Is holding an unjustified belief illogical?

[PixyMisa]

Well, I don't see any way such events could be verified, but I was hoping one of the people who was asking for such evidence would indicate what they are looking for.
That rather depends on what the claim is, doesn't it?

[Gate2501]

Well, I don't see any way such events could be verified, but I was hoping one of the people who was asking for such evidence would indicate what they are looking for.

As I conceded in my last post, if the event did not leave a permanent scar on reality(an impossible object of some sort, or something like this), evidence may not be found unless the area in which the causal breach occurred was being actively looked at. In this case it is better to appeal to the fact that these things (quantum retrocausality, macro-scale quantum manifestations) never happen. The probability of them ever occurring on a non-infinite timetable is so remote, that it is effectively zero.

I could accept that some event like this might happen on a small macro-scale maybe one time over the entire course of the life of the universe, somewhere in the universe.

I cannot accept that it happened to UCE personally a bunch of times over the course of a few years. This does not make sense.

I certainly cannot accept that it is happening every day, billions of times in every one's brains (quantum consciousness and quantum free will theories). This is outright batty, and betrays that the one touting the theory truly does not understand the probability of such and event, and/or what that probability means.

[Beth]

As I conceded in my last post, if the event did not leave a permanent scar on reality(an impossible object of some sort, or something like this),
I'm not sure what would qualify for this. How would you be able to determine whether something constituted a 'scar' on reality. Any impossible object that existed would not be regarded as impossible, etc.

evidence may not be found unless the area in which the causal breach occurred was being actively looked at.
Even if it was actively being looked at, how could an observer verify what had happened to someone who was not present?

In this case it is better to appeal to the fact that these things (quantum retrocausality, macro-scale quantum manifestations) never happen. The probability of them ever occurring on a non-infinite timetable is so remote, that it is effectively zero.
Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the question I asked, which was was "Assuming that such events actually occur, how could one be documented or verified in our world?" As near as I can tell, there isn't any way to do that.


I could accept that some event like this might happen on a small macro-scale maybe one time over the entire course of the life of the universe, somewhere in the universe.

I cannot accept that it happened to UCE personally a bunch of times over the course of a few years. This does not make sense.

I believe that UCE stated that he doesn't think it's due to random quantum fluxuations, finding non-random but hidden causal variables a better explanation. At any rate, I agree, if the probabilities are as low as you think, random quantum fluxuation isn't a very good explanation.


I certainly cannot accept that it is happening every day, billions of times in every one's brains (quantum consciousness and quantum free will theories). This is outright batty, and betrays that the one touting the theory truly does not understand the probability of such and event, and/or what that probability means.

I'm a bit confused here. Do quantum consciousness and quantum free will theories presume quantum retrocausality? I guess I'm not sure exactly what you mean by macro-scale quantum manifestations. I thought those occurred constantly but were unpredictable and ignored other than as part of the background randomness everything is subject to.

[Yoink]

[snip] Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the question I asked, which was was "Assuming that such events actually occur, how could one be documented or verified in our world?" As near as I can tell, there isn't any way to do that.

All sorts of unverifiable things could be happening all the time. Perhaps every time you drive your car on the freeway flights of angels come down to ensure that you don't get into an accident (and if you did have an accident, perhaps that was the work of the devil). Of course we have no possible way of determining whether or not this is the case; for that reason, however, the hypothesis is uninteresting. If it simply cannot be proven one way or the other (and can never be proven one way or the other) then it is not worth further consideration.

I believe that UCE stated that he doesn't think it's due to random quantum fluxuations, finding non-random but hidden causal variables a better explanation. At any rate, I agree, if the probabilities are as low as you think, random quantum fluxuation isn't a very good explanation.

This seems to be mixing up two rather different lines of thought (of course, UE mixed them up first). UE's claim is that a miracle happened to him and that he is justified in believing that it was a miracle rather than that he misremembers or misunderstands the event. Now, you're right that "quantum fluctuation" is a poor way to account for a miracle. You have to line the uber-astronomical odds against the quantum effect up against the rather mundane odds of errant memory (for whatever reason). "Hidden causality" doesn't necessarily suffer from that problem, unfortunately it's also a rather meaningless term. All it means is "we don't know what caused this." Now, that covers someone playing a practical joke (not unlikely), a mental error or breakdown of some kind (pretty likely), trickster aliens (pretty unlikely, but not impossible), God (very unlikely) AND random quantum fluctuations (almost as unlikely as God). So we're no further forward.

The question of "quantum" vs "hidden" causality also does nothing to address the central problem of UE's testimony (at least, central to my own argument with UE): whether he is personally justified to believe in his miracle regardless of whether that miracle left any kind of "scar" on reality. I don't see how either the "quantum" or the "hidden" causalities get him any closer to being so. Even if we accept them as possible origins of his experience (and we already accepted "God did it" as a possible origin, so there's no much point in straining at gnats after swallowing the Big Camel), it still does nothing to make them probable origins--and nothing, in particular, to make them more probable (even to himself--if he were capapble of thinking clearly about it) than other more mundane explanations.

[paximperium]

I said pages ago he was just playing a game... Told ya... :D
This is not a game. UE actually believes this nonsense he is espousing.

[UndercoverElephant]

.

I cannot accept that it happened to UCE personally a bunch of times over the course of a few years. This does not make sense.


Why not? I mean...what exactly do you mean by "it doesn't make sense"? Do you mean "It doesn't fit with everything else I believe?"

Perhaps there is more to reality than you think there is?

[PixyMisa]

Why not? I mean...what exactly do you mean by "it doesn't make sense"? Do you mean "It doesn't fit with everything else I believe?"

Perhaps there is more to reality than you think there is?
Perhaps the Universe did a back-flip just for you.

Or perhaps you are mistaken.

Which seems more likely?

[The Platypus]

This is not a game. UE actually believes this nonsense he is espousing.

I am sure he does, the game is that he really wants others to believe this nonsense too...

[Maia]

All sorts of unverifiable things could be happening all the time. Perhaps every time you drive your car on the freeway flights of angels come down to ensure that you don't get into an accident (and if you did have an accident, perhaps that was the work of the devil). Of course we have no possible way of determining whether or not this is the case; for that reason, however, the hypothesis is uninteresting. If it simply cannot be proven one way or the other (and can never be proven one way or the other) then it is not worth further consideration.


I wouldn't say it's uninteresting, nor unworthy of further consideration, but it clearly depends on the context in which one would fit these possibilities. I can think of lots of reasons to follow these trains of thought, all of which involve works of fiction. :) I just wrote a short script in my head for a two-minute animated film based on the angels-and-demons scenario. It takes place on I-40 E out of Nashville at about 5:00 on a Tuesday afternoon and involves a 1973 Ford truck painted orange and white, a big ol' hound dog, and an unemployed roofer named Butch who doesn't realize he's hauling dilithium crystals under a bunch of firewood in back. It all starts when he passes Two Rivers Baptist Church,pondering the question of baptism by water and fire in the Harpeth River...

Anyway, we now return the argument to its regularly scheduled extremely unending quality. :)