a little; hopefully that helps.
Incoherent. The universe=spacetime. There is no time (a "when") at which the universe didn't exlst (i.e. there is no time prior to time - that would be self-contradictory).
I'd like to object to premises 3 and 5, despite your rebuttals.
In your defense of premise 3 you state that, for a being who knows all things, thought does not qualify as change because the being gains no knowledge. But my own personal thoughts change constantly without the acquisition of knowledge. A more accurate description might be that my attention is shifting, but this still counts as change. For example, even though I've had many emotions before and know exactly what they are like, my state can still change from happy to sad.
And as for premise 5, that statement only remains true when using a common description of time such as Merriam-Webster's. However, time can be defined scientifically as the fundamental unit measured by a clock. Time does not necessarily require change to exist. It is simply a measurement that applies to every being.
You might say that time itself is a process of change, and so for time to pass, change must occur. However, we know of no quantity to have ever definitively existed without time (since everything ever studied scientifically has existed within this universe), and so attempts to define time in this way fall short. We cannot necessarily provide a correct definition of time without knowing what timelessness would actually look like.
Does the GCB necessarily exist before the universe was created? Why couldnt it have come into existence along with the rest of the universe from some kind of timeless natural event (not a being, so it doesnt contradict the existence of GCB)?
I'm only using references to time-- "when," "before," etc.-- because we are temporal beings who cannot think outside of events in relation to time. Perhaps a better word would be "outside"-- outside of the creation of the universe, which obviously includes time, the GCB still existed, otherwise it would not be greater than the universe.
Clearly, we cannot even argue in an atemporal sense, because even the act of using verbs assumes a relation to time. But that doesn't mean we can't try to understand, or at least think about, what it would be like outside of the existence of time.
To your rebuttal of premise 3: your attention shifts because your attention is limited. Your states of being change because you are mutable. The GCB would not have a limited attention, and would be immutable, and therefore would not experience anything analogous to your example.
Let’s go ahead and define time as the fundamental unit measured by a clock, then. How then could we measure time without clocks? Without the existence of clocks, time would be immeasurable according to your definition. Immeasurable time, then, leads us back to the same question I posed earlier: if the point of time is to measure something, and there is no way to measure anything, because there is nothing to measure, then time has no purpose for existing.
I agree that we run into problems attempting to understand timelessness when we ourselves are bound by time. But that does not mean that nothing can be known about timelessness, or at least postulated within the rules of logic that we know. My whole argument hinges on the assumption that something did exist outside of time; namely, the Greatest Conceivable Being.
You have defined time as "the measured or measurable". But then you go on to say that time is "the measurement...". Do you not recognize the difference between "the measured" and "the measurement"?
You earlier said: "I'm offering the following proof as evidence that God existed when time did not exist." But you have to assume that something can actually exist atemporally and somehow perform an action, despite the fact that actions entail time. i.e. you have to assume there is a God. Your reasoning is circular. What you really have is a rationalization of God's creating spacetime, not a proof of God's existence. Further, it seems a weak, ad hoc rationalization, since you can't actually explain how an action can possibly be performed without an elapse of time.
I like the idea of the Greatest Conceivable Being, GCB or God, existing separately from time.
However I would like to challenge premise 5, as well as propose some adjustments.
I also have some questions about premise 3. You essentially say that since the GCB is omniscient, he knows everything, since he knows everything, his thoughts are not susceptible to change. I see where you're going with this, but I'm still having some trouble accepting this line of reasoning as is, due to the idea of attention mentioned by Brillig in the above comments. However, I don't believe I'm at all qualified to speculate as to the inner-workings of the mind of God, does he even have an attention span? Does his mind never change because he is paying attention to everything equally all the time?
Next is my challenge of premise 5. This premise, in my opinion, weakens the argument, because of the fact that it hinges on a semi-arbitrary definition that was established at the beginning of the post. As Brillig points out, time can be scientifically defined as "the fundamental unit measured by a clock."
While time and change have become almost interchangeable in this context, I think it's important to differentiate the two.
Let's say you are sitting in an empty room. The only thing in this room is an analog clock, just ticking away. Is the clock ticking as a result of it experiencing change due the passing of time? Or is it ticking due to the fact that it was designed to measure the fundamental unit we know as time?
I prefer to think that it's ticking because it's measuring the passing of seconds, and not because it's experiencing a change induced by the passing of time.
What if you were to establish the definition of time as simply the passing of seconds?
