I don’t actually believe the radio metaphor of the brain, but I think something like it could account for all of our findings. Its unfalsifiable which is a big no-no in science. But so is the materialist view—it’s also unfalsifiable. We simply don’t know how to reverse engineer consciousness. Saying that the complexity of the brain explains why we are conscious is just an article of faith—it doesn’t explain anything. We don’t know why our brains are associated with conscious experience and nothing else in the universe besides brains seems to be. Maybe rocks have consciousness but no way of showing this. I don’t believe this—but again, I can’t prove its false.
If we acknowledge just how much we don’t know about the conscious mind, perhaps we would be a bit more humble. We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good. So we will go on acting like free willing creatures no matter what. It’s what we're built to do.
This was actually deemed newsworthy? Indeed it was because evolution has come to so dominate our thinking. Conundrums that were well acknowledged ages ago are now revealed as though they are new findings.
This reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s 1958 futuristic short story “The Feeling of Power,” in which a technician named Myron Aub rediscovers arithmetic. Aub’s future world is one dominated by computers which do all the number crunching and people who not only are mathematically-challenged but, more importantly, don’t see the point. What good is math anyway? Today evolution has had a similar effect on our thinking. Just as computers can dull our mathematical skills, evolutionary thought dulls our critical thinking skills.
Wow, materialism was so effective at creating the 'seamless illusion' of consciousness and free will that it even fooled quantum mechanics into thinking they were real!
ReplyDelete“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
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007
Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)(Of Note: Max Planck Planck was a devoted Christian from early life to death, was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God.
What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! - APM - UD Blogger
In the following video, at the 37:00 minute mark, Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in quantum teleportation with many breakthroughs under his belt, humorously reflects on just how deeply determinism has been undermined by quantum mechanics, by saying such a deep lack of determinism may provide some of us a loop hole when they meet God on judgment day.
Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
Personally, I feel that such a deep undermining of determinism by quantum mechanics, far from providing a 'loop hole' on judgement day, actually restores free will to its rightful place in the grand scheme of things, thus making God's final judgments on men's souls all the more fully binding since man truly is a 'free moral agent';
Evolutionary thinking has so strangled our thinking, and has imposed such anti intellectualism, that a UCLA professor, as reported at UncommonDescent, actually had to explain that there is something different, apparently something non physical, about consciousness:
ReplyDeleteOkay, so there's a Hard Problem of Concsciousness. Tell us something we don't know.
Science, materialistic or otherwise, has been trying to unravel the secrets of the brain and consciousness for all of, what, 150-200 years? It's been aptly described as the most complex object in the known Universe and yet there are still people complaining about how we haven't cracked it yet and implying it's a sign of the abject failure of materialistic science to explain the world.
Well, in case you hadn't noticed, no other approach has had any success explaining it either. If that UCLA prof thinks he has something better to offer, let him go right ahead. I wouldn't stop him and neither should anyone else
as to "it's a sign of the abject failure of materialistic science to explain the world.'
Deleteactually materialistic science can never explain the world since materialistic science completely dependent on the scientific method which is itself not reducible to a material basis;
Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012
Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/
Moreover, you have the little problem of materialism being falsified by quantum mechanics:
Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon:
Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.
http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm
bornagain77 Apr 15, 2012 04:19 PM
Delete[...]
Moreover, you have the little problem of materialism being falsified by quantum mechanics:
What problem? Quantum mechanics is a materialistic theory.
Ian you state:
Delete'Quantum mechanics is a materialistic theory.'
Really???
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010
Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html
This following study adds to Alain Aspect's work in Quantum Mechanics and solidly refutes the 'hidden variable' argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the instantaneous 'spooky action at a distance' found in quantum mechanics.
Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009
Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm
(of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for 'spooky' forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.)
In fact the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011
Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf
Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science!
Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm
Falsification of Local Realism (Materialism) without using Quantum Entanglement - Anton Zeilinger
http://vimeo.com/34168474
"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/
How Teleportation Will Work -
DeleteExcerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm
Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page
Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,"
http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862
Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves - April 2011
Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing
It is also very interesting to note that the quantum state of a photon is actually defined as 'infinite information' in its uncollapsed quantum wave state:
Quantum Computing - Stanford Encyclopedia
Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf
The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to teleportation:
Of note: An ion is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving it a net positive or negative electrical charge.
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp
Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009
Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,,
"What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is 'information'.
Delete"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin."
