Darwin's God: I Just Found Out There Are Multiple Multiverses

Friday, March 23, 2012

I Just Found Out There Are Multiple Multiverses

An evolutionist just told me privately that there are multiple—as in a large number—multiverses and this is a game-changer. A multiverse is a large number of universes, which evolutionists now know really do exist. Evolutionists explain that the number of universes in a multiverse is “a large number” rather than infinity because certain mathematical and philosophical problems arise if you have an infinity of universes. With an infinity of universes evolution becomes a fact (along with everything else, of course, because everything happens when you have an infinite number of chances, and evolution is all about chances). But “a large number” is actually just as good, when you think about it. This is because “a large number” can be any number you want it to be. The only limit is infinity, but that actually is not a limit because, well, it is infinity.

Anyway, now it turns out that not only is there a multiverse (“a large number” of universes), but there also is “a large number” of multiverses. This is an incredible thought, when you think about it, and makes evolution beyond just a mere fact. There simply is no question that everything just happened to arise all by itself. It’s a real game-changer.

66 comments:

bornagain77March 23, 2012 at 3:31 AM
Isn't this along the same line of thought that Godel used to prove the incompleteness theorem?

Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335
entire video: BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 1-10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90

Godel's story on the incompleteness theorem can be picked up here in part 7 of the preceding video:

BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 7-10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldUAw2Aux0

As you can see, somewhat from the preceding video, mathematics cannot be held to be 'true' unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God. Thus this following formal proof, which was referred to at the end of the preceding video, shows that math cannot be held to be consistently true unless the highest infinity of God is held to be consistently true as a starting assumption:

THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010
Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

Godel also had this to say:

The God of the Mathematicians - Goldman
Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel is considered by many to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century)
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

Which is very interesting since Jesus, who 'played the role' of God as a person, actually brings 'completeness' to the reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity;

General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video
http://vimeo.com/34084462

Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit
ReplyDelete
Replies
natschusterMarch 23, 2012 at 8:26 AM
Why is multiverse any more intellectually satisfiying than saying God did it? they are both supernatural. Multiverse just has the supernatural stuff happening somewhere else. And Multiverse is unfalsifiable, which naturalists usually find annoying. How can you say for sure that these uninverses we cannot detect don't exist? While "God did it" is said to be unfalsifiable, Naturalists claim to have falsified it.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ScottMarch 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Nat: Why is multiverse any more intellectually satisfiying than saying God did it? they are both supernatural. Multiverse just has the supernatural stuff happening somewhere else.

In the absence of the Many-worlds interoperation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, you're left with a number of paradoxes, such as a single cat being both alive and dead at the same time the moon not existing unless someone is observing it, etc.

However, the MWI resolves these paradoxes, leaving us with a number of classical universes, rather than a number of spooky behaviors occurring at the small scale.

So, MWI does the opposite, as it demystifies what we observe.

Nat: And Multiverse is unfalsifiable, which naturalists usually find annoying. How can you say for sure that these uninverses we cannot detect don't exist? While "God did it" is said to be unfalsifiable, Naturalists claim to have falsified it.

There are a number of ways by which we can test the MWI. For example, anything that falsifies quantum mechanics also falsifies the MW theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Reception

In fact, Bornagain77 unknowingly pointed out an example of research that strongly collaborates the MW theory.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

From David Wallace, a MWI proponent…

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0130/evprob.html
"This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says. Here, probabilistic is referring to the spooky sort of behavior implied in some interpretations of QM.

So, again, I'd suggest that Cornelius' posts on the multiverse are parochial in that he has failed to point out the different types of multiverse theories, their implications and evidence that collaborates them.

Apparently, presenting comprehensive arguments on the subject matter of his posts simply does not suit his agenda.
ReplyDelete
Replies
bornagain77March 23, 2012 at 1:28 PM
Scott, to show just how misguided you are, Deustch does not hold that the wave function is 'real'. In fact it is a 'fatal flaw' in his argument in that he does not hold that a photon travels as a uncollapsed wave in the slit experiments;

Excerpt: 'But that still doesn't solve the fatal flaw in Deutsch's argument: there is no experimental evidence that a photon goes through one particular slit when we see a four slit interference pattern.'
http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/multiverse.html

And yet Scott, even though Deustch himself does not hold that the wave function is 'real', you cite the paper I originally cited,,,

Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
Excerpt: the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction

as proof that MWI is correct!?! Scott, This evidence directly falsifies MWI!!!