Then you could keep your argument in tact by establishing that the GCB resides in a realm outside of time. A realm where every moment that has ever happened and ever will happen, is happening currently.
The key here is in understanding the relationship between material existence, and time. We need to separate the two, such that the activity of physical, or material, existence, and time, are not conceived of as the same thing. This is what Belouie suggests:
Quoting Belouie
Logically, if physical change is occurring, then time is passing, but the inverse is not necessary. It is not necessary that physical change is occurring for time to be passing. So time may pass without physical change, but change cannot happen without time passing.
When we understand "time" in this way, as not necessarily tied to physical existence, then we can understand a time prior to physical existence, and therefore a time when physical existence starts, or comes into being. So in the context of Relativist's objection above, we now have the principles whereby God, being non-physical, i.e. immaterial, has time to "act".
This would put God outside of "time" and therefore eternal, if time is understood as necessarily tied to physical change. But since we need to alter this concept of "time" to allow for the actions of God, God is no longer understood as completely outside of time, with this refined concept of "time". But if we move further, and bind time to God, but not vise versa, then we can allow that God is actually responsible for starting time. This would put God outside of time, but the "act" of God which starts time, would have to be understood in another temporal frame work. So this act could likely be understood as something like a change in the way that time passes. The way that time passes now, and what we know as time, came into existence from God's act, which occurred in a different temporal framework.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
One imagines an outside to the temporal framework, but then has to imagine it inside another temporal framework in order for it to exist, for to exist at no time is otherwise not to exist. One sees proofs that time cannot be infinite and proofs that it cannot have a beginning on a regular basis, because both are inconceivable; yet one or the other must be true. Language is inadequate to the world we live in, never mind what is beyond.
That flies in the face of quantum field theory (QFT). Under QFT, fields (waves) are fundamental, and every point in a field is constantly fluctuating (and thus changing); that's why there is energy in "empty" space. Belouie's assumption entails a premise that is false, or at least unjustified.
How do you explain special relativity? Time slows near a strong gavitational field and at high velocities, which suggests time and the material universe are intertwined.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Setting aside the above objections, this imp!ies an infinite past. Why did God wait an infinite period of time before creating the universe? How did he traverse infinite time to reach the time of creation?
This confirms the circularity I identified. You're choosing a conception of time that is consistent with God creating, and then claiming to prove God.
Such fields are mathematical though, and are not representative of any real physical existence because they represent probabilities, possibilities for physical existence. The fundamental particle is the foundation for physical existence, and the field mathematics can be used to represent the possibility for particles, not the real existence of particles.
It's just like mapping space with coordinates, the coordinate points do not represent any real physical existence, nor do the points in the field. The real physical existence, of what's there are the particles(or whatever a particle really is), but the "fluctuating" is just mathematics, because the wave function does not represent real waves.
Quoting Relativist
No, there is no infinite past implied, whether or not time has a beginning is not mentioned, nor implied. Actually, if you reread the post, I went on further to suggest that God might have created time, and this would imply that time is not infinite. It all relates to how one defines "time".
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, the conclusions are all relative to how words like "time" are defined. So one proof would demonstrate time as necessarily infinite, another demonstrate time as necessarily having a beginning, but all this is, is two different descriptions of what time is. Now I wouldn't say "both are inconceivable" thought, because really such proofs demonstrate that both are conceivable. The question then, is what is the real nature of time, the real description.
Quoting Relativist
Your claim of circularity is irrelevant. I didn't claim to prove God. I was just explaining how we could conceive of God as being outside of time. This allows for the possibility of God, as something outside of time, but there is no claim here for the necessity of God, therefore no proof of God. The necessity for God may be presented as the cosmological argument, which is related to what I said, but not what I produced, as I had no intent to prove the existence of God, only to explain how it is possible to conceive of God as outside of time.
So of course, I chose a conception of time which is consistent with God creating, to demonstrate that it is possible to conceive of God as being outside of time. To conceive of God is not impossible, it doesn't involve contradictions, etc., it only requires a particular conception of time. But this was in no way meant to prove the existence of God, which would require, as a starting point, to prove that this conception of time is the correct conception of time. If one is open to this type of understanding of time, accepting it as the real description of time, then that person might be moved by the demonstration which is the cosmological argument.
But of course it wasn't.
You are out of touch. I suggest you watch this video, starting at 15:00. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll gives a brief overview of Quantum Field Theory. You will hear him say "Particles are not what nature is made of...what nature is made of is fields". "Quantum Field theory is the best idea we have about understanding the world at a fundamental level."