John Archibald Wheeler
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf
Zeilinger's principle
Zeilinger's principle states that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. Some have reasoned that this principle, in certain ways, links thermodynamics with information theory. [1]
http://www.eoht.info/page/Zeilinger%27s+principle
In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist
Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/links/newscientist/bit.html
bornagain77 Apr 16, 2012 01:49 AM
DeleteIan you state:
'Quantum mechanics is a materialistic theory.'
Really???
Yes, really.
I should point out that I posted a previous response at greater length but, unfortunately, that was deleted for some reason.
Where are the wave/particle entities and their strange properties to be found other than as a substrate to the macroscopic material reality that we take for granted. As I wrote before, if I stub my toe against a rock, like Dr Johnson, it still hurts. If I pick the rock up, I still expend energy lifting it against the pull of gravity. Entanglement and non-locality no doubt play a role in what we experience as material reality and always have but our knowing about them has made no observable difference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn quantum mechanics, matter doesn't exist, this is because there is an infinite array of possibilities. It isn't until the possibilities are collapsed that you get matter. You can say the experience you have of stubbing your toe is material, but in fact it is no more real than the infinite number of other possibilities out there. The only objective reality is that everything imaginable ad infinitum is happening all at once.
DeleteThis shows that matter is actually the subjective result of filtering out information (bunny in the clouds) vs the objective result of unfiltered reality (clouds).
It is correct that this theory does not create any observable differences in every day life, i.e. you feel tired after picking up a rock. Despite the convincing realism of your everyday life, everything you have ever experiened or felt was real can be traced back to that infinite formless state of emptiness that was then collapsed through observation. Of course, once the first illusion is created, subsequent illusions become even easier to pile on, and so forth, until the material world becomes seen as etched in stone.
While it doesn't explain consciousness as a whole, the Many Worlds theory of QM does addresses the issue of free will in that all logical and physically possible choices a person could take actually take place. It's just that we only observe the choice we individually made since the information of these choices cannot be transmitted between universes.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, it would indeed appear seamless, had we not noticed the way in which particles interfere with each other on the small scale can be explained by multiple classical universes that follow the same laws of physics.
And, yes, the MWT is compatible with observations of free will, despite the fact that we cannot choose what universe we end up in. As such, it's not clear how we could do anything different despite the fact that we wouldn't have free will, in reality.
I'd note the MWT also explains "spooky" behavior regarding observers found in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. And it also explains paradoxes in our conception of the flow of time, probability, etc.
BTW, what exactly is materialism, anyway? Is the MWT a materialist view?
Finally, assuming we live in a finite bubble of explicably is incoherent. This is because no better explanation can be had for the surrounding sea of inexplicability, other than "Zeus rules" there. And since this inexplicable realm supposedly effects what happens inside the bubble, there can be no better explanation that "Zeus rules" here, inside the bubble, as well.
In other words, a belief in a separate supernatural realm is an illusion that depends on refraining from asking specific questions, as an unexplainable realm that could effect the inside of this bubble in unexplainable ways.
Scoot you state that
Delete'In other words, a belief in a separate supernatural realm is an illusion that depends on refraining from asking specific questions, as an unexplainable realm that could effect the inside of this bubble in unexplainable ways.'
Does this illusion that depend on refraining from asking specific questions that pertain to your belief in 10^500 versions of you? Or is it only applicable to people who don't believe there are 10^500 versions of you in MWI?
correction: Does this illusion that depends on 'refraining from asking specific questions' pertain to your belief in 10^500 versions of you and not asking you about that? Or is this illusion only applicable to people who don't believe there are 10^500 versions of you?
DeleteNote that Born is a textbook example.
DeleteRather than address the argument I actually made, he attempts to shift the subject to something else.
Like ridiculing a theory he's made painfully clear he doesn't understand in the first place.
Born, how could we exist in a bubble of explicably if we
Scott, do you or do you not believe that at least 10^500 versions of you exist? A simple yes or no answer please.
Delete"There are 10^500 versions of myself in universes that are similar enough to cause interference, not that there are 10^500 total Scotts."
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-paper-on-brain-says-its-structure.html?showComment=1333812626334#c4550407039215418283
Born,
DeleteI have a well defined criteria for criticizing scientific theories.
The MWT meets this criteria in ways that significantly differentiates itself from other interpretations of quantum mechanics, while still accepting the same observations. Specifically, it's deep, hard to vary, and has more explanatory power, despite being less complex, in that it does't introduce different, yet unknown laws of physics, which observers supposedly adhere to. It also resolves multiple paradoxes across multiple fields of science..