Further notes on the reality of the wave function which MWI denies:

It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not 'physically real' but was merely 'abstract' as is held in MWI. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?

Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon
Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,,
http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as 'physically real';

Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction - June 2011
Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html
ReplyDelete
Replies
ScottMarch 23, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Born: Scott, to show just how misguided you are, Deustch does not hold that the wave function is 'real'. In fact it is a 'fatal flaw' in his argument in that he does not hold that a photon travels as a uncollapsed wave in the slit experiments;

Again, this only illustrates that you have no clue as how to even read a critique of Deustch's position.

From the article..

Sturman: Excerpt: 'But that still doesn't solve the fatal flaw in Deutsch's argument: there is no experimental evidence that a photon goes through one particular slit when we see a four slit interference pattern.'

The "real" being referred to here is in contrast to the instrumentalist Copenhagen interpretation, in which the wave function is merely an instrument for predicting what we will experience, rather than being a description of what's happening in reality.

Born: as proof that MWI is correct!?! Scott, This evidence directly falsifies MWI!!!

No, it doesn't Apparently, you simply refuse to accept any definition of the MWI other than you know to be false.

To summarize, ….

01. The Copenhagen interpretation: The wave function is just a useful calculation for predicting what will occur. It says nothing about reality, but is merely an instrument.

02. Non-MWI: a photon actually somehow turns into a wave, then actually turn back into a single photon when the are observed. Why? That's just how quantum mechanics works.

03. The MWI: There are 10^500 universe that are also running the same experiment. They are similar enough to us that the photons in these other universes interfere with each other, causing the interference pattern. The interference pattern does stops or does not occur when the act of observations causes these universes to become un-similar enough that they no longer interfere with each other.

Both [02] and [03] assume the wave function is real. it's only [01] that does not.

So, for example…

Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, the same retrieval was occurring in 10^500 similar universes, and the photons in each universe, which were in slightly different locations, passed through all parts of the stencil at once….

Born: Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as 'physically real';

See this guest post from David Wallace, retarding a similar paper.
ReplyDelete
Replies
bornagain77March 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM
Scott, you are the one who has no clue! MWI is falsified of its foundational premise of maintaining the wave function being not real, A premise that Deutsch himself holds.(as is clearly illustrated in the critique of his book) He flubs the double slit for crying out loud). You completely ignore this elephant in the living room problem as if I will dare let you get away with it, and then, of all things, you beg incredulity as to proof of your argument that 10^500 experimenters are conducting the experiment at the same time in 10^500 universes!

a photon actually somehow turns into a wave, then actually turn back into a single photon when the are observed. Why? That's just how quantum mechanics works.

You need incredulity alright Scott, but it ain't at option 2 that you need it!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Rebel ScienceMarch 23, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Isn't David Deutsch the crackpot who, like the little con artist in the wheelchair, believes that time travel is possible? Yep, that's what I thought. Crackpots and con artists in high places.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ScottMarch 23, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Born,

If there was any statement that indicates you do not have a clue here, it's this...

Born: MWI is falsified of its foundational premise of maintaining the wave function being not real, A premise that Deutsch himself holds.

Deutsch is NOT an instrumentalist. As such, he don't think the wave function is merely an instrument for predicting what we will observer.

Rather, he thinks there really are other photons causing interference patterns, these photons really do exist in other universes and the resulting patterns really do match the wave-function.

So, your claim that the MWI has been falsified is based on confusion or willful ignorance on your part.

Born: He flubs the double slit for crying out loud.

No, Deutsch leaves observers out of his depiction of the experiment so the reader can take themselves out of the equation. However, he addresses the issue of the observer shortly after in the same chapter. In fact, he explicitly points the differences between the order in which the observer is introduced, as compared to the "traditional" depiction, and clearly outlines his reasons for doing so, in detail.

So, no, he does not flub the double slit. Rather he points out how it can be misleading in regards to the role observers play.
ReplyDelete
Replies
DaleFlanneryMarch 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM
http://tinyurl.com/holy-multiverse-Batman
ReplyDelete
Replies
bornagain77March 24, 2012 at 4:21 AM
Scott, you state that Deutsch does not deny the reality of the wave function, but then, directly after that, you go on to state:

"Rather, he thinks there really are other photons causing interference patterns, these photons really do exist in other universes and the resulting patterns really do match the wave-function."