Fields are real, they exist, they are the most fundamental thing we're aware of in the material world, and they are not mere equations.
So what? He's a mathematical Platonist who believes that mathematical objects are real, and nature is made of these. There is no question that fields are mathematical, that is obvious. But there are many physicists who take this position of Platonic realism. Just because a physicists holds different metaphysical principles from I, a metaphysician, doesn't mean that I'm out of touch. Since I'm a metaphysician, and he's a physicist, and we're talking metaphysical principles, it's seems more likely that he's the one who is out of touch. Wouldn't you agree?
No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics. You are making an ad hoc assumption. Labelling this a "metaphysical principle" doesn't change that. It's obvious that you are rationalizing God's existence, not "proving" it.
Whether mathematical fields are real and fundamental things is purely metaphysics, it has nothing to do with the theories of physics. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Quoting Relativist
Duh! That's what I repeated claimed. I'm glad you finally learned how to read. Who claimed to be trying to prove God's existence?
You're conflating metaphysical beliefs with well-supported beliefs about the world. It would be silly to hold a metaphysical belief that is contradicted by (for example) belief in gravity. Getting more esoteric, if your metaphysical belief is inconsistent with the standard model of particle physics, your burden would be to show that you can account for the empirical evidence explained by the standard model.
Why would it have to be compatible with "the best theories of physics"? A philosopher could think the physics has things wrong.
Thank you Terrapin Station for bringing that to Relativist's attention. And I am such a philosopher. If physics is full of contradictions (as it is) then most likely it has some things wrong. Relativist doesn't seem to believe that it is possible that any theories of physics might be based in principles which are wrong.
1) Is the metaphysican's belief justified? We SawIn the present case, it remains to be seen - a case has not been made.
2) In the present duscussion, an argument for God's existence has been proposed. That argument is dependent on certain metaphysical assumptions, so the presenter of the argument has the burden to show these assumptions are more likely than not to be true. If it is inconsistent with accepted physics, I expect he will not be able to meet that burden.
When a theist makes metaphysical assumptions that lead to "proving" his belief in God, it raises suspicions that those assumptions were chosen for the purpose.
Above, you seem to be saying that it's a contingent matter whether someone's metaphysics can depart from physics. But that's not the same as saying "A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics."
"Must be" means you see it as something necessary. As a requirement.
And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. QFT is widely accepted by physicists, so if your metaphysics is not consistent with it, you have a burden to show that your assumptions are more likely to be true than QFT. For yourself, you need to show justification; for your theistic argument, you have a higher burden to make a persuasive case for those assumptions. The latter is what I'm focusing on.
I was alluding to his burden to make a case, not claiming it to be logical necessity. Sorry if my informal language was misleading.
Ah--no problem. I thought you were saying you saw it as a logical (or at least metaphysical) necessity.
OK, I agree with that, physicists get many things right.
Quoting Relativist
Uh, wait, you're mixing physics with metaphysics here. Any physics ought to be consistent with accepted physics, but why ought metaphysics be consistent with physics? Metaphysics is a distinct subject from physics. If you think that one ought to be consistent with the other, then the burden is on you to demonstrate this. And why shouldn't physics alter their theories to be consistent with metaphysics instead of the inverse, which you are suggesting, that metaphysics ought to be made consistent with physics? I've already told you why physics is obviously wrong, it is rife with contradiction. So my burden has been released. Bye, bye.
I pointed out that QFT theorizes that quantum fields, not particles, are fundamental; particles are disturbances in a field (quanta). This paper states:
In its mature form, the idea of quantum field theory is that quantum fields are the basic ingredients of the universe, and particles are just bundles of energy and momentum of the fields. In a relativistic theory the wave function is a functional of these fields, not a function of particle coordinates. Quantum field theory hence led to a more unified view of nature than the old dualistic interpretation in terms of both fields and particles.
QFT explains wave-particle duality. If you treat particles as fundamental, you abandon this explanation and therefore require an alternative explanation. QFT explains the behavior of particle interactions with Schroedinger wave equations. Abandoning the core principle that "field is fundamental" reopens explanatory problems that are treated as already closed by QFT.