In other worlds, I do not think the MWT has been proven to be true using observations alone, but that it has withstood significant criticism, while having more informational content. As such, I think it represents the best explanation for quantum mechanics.
So, yes, I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object. which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself in other classical universes that follow the same rules as ours, in including the same laws of physics. The result of which represents a deterministic history, just like ours, except some other logical possible event occurred.
'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object. which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself'
DeleteI rest my case! :)
What is your case? Ridicule? Personal incredulity?
ReplyDeleteDo you have a comprehensive and coherent criteria?
Not to mention, I answered your question, while you merely changed the subject.
This is your usual MO.
'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object. which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself'
DeleteYour very own words pretty much say it all Scott. What more really needs to be said? :)
Perhaps I can add a bit more in that the 1 version of me, that exists in this 1 universe we actually live in, believes that the imaginary 'consequences' the 10^500 versions of you believe you've accepted are a far cry from the real consequences you will actually face when you die and meet God:
Matthew 12:36
But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.
Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/
Third Day - Trust In Jesus - music video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtaCeJYqZA
Born: Your very own words pretty much say it all Scott. What more really needs to be said? :)
ReplyDeleteYes, they do say it all.
I have a comprehensive and coherent criteria for criticizing explanations. You do not.
I tentatively accept the consequences of our best, most current theories, even when they may appear non-intuitive. You, on the other hand, reject any theory that conflicts with your religious beliefs, which are based on your preferred, intuitive conception of God.
What more needs to be said?
All 10^500 versions of Scott boast,
ReplyDelete'I have a comprehensive and coherent criteria for criticizing explanations. You do not'
Whereas, I sincerely disagree with all 10^500 versions of you. :)
Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos – audio
http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3
Further notes against the rationality of your a-priori materialistic beliefs:
Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9
Sean Carroll channels Giordano Bruno - Robert Sheldon - November 2011
Excerpt: 'In fact, on Lakatos' analysis, both String Theory and Inflation are clearly "degenerate science programs".'
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/11/08/sean_carroll_channels_giordano_bruno.thtml
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
http://vimeo.com/34468027
Further notes against your preferred Darwinian pseudoscience which you have apparently arrived at by your 'comprehensive and coherent criteria for criticizing explanations'.
Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsification
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit
Is evolution pseudoscience?
Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.
http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience
‘Before you can ask ‘Is Darwinian theory correct or not?’, You have to ask the preliminary question ‘Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?’. That’s a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is ‘Man, that thing is just a mess. It’s like looking into a room full of smoke.’ Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we’re talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.’
David Berlinski
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
etc.. etc.. etc..
On top of all that Scott, to sum it all up clearly for you, you suffer from a extreme form of confirmation bias which has deeply marred your objectivity in these matters:
Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.,, They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization,, belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
As I expected, you tried to dodge the question I asked with a flurry of links.
ReplyDeleteAgain, what is your comprehensive criteria for criticizing theories? How does it relate to a comprehensive form of epistemology?
I don't see it.
Born: Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
http://vimeo.com/32145998
Because a magic man wanted us to? But, this leaves us with the question of why should the magic man comprehend reality?
Born: The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
http://vimeo.com/34468027
Again, string theory refers to some other kind of multiverse. You're favoring information about the multiverse according to string theory, while discarding information about the MWI. Not to mention that it's not even clear that the multiverse according to string theory actually leads to the conclusion being implied.
Born: Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
So, now your a mind reader too?
Or are you merely assuming that I must be biased because you think it's been divinely revealed that evolution is false. So, I must be favoring information that would lead me to assume otherwise.
As I've pointed out, you do not have a firm grasp on quantum mechanics, yet you seem to believe it somehow proves God exists.
And you claim I have a conformation bias?
Why would I keep pointing out how the scope of your argument is parochial (to narrow in scope) if I was trying to favor specific information that confirmed what I already believed?
Why would scientist publish results that supposedly didn't favor their beliefs if they were biased?
How do you explain this?
This is a beaut;
DeleteAs I've pointed out, you do not have a firm grasp on quantum mechanics, yet you seem to believe it somehow proves God exists.
and yet you state just a few posts earlier:
'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object. which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself'
Methinks the lack of a firm grasp is clearly evident! Indeed the lack of sanity is self-evident! :) But please do continue on ridiculing my correct and rigorous Theistic view of Quantum Mechanics if it makes you more comfortable in your insanity to do so. I will merely nod politely as consider the source of the ridicule:
