Since quantum field theory is nothing but a mathematical attempt to cover up a fundamental, underlying contradiction, it is nothing but deception — Metaphysician Undercover

Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and QFT have been remarkably successful at making predictions. How is that "deceptive"?

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.

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.

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. — 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?

Fields are manipulated by physicists, they do not actually have any independent behaviour — 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.

You haven't provided me with any examples of what physics has gotten right yet, — 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.

You must have missed his call for the troops at the border to treat thrown rocks as rifles.

The absurdity of his desire to void the 14th amendment is that his defenders then jump into proposing the Supreme Court could reinterpret it. You know, the same guys who inist on justices who strictly interpret the constitution.

You had asserted: "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."

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.

why ought metaphysics be consistent with physics? Metaphysics is a distinct subject from physics. — 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.

I've already told you why physics is obviously wrong, it is rife with contradiction. — 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.

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. — Terrapin Station

I was alluding to his burden to make a case, not claiming it to be logical necessity. Sorry if my informal language was misleading.

If physics is full of contradictions (as it is) then most likely it has some things wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

Two issues:
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.

No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics.
— Relativist
Actually, usually it's the other way 'round. If, for example, the most recent batch of sacrificial virgins doesn't seem to propitiate the volcano god,... — tim wood

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.

"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.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

time may pass without physical change. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

When we understand "time" in this way, as not necessarily tied to physical existence,

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.

whereby God, being non-physical, i.e. immaterial, has time to "act". — 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?

But since we need to alter this concept of "time" to allow for the actions of God

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.

"And to equate 'pain' with bad, and 'pleasure' with good, is surely just to default to basic hedonism."

I wasn't equating pain with bad and pleasure with good. I referred to pain as an analogy to the unique feeling of empathy. Empathetic feelings are not the same thing as pain.

Is it really possible to instantiate "maximal greatness"? That is questionable, and so it is just as reasonable to reject it as it is to accept it.

One might be tempted to assent to the first premise, because as far as we know, it does not seem impossible. However, this is epistemic possibility (which is subjective, depending on background beliefs) and is not the modlity that is needed - it needs to be metaphysically possible because that is the modality that would have to be associated with "excellence."

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. — adhomienem

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.

“there are no facts of the matter about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad

Is there no "fact of the matter" regarding the pain experience (the quale)? I think there is: pain is a state of consciousness. IMO, the sense of right/wrong is something like that - and this is why I relate it to empathy: we actually feel something when we see, or even ponder, some basic wrongs.

My question to you would be, how did empathy rise up as the dominant moral compass for humankind? — Abecedarian

Perhaps pointing to "empathy" is too specific, but I think it's clear that we have an innate sense of right and wrong - certainly it entails a non-verbal, mental capacity. Certain things SEEM wrong, like if we see a person being beaten or killed - this touches our emotions. So empathy doesn't capture this exactly, but it's close.

It is an innate feeling that we have, and I suggest morality stems from this feeling. It's not "dominant" it IS the basis of morality. My hypothesis isn't arrived at by deduction, rather - by abduction. It's the best explanation I'm aware of for morality, although I'm open to considering other possibilities.

The factors that led me to this hypothesis: we actually do have empathetic feelings - these are not learned and therefore they seem innate. Morality is consistent with morality - it entails putting ourselves in someone else's place. The "golden rule" seems to have risen in various cultures independent of one another, which suggests it is a rational interpretation of our innate feelings, including empathy. The golden rule encapsulates much of morality.

China is indubitably hell-bent on stealing the world's trade secrets and at attaining technological and business dominance by whatever means possible. But I'm not sure that the blunt object of tariffs is going to achieve those ends. — Wayfarer

I'm also doubtful, but shouldn't we be open to the possibility it will help - even while maintaining skepticism? I'd be inclined to stop Trump, but since we can't - we're going to have to let it play out, and the right thing to do is to hope for the best. Republicans wanted Obama to fail, even though failure meant bad things for the country. Let's not be that way.