I sense you might be trying to claim that fields are just mathematical entities, but this doesn't address field behavior that does not fit a particle paradigm. Perhaps you're only treating classical objects (the stuff of the macro world) as truly "physical" - but this is question begging because the particles themselves are best explained as field quanta.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Metaphysics aims to account for what exists. The best science tells us that quantum fields exist, and they behave per quantum field theory. If you don't account for quantum fields, then your metaphysics is at best incomplete, at worst - it is incoherent.
Metaphysics also deals with causality. QFT describes causality better than any other paradigm. If your metaphysics can't account for the success of QFT, your metaphysics is worthless.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You still have to account for what physics gets right. If you treat particles as fundamental, you will get even more wrong than physics does.
I think in this sentence is the crux of many of these discussions. This just shows a faith in the ability of science. To be clear, I think that belief is reasonable- and there is nothing at all wrong with that. I just don't see it as a superior faith belief than theism. I just think it is very common to treat science, and faith in science's ability as the same concept. And they are not.
I can very easily account for quantum field theory. It is a complex arrangement of mathematical equations established for the purpose of an attempt to reconcile the fundamental inconsistency between the theory of special relativity, and the empirical observations of quantum mechanics. This inconsistency manifests as the contradiction of wave/particle duality. Since quantum field theory is nothing but a mathematical attempt to cover up a fundamental, underlying contradiction, it is nothing but deception
So you may claim that quantum field theory is "the best science", but it is only "the best" in the sense of its ability to best deceive us, by obscuring this underlying contradiction. Better science would address the contradiction directly, and remove the offending theories, instead of hiding the fundamental contradiction behind a veil of mathematics, and appearance of reconciliation. No amount of effort and mathematical magic can establish the compatibility of a contradiction, it must be dealt with at the source, restructuring the principles which cause it. The attempt to obscure contradiction behind mathematics is nothing more than deception.
Quoting Relativist
Because they are mathematical entities, fields are not directly observable. Fields are mathematical equations designed to deal with the appearance of particles. QFT is the model, the empirical observations of particles is what is being modeled Therefore "field behaviour" is a misnomer, it just refers to how human beings must adjust their models to deal with the appearances of particles. Fields are manipulated by physicists, they do not actually have any independent behaviour.
Quoting Relativist
You haven't provided me with any examples of what physics has gotten right yet, so I have nothing to deal with in that department. I see a fundamental problem which is a failure of physical theories to produce a proper relation between energy existing as waves, and energy existing as moving particles. The physical theories have provided no medium for the existence of waves, and therefore cannot account for the transferral of energy from the particle into the medium (as a wave) and vise versa. To replace the medium with "fields", as if fields have some sort of ontological existence is just to obscure this problem.
Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and QFT have been remarkably successful at making predictions. How is that "deceptive"?
QFT DOES resolve wave-particle duality. Since you believe particles are fundamental, how do you explain the dualistic results of double-experiments? QFT mathematically explains the results, and the implication is that this is due to the nature of the stuff (e.g. photons) that is being measured. You are free to account for this meta physically, but if your metaphysics just ignores it, then your metaphysics is falsified.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Field EQUATIONS are mathematical entities, and since they accurately predict behavior, they must be describing something that is actually there. If not actual fields, then what?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The manipulation of fields has results that are predicted by QFT, such as confirming standard model of particle physics. I'll grant QFT is just a model that can be treated as purely instrumentalist without necessarily buying into the description. I wouldn't object to that, but it would lead to two reasonable options: 1) agnosticism regarding the nature of what QFT is describing; 2) an alternative model that accounts for QFT success. You don't seem to be doing either, since you just toss out the entire theory so you can propose a fiction.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover Here:
Quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum field theory of the interactions of charged particles with the electromagnetic field. It describes mathematically not only all interactions of light with matter but also those of charged particles with one another. QED is a relativistic theory in that Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity is built into each of its equations. Because the behaviour of atoms and molecules is primarily electromagnetic in nature, all of atomic physics can be considered a test laboratory for the theory. Some of the most precise tests of QED have been experiments dealing with the properties of subatomic particles known as muons. The magnetic moment of this type of particle has been shown to agree with the theory to nine significant digits. Agreement of such high accuracy makes QED one of the most successful physical theories so far devised.
Accepting scientific theory as true doesn't entail faith, it just implies that one can justifiably believe them. But scientific theories must be treated as tentative because they are merely the inference to the best explanation, and the history of science shows that what is CURRENTLY the best explanation tends to change as more information is gathered. I'd be interested in seeing a theist propose a biblical God as inference to best explanation for something.
Of course. Time is just an attribute of this physical world.
