This is a very interesting subject, and I watched a video yesterday that touched on it. It’s on Youtube, a video by David Albert, professor of Philosophy and Physics at Columbia, and author of a couple books, one of which is “Quantum Mechanics and Experience” which I read years ago but lost...
Anyways, by the end of the video (a video in 3 parts) he speculates about what is the purpose of things. He says basically “What happens if/when we have a TOE (theory of everything) and I am able to use it to explain whatever - how a person voted, why they like a certain kind of food, whatever. WHAT THEN is the purpose of believing in something like a soul?
In a way, he’s answering his own question without realizing it.
If a theory of everything can explain everything, but they still don’t know the purpose of a soul, then the theory would seem to be deficient. The belief or actual existence of a soul would be by itself something that was OUTSIDE the bounds of a simple theory based on mechanics, no matter how complex those mechanics are.
Now on the surface here it sounds like we have a contradiction. But we know mathematically, that there are certain theorems that are simply unprovable. We know they are either right or wrong, but we also know that there is no way to prove which using mathematics.
I would ask a question along the lines of “Does that fact in some manner operate like religious faith? If we believe the theorem is right, does that somehow make it so, even though it is still unprovable through normal modes?”
Anyways it’s a very interesting subject. Parts of the universe are known. Parts are unknown. And some of the unknown is knowable. But some of the unknown, we can NEVER know. No matter what we do or believe.
Pinging all FR’s resident metaphysical experts!
Now on the surface here it sounds like we have a contradiction. But we know mathematically, that there are certain theorems that are simply unprovable. We know they are either right or wrong, but we also know that there is no way to prove which using mathematics.
I would ask a question along the lines of “Does that fact in some manner operate like religious faith? If we believe the theorem is right, does that somehow make it so, even though it is still unprovable through normal modes?”
And I suspect it does indeed make the theorem so in the "eyes of the observer" who sees what he believes.
At the root, man can never become an objective observer because he is part of the observation.
In a way, he’s answering his own question without realizing it.
Looks that way to me too, djf — great catch! For as you explain
If a theory of everything can explain everything, but they still don’t know the purpose of a soul, then the theory would seem to be deficient. The belief or actual existence of a soul would be by itself something that was OUTSIDE the bounds of a simple theory based on mechanics, no matter how complex those mechanics are.But it's even worse than that. The way such "thinkers" set up the problem, they don't have to ask what the "purpose" of the soul is, because they outright deny the existence of the soul in the first place.
So the unarticulated first premise of this operation is "no soul." In order to hold this premise it is necessary to hold seven millennia (at least) of universal human experience as "no data."
The "existence of the soul" is not something that science can directly prove. And yet we know from the archeological and cultural records that human beings everywhere, at all times, irrespective of geography, had and have funerary customs and rites. The common-denominator here is that all these peoples were engaging in practices designed to help the soul of the departed in its transit from this life into some other life. Human beings at all times, of all cultures and places, didn't simply dispose of their dead by dumping them into the garbage, as if they were dead "refuse." (We had to wait till the [increasingly Godless] twentieth century to see behavior like that on a wide scale.)
In short, at no time before very recent times did people think human beings were "just" their physical bodies, just a bunch of chemicals, matter in its motions according to purely natural laws.
But history can be very inconvenient for people who want to play "no-soul" mind-games like this. So they simply "dispose" of history; they drop it down the rathole of human memory, never to be seen again...they hope. :^)
Kinda reminds me of a recent interview of a doctoral candidate in geology conducted by Bill O'Reilly on his show, though in a slightly different way. Bill invited this "advanced scholar" on to discuss his doctoral thesis, which argues that extraterrestrial intelligent beings might possibly exist; and therefore we can model scenarios describing what forms "contact" by these beings with humans on Earth might take. And we should do this, simply because such contacts are "possible."
Moving from his initial premise that such beings exist, he then goes on to tell us that they would be ever so much more technologically advanced than we are. But here's the pièce de résistance: They will know that earthlings are becoming more powerful and technologically advanced simply by monitoring our carbon emissions. It is postulated that these alien beings would be threatened by a more powerful humanity on Earth. And thus they would swoop in and "punish us" — in effect, for our "anthropogenic global warming."
Both of the above "mind-games" are premised on a "what if?" But it seems to me that a "what if" is a pretty flimsy premise to hang your hat on if it has to carry the day against actual historical evidence, human experience, logic, and reason. Which IMHO is what both these "thinkers" are trying to do.
Anyhoot, the Ph.D. candidate winds up his remarks, and O'Reilly tells him that, were he grading the thesis, he'd give the candidate an "F" — largely, I gather, on the basis of the exacrable logic of the piece.
And I'm still scratching my head: What does any of this have to do with geology?
Anyhoot, it didn't seem to me that the piece re: advanced extraterrestials who fear the rise of a humanity with "hegemonic" inclinations could possibly be regarded as coming within a mile of respectable science....
Science fiction — maybe.
Back to first guy. It seems to me his problem is pretty simple. He simply, flatly denies that he has a soul; and needs to find a scientific "explanation" for how he can still function as a living being without one. And when he does, he'll let us know. Then he'll gladly preach the new, scientifically-blessed doctrine to the rest of us....
Of course, I think both these "scientists" are madmen....
Thank you ever so much, djf, for your outstanding analysis!
I should have underscored this point in my last.
I not only believe this is true, but — judging from my own capabilities at least — I know it to be true.
Thank you, dear djf, for your splendid insight!
p.s.: I apologize for misspelling execrable.