So my definition of faith is a basis to believe something is true and can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

If you believe something that is conflict with fact or reason - the problem is you - not faith. — Rank Amateur

You should rethink this. People have faith in all sorts of irrational things. Suggestion: accept what you know by faith AS LONG AS it does not conflict with reason. God's non-existence cannot be proven, so you're position is safe. Philosophers of religion puzzle through various aspects of God, and sometimes change their opinions after rational analysis. If they simply had faith in their view of God, there would be no role for rational analysis.

If a mob-boss tells an underling to go and kill somebody, the mob-boss didn't directly cause the death, but he deserves to be held accountable anyway. Trump didn't order anyone to kill, but he did encourage violence, and should likewise be held accountable - not to the point of deserving prison-time, but he absolutely deserves to be called out on it.

"1. When the universe did not exist, nothing existed except for the GCB."

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).

If you're granting that the appearance of fine-tuning in this world makes it possible that a Creator exists, ... — adhomienem

You're conflating epistemic possiblity with metaphysical possibility. Your argument depends on this being true:

1. If it is metaphysically possible that the GCB exists, then there is some metaphysically possible world in which the GCB exists.

But we don't really know that it is metaphysically possible. If physicalism is true, then it is metaphysically impossible for a God to exist.

I both agree and do not agree with Rosenberg's view on morality and evolution. I feel like it is possible for our core morality to stem from natural selection and adaptive drives. However, if that were really the case, why isn't the dog-eat-dog morality one of our morals? — Play-doh

I believe morality is rooted in empathy. Dog-eat-dog is egocentric - the exact opposite of empathy. Actions that are driven by empathy make us feel good - they are also helpful to the proliferation of our species.

Dog-eat-dog behavior is the opposite of empathy; it doesn't make us feel good, it makes us feel powerful and dominant. It doesn't help the species proliferate; instead, it strengthens the species by culling out the weak.

Morality pertains specifically to the things that make us feel good or bad about behavior.

It's most definitely not true that corporate tax cuts will have a positive short term impact on the economy. If the tax cuts are going to cause a huge deficit? — LD Saunders

The negative impact of deficits is long term.

It was a trade war that crashed the stock market in 1929 and started the great depression that followed.

The tariffs imposed by Smoot–Hawley were pervasive and astronomical. The current ones are more targetted. That doesn't mean they are good, but it remains to be seen how big the impact will be, and when it will have a noticeable effect.

We should be able to agree that Trump's economic policies are bad in the long run. The negatives may not have a material impact during the next two years, so be careful what you predict.

"accepting that quantum "weirdness" is bound up in the structural fact that you can't ask a particle about two contrary properties, like position and momentum, in the same act of measurement. "
But this is a consequence of an unknown ontology: all of the interpretations of QM are consistent with the measurement, so you can't know which is true. I just think we need to be explicit about what we can know, and what we can't know. I emphasize the unknown and say this implies we should be agnostic about those points.

"Long term > short term, so long term is the most important; we should strive to make the ‘right’ / ‘good’ decisions."

How do you feel about eugenics?

". Tax cuts do not automatically stimulate the economy. "
It's a virtual certainty that a cut in corporate tax rates will have a positive short term impact on the economy: it means there will be a higher return on investment. More prospective investments will meet a hurdle rate. The question is still: how much impact does it have, and was it worth it on the long run to run up the deficits.

On the other hand, the trade war is bad for the economy. How high an impact is uncertain.

"I am happy to instead to change the game and replace the unobserved object with the observer-created relata. "
That seems an unjustifiable belief, that observers create. Reminds me of devotees of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM who consider observation to cause wave function collapse.

Post hoc fallicies are endemic to politics. But tax cuts should be expected to boost the economy, so the claims are not unreasonable. Less reasonable is the generic claim that any good economic news is a consequence of the party (or person) in power.

But back to the tax cuts, although these are stimulative, this doesn't mean they are necessarily worth the cost, and the timing is questionable. We risk deficits that are unsustainable (i.e. if intetest on the national debt grows faster than the economy, that is an unsustainable path). Further, cutting them during a period of growth constrains you from cutting them (or taking other actions that increase the deficit) when the economy is tanking.