Michael Ossipoff
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]
Gravity is a scientific theory, evolution is a scientific theory. I am not in anyway an expert and I may well be wrong, but I do not think QED rises to this level. It may well be a theory, and it may be based on science, but I do think it has yet met the criteria to call it a scientific theory, which has a more precise meaning.
If I am correct, your acceptance of it as true, is as faith based as my theism. Again, there is not a thing wrong with that. It is just an awareness that one can easily get in front of the actual science, based on a strong belief in science.
Let's test that.
I trust the instrumentalism of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory - the calculations seem to work. I have no emotional attachment to this belief. If an alternative theory (X) came about with equivalent explanatory scope, I'd alter my belief to "either QFT or alternative X" is true. Is your belief in God like this? I doubt it. I expect you'd continue to believe in God even if there were an alternative with equivalent explanatory scope. Many theists go even further, asserting they'd believe unless God were absolutely disproven. The latter is the most committed type of faith; the former is still more committed than I to my belief about QFT. It is these commitments that distinguish faith from mere belief.
I already explained how QFT is deceptive, and the fact that you think fields are real things is evidence of the deception. What does prediction have to do with this anyway?
But making successful predictions is a good tool to aid one's capacity to deceive, so I don't see how making predictions is evidence that it's not deception. I could tell you deceptively, that a dragon carries the sun in its mouth, every night from the western horizon to the eastern horizon in the morning. My prediction that the sun will be there in the morning aids my capacity to deceive. The fact that I can predict where and when the sun will be on the horizon tomorrow morning doesn't mean that I know how it got there. And if I use this prediction to support my claim that I know how it got there, when I do not, I am practising deception. Therefore prediction is very useful in deception.
Quoting Relativist
Wave-particle duality is contradictory, plain and simple. The same energy cannot travel from one place to another as a wave and also as a particle, that's contradiction, it would have to be one or the other, or something completely different. The fact that you think QFT resolves wave-particle duality is evidence that the deception has been successful.
Quoting Relativist
I already told you, the theories involved are deficient. They need to be examined, the deficient aspects exposed and discarded. By the way, I don't really believe that particles are fundamental, my point was that physics treats particles as fundamental. It does not treat fields as fundamental, like you claim, because QFT is the model, and the particles are the things modeled. So physics does not treat fields as fundamental, despite the fact that some people like you claim that fields must be fundamental.
Quoting Relativist
Field equations accurately predict the appearance of particles. Therefore what they are describing "that is actually there", is the appearance of particles.
Quoting Relativist
I'm not proposing any alternative model so I am not proposing a fiction. I am stating the obvious, that the entire theoretical structure of QFT revolves around a fundamental contradiction, wave-particle duality. What is required is to expose the simple deficiencies in the theories which produce this contradiction (principally the special theory of relativity), not to produce other, very complex theories (QFT) in an attempt to cover up the contradiction.
The only alleged deception you've stated is wave particle duality. That's pretty silly, because QFT does not assume wave particle duality.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Indeed, and that's exactly what QFT says. So there's not actually a contradiction. I made the mistake of taking you seriously when you mentioned contradictions in physics. There ARE some contradictions in physics - where general relativity breaks down, and quantum theory doesn't apply. I assumed that's what you were talking about. My bad.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Successful predictions provide a good reason at least to accept an instrumentalist understanding of QFT. The success of a theory in this respect is the exact opposite of a deception.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The only "deficiency" you've identified is your incorrect assumption that it entails wave-particle duality.
Particles are the building blocks of matter, but the known particles are within the standard model of particle physics. Quantum field theory provides the mathematical framework for the Standard Model, describing the dynamics and kinematics.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover It accounts for both the appearance and disappearance of particles. If you dispense with fields, matter/energy is not conserved. Without fields, there's no explanation for vacuum energy.
So your entire claim seems to hinge in a misconception of yours.
QFT doesn't entail wave-particle duality, it assumes it, as a premise. And if your claim is that QFT renders the particle unreal, and the wave as the only real aspect, then you still have the contradiction of a wave without a medium, and so an inability to say what a particle is (other than a particle). As I said, QFT doesn't resolve the contradiction of wave-particle duality, it only obscures it, hides it behind complex mathematics.
Quoting Relativist
Perhaps you're right, but you have yet to demonstrate that. So it's just an arbitrary and completely unsupported claim.
Quoting Relativist
Yes there are many different contradictions in modern physics. At least we agree on something.