Thus, by your own words, he denies the reality of the wave function by postulating quasi-infinite 'shadow' photons in other universes. i.e. He, clumsily, with much unaddressed empirical problem, is using the wave function as a statistical (probabilistic) tool! I've cited a proof that clearly indicates the wave function is indeed real and cannot be used is such a statistical way,

The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically - November 2011
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

Moreover Sturman has given a excellent mini-overview as to why Deutsch quasi infinite parallel universes fails empirically:

The Parallel Universes of David Deutsch
(As argued for in Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality) - A Critque by Henry R. Sturman
Excerpt: 1.The whole argument rests on the untestable, and therefore invalid, assumption that a photon goes through one of the four slits when a four slit interference pattern emerges. In particular, Deutsch's argument seems to rest on the hidden assumption that non-locality is impossible (see below), while he does not present any arguments for this assumption.
2. Deutsch fails to explain an essential fact of the slit experiments, that the interference pattern disappears when we measure which slit the photon goes through. This fact is evidence against the existence of shadow photons rather than evidence for it.
3. Deutsch fails to invalidate the alternative standard single universe explanation of the slit experiments.
4. Deutsch fails to explain the structure of the interference patterns.
5. Deutsch's argument against his critics that their theory makes use of imaginary things which have an effect on real things, is based on a straw man.
http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/multiverse.html

But I would like to add one thing to Sturman's devastating critique, the insurmountable problems for Deutsch do not stop at the slit experiments. The problems for Deutsch multiply exponentially when he is forced to explain quantum entanglement on top of quantum wave collapse. i.e. Entanglement forces him to multiply his quasi-infinite parallel universes by another ad hoc 'random' infinity. This forces profound absurdities onto quantum mechanics, as is noted here:

Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011
Excerpt: Action at a distance occurs when pairs of quantum particles interact in such a way that they become entangled. But the new paper, by a trio of physicists led by Matthew Pusey at Imperial College London, presents a theorem showing that if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other. As that seems very unlikely to be true, the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction
ReplyDelete
Replies
bornagain77March 24, 2012 at 5:38 AM
Of somewhat related note as to the centrality, and importance, of a 'observer' in quantum mechanics. I think this is interesting:

The following interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality. i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been in very different positions than directly in the exponential middle of all possible sizes;

The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white

Of related interest, to the 'observer effect', it is very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for appraoching the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the entirety of our 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;

Seeing Relativity
http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/

Speed Of Light - Near Death Experience Tunnel - Turin Shroud - video
http://www.vimeo.com/18371644

Near Death Experience - The Tunnel - video
http://www.vimeo.com/29021432

Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/
ReplyDelete
Replies
ScottMarch 24, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Poor Born seems to be stuck in some kind of loop. If only we could pick up the needle, so to speak, and snap him out of it.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ScottMarch 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Born, can you, in your own words, explain the "Deficiencies" in "the double slit" experiment, and what makes them "deficient"?

Can you provide quotes from Deutsch "denying" that the wave function describes what is actually happening in reality, or that evidence for non-locality wouldn't also represent local observations under the MWI?

And then there is the "absurd" paradoxes that the MWI resolves, such as cats being actually both dead and alive or the moon not existing unless someone is observing it, etc. Apparently you're willing to accept complex absurdities as long as they do not conflict with your specific religious views.

For example, it's unclear why an intelligent designer couldn't have designed the multiverse to work as explained in the MWI. So, this only conflicts with your specific theological designer, the Christian god.

Your comments continually indicate you do not understand the MWI when you state that research that shows that the wave function or non-locality is "real" falsifies it. This is because the MWI is an interpretation of observations that could also be interpreted as being non-local and that the wave function would also predict what we would observe if the MWI was accurate in reality.

In other words, the research you've referenced supports both non-locality under non-MWI and locality under the MWI. This is in contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation, in which the aspects of the theory are thought to be merely an instrument for predicting phenomena, not a representation of reality.

If you're this confused (and apparently bound and determined to remain that way) regarding the implications of evidence in the case of the MWI, this would explain your confusion in the case of evolutionary theory as well.
ReplyDelete
Replies
bornagain77March 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
bornagain77March 25, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Scott let me explain more clearly why the fact that you 'believe' in Darwinian evolution disqualifies you automatically from being 'scientific' as to say anything truthful about reality:

Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter
Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

Alvin Plantinga - Science and Faith Conference - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlMK9Ejhb0

The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);

Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011
Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?)
Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM
I'm going to regret this...

bornagain77 Mar 26, 2012 07:26 AM

[...]

'Believers' gene' will spread religion , says academic - January 2011
Excerpt: The World Values Survey, which covered 82 nations from 1981 to 2004, found that adults who attended religious services more than once a week had 2.5 children on average; while those who went once a month had two; and those who never attended had 1.67.
Prof Rowthorn wrote: "The more devout people are, the more children they are likely to have."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8252939/Believers-gene-will-spread-religion-says-academic.html

The human population is now estimated to be over 7 billion. We are pushing both the carrying capacity of this planet and our own capacity to organize ourselves into stable and prosperous societies. If climate change, whether brought about by us or not, were to cause a major crop failure, millions could starve to death. Under those circumstances, I would say it's those families who have fewer children who are behaving more responsibly, wouldn't you?

Thus either your citation is right and evolution is producing a true belief, and that true belief is Theism, since atheists have a 'praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind', or Dr. Plantinga is right and there is no guarantee that the results of Darwinian evolution produce true beliefs about reality! Which is it Ian?

I believe in the correspondence theory of truth. There is a reality beyond each of us which we experience only partially. Our senses feed only limited data about that reality to our brains. To try and fill in the gaps and make sense of it all we construct narratives around the data. A certain set of data might admit of a number of different interpretations or narratives. The extent to which a particular narrative corresponds to the reality it purports to describe decides how true it is, the closer the approximation, the truer it is.

Dr Plantinga is right about one thing in that evolution does not lead necessarily to true belief. Untrue beliefs could flourish if their net effect on human society is nonetheless beneficial. Any belief, whether religious or political which tends to bind a society together and make it more resilient in the face of stress can be good for that society and the individuals who make it up

On the other hand, supposing some charismatic preacher came along who taught that, if your faith is strong enough, you will be able to fly out of the window of a tall building, float around for a while , then fly back in through another window - just like Saint Joseph of Cupertino. How long do you think that little cult would last?

As for theism, which are the True Believers, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Mormons, Pentecostalists, Congregationalists, Plymouth Brethren , Jehovah's Witnesses, Hutterites, Mennonites, Millerites, Amish? And that's just a few of them.

So if evolution and, by extension, science cannot be relied upon to sift out True Belief™ how does Dr Plantinga propose to show us which of the above, if any, is true?
ReplyDelete
Replies
bornagain77March 26, 2012 at 7:18 PM
So Ian, in the first post you claimed Plantinga's argument was false, well actually you said:

Quine has the best answer to Plantinga's EAAN

In the response post you concede, (and I give you a hand for a bit of honesty in the concession);

'Dr Plantinga is right about one thing in that evolution does not lead necessarily to true belief. Untrue beliefs could flourish if their net effect on human society is nonetheless beneficial.'

And so the argument, in your own words, (and since you certainly don't want to concede theism as true) stands full force!

As to 'correspondence theory of truth'; I believe that is actually a Theistic presupposition:

Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
http://vimeo.com/32145998

Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

As to listening to some charismatic preacher (a wolf in sheep clothing), who will try to get you to drink kool-aid, or whatever, why don't you try listening to the living God?

HEARING THE VOICE OF GOD
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
http://www.christian-marriage-today.com/support-files/hearinggodspeakbiblestudy.pdf

He is just a prayer away!

As to you fretting as to which branch of Christian Theism is true, all I can say is that Jesus really did rise from the dead and that he really does speak individually to each of our hearts. God is looking for a relationship with you personally, not another religious zealot. Remember, it was the really religious people that were Christ's primary enemies while he was on this earth!
ReplyDelete
Replies
bornagain77March 26, 2012 at 7:25 PM
Ian you also state,

'So if evolution and, by extension, science cannot be relied upon to sift out True Belief™ '

Plantinga's purpose was to show that naturalism can't ground science in the first place! i.e. there is no connection between science and naturalism save in the distorted imaginations of materialists;

Philosopher Sticks Up for God
Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
ReplyDelete
Replies
bornagain77March 26, 2012 at 7:42 PM
Ian you may be interested in this:

We have at least three different intersecting lines of experimental evidence, from quantum mechanics, which all converge to this one following conclusion;

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

Here Are the three intersecting lines of evidence from quantum mechanics. Wheeler's delayed choice, Leggett's inequalities, and Wigner's symmetries;

Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video
http://vimeo.com/38508798

"Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel"
John A. Wheeler

Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm

“I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.

Preceding quote taken from this following video;

Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video)
http://vimeo.com/37517080
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Darwin's God

Friday, March 23, 2012

I Just Found Out There Are Multiple Multiverses

66 comments:

Cornelius Hunter

Links

Blog Archive