Immigration reform is needed, the question is: what should it look like? What problems are we trying to solve?

"Predominantly I have been hearing how this violence is related to Trump's speech. Now, I am no fan of Trump, but, how is it that anyone can know that Trump's speech was a cause for these violent acts?"

You have a good point pundits are going too far if they're claiming Trump caused the violent acts. Who has actually said this? I haven't heard that exactly, but I can get how you might infer that from what has been said.

Trump's rhetoric incites passion in his supporters. Some of those supporters are racists, and some of those racists are sufficiently unhinged that these passions could spur them to unfortunate action. This seems plausible, and what I've heard from anti-Trump pundits is consistent with this. Maybe I've just missed it.

The SEP article proposes:

" So one way of thinking about structural realism is as an epistemological modification of scientific realism to the effect that we only believe what scientific theories tell us about the relations entered into by unobservable objects, and suspend judgement as to the nature of the latter."

That sounds the most reasonable to me, and it's consistent with what I'm terming being agnostic to ontology.

Whi actually makes such an argument? What I think is going on is affirmation.

"the remission rate around here if we are to believe philosophy as therapy?"
That's your mistake. Philosophy is a symptom, not a cure.

"But why take that view when mathematical physics has added so much to what we know about fundamental reality? Why would you suddenly lose faith in metaphysics right at the point science is delivering so many answers?"
Ontology must be consistent with our knowledge of the world. Our knowledge of the world, in terms of fundamental physics, is not settled. Should we treat quantum fields as fundamental? Quantum field theory is not even complete, since it doesn't include gravity. Are points in spacetime "individuals"? Do we depend on haeccity for individuation? What about string theory?

If physics doesn't have a firm answer, how can ontology? Hawking used the term "model dependent realism" which never was actually realist ontology. It seemed to amount to pretending the particular model you're working with is "real." That doesn't make for a good ontology, but it's a good description of where physics is.

"I see no philosophic difference at all between faith based theism and faith based belief in a multi-universe"
I agree. The fact that some atheists feel compelled to propose multiverse as a naturalist alternative to God shows they have fallen for some faulty logic. If the universe was not designed, then we exist by chance. The fact that there is a narrow range of values that are life permitting has no relevance if we're the product of chance. It only has relevance if you assume the universe was designed for life: it suggests God had to be careful in crafting those constants.

I recommend reading the article at the SEP. It is a good survey of the various flavors of SR, and identifies objections to each.

My takeaway is that there's more reason than ever to be agnostic to ontologies.

It would still be possible in the atheistic many-universe hypothesis that we live in a world created by chance. There would be many universes that could exist that could sustain human life. "

We can live in a world that is a product of chance even if there is just the one universe. The fine tuning argument depends on the unstated premise that life is a design objective.

If there is no design objective then we are a product of chance. So what?

"The slogan is 'relations without relata'. Reality exists by conjuring itself up out of a pure holism of relations."
That is an extreme (eliminative) form of Ontological Structural Realism. At the other extreme is Epistemic Structual Realism, and in between are flavors of the ontic that still believe relations must have relata. Even if you're right that "structural realism has to be the fundamentally correct ontology" rather than just the right epistemic attitude, it remains to be seen if the eliminativist version will blow away the others.

"You can't get from knowledge of physics, to the underlying laws of logic or maths, and indeed you must already grasp logic and maths to some extent to even begin to understand physics."
That's epistemology, and we can account for the epistemology with either ontology, and platonism entails reifying epistemological concepts.

"whilst reducing every human trait to 'what works', it also removes any sense of there being a purpose for survival, other than propagation of the genome"
It has the explanatory scope needed. Your rejection seems based on affirming the consequent. The facts are consistent with, but do not entail, a teleological goal.

"Why am I me?"
False assumption. What makes you think you ARE?!

"2" is a property of certain states of affairs (such as your state of affairs "orange and orange"). It has no independent existence. We can think abstractly about it the same as we think abstractly of colors.