That's simply not true. Particles are real, but they are not independent billiard balls floating in nothingness. A particle is a wave packet, a segment of the field (often referred to as a "ripple" in the field) - so there's no fundamental duality. The "medium" is the quantum field. Movement of the particle consists of the "ripple" traversing the field:
In the above, the rope is analogous to a field, and the ripple is a particle. (If particles were free standing entities, it would beg the question of a medium). This is why the momentum and position of a particle cannot be measured with infinite precision, as one would expect if it were analogous to a billiard ball. Since a particle is actually a wave, the measurement will be some uncertain point on the wave (imagine measuring the amplitude and wavelength of the above rope ripple). The perceived "duality" is a consequence of measurement.
This is, of course, a realist interpretation of QFT, and therefore it is metaphysical. But it's consistent with the math. You don't have to accept realism, but if your ontology conflicts with the math of QFT (the math that produces the correct predictions) then your ontology clearly conflicts with reality and is falsified.
A rope is a physical medium, within which a wave can travel . A wave can only exist in a medium. It's not particles which beg the question of a medium, a particle could move through empty space. It's the wave that begs the question of a medium. By claiming that the particle is not a particle, but a "wave packet", you need a substance for the wave to propagate in, as well as many other problems such as why a wave would move as a packet..
Quoting Relativist
As I said, the ability to predict doesn't concern me, it is irrelevant, because it can be used just as easily to support falsehood as it can be used to support truth. The point is that you can make accurate predictions with an incorrect understanding, and incorrect model, of what is happening. The ability to predict says very little about the correctness of the model. Thales successfully predicted a solar eclipse with a model which had the sun, moon, and planets, orbiting the earth. The ability to predict indicates that one applies mathematics in a way which is adequate for making the prediction, it does not indicate that the person understands the phenomenon predicted, nor does it indicate that the model correctly represents the phenomenon. That's why model-dependent realism is popular amongst some, it allows them to say that the correctness of the model is not an issue. Therefore the model might be full of contradictions, and have glaring problems, but so long as it fulfills the conditions, prediction etc., it might just as well be considered as the correct one.
Make a case for this.
You're missing my point. The measurements are indisputably factual, and the success of the predictions needs to be accounted for. If your metaphysics cannot account for it, then it has a fatal flaw.
That's nonsense. There is an uncertainty principle which indicates that the measurements are indisputably not factual. That's what the Fourier transform indicates, some measurements cannot be made. If the measurements cannot be made, then whatever it is which takes the place of these measurements cannot be indisputably factual measurements, but are the opposite of this. Furthermore, if you cannot state correctly what it is that is being measured, you cannot claim that the measurements are indisputably factual. What does a wave-function measure?
The capacity to make correct predictions does not require correct measurements, it only requires statistics and probabilities. That's the point with the example of Thales prediction of a solar eclipse. Thales' models of orbits were completely wrong, so he clearly did not have factual measurements, yet he could predict the solar eclipse.
That's absurd. Of course measurements are factual! A measurement is made, and it has certain values. There's an a priori degree of uncertainty in what one measurement will yield, but there's certainty about the distribution of repeated measurements. If your ontology is inconsistent with these results then your ontology is falsified.
I have not read the comments in this read that were posted after your reply to me, so I apologize if I bring up anything that you have already responded to in a separate post.
Quoting adhomienem
This is a difficult concept to grasp, but I'll grant that it seems possible. However, assuming you are speaking about the Christian God, there are many examples of that God in the Bible displaying specific attention and having emotions. This does not necessarily refute your statement; God could have gained this ability or began using this ability that he always had after the beginning of the universe. If that is true, then it seems that, at least after the universe began, God does change. Or, if you contend that God always experiences all emotions, then biblical descriptions of God experiencing emotion are meaningless. You may have no problem granting that implication - I just thought it was worth pointing out.
Quoting adhomienem
I think you misunderstand what I mean by my proposed definition of time - time is not simply the measurement taken by a clock. It is the fundamental unit which a clock can measure. Likewise, length is not just the numbers on a ruler, even though rulers measure length. Length does not disappear when rulers disappear. Time does not disappear when clocks disappear.
Quoting adhomienem
I'd like to contend that, because we have no way of perceiving anything outside of time and we also have no factual examples of a being existing outside of time, we cannot discover anything meaningful about a being outside time through mere discussion. As every experience that any human has ever had has occurred through the lens of time, we have no way of perceiving something outside of that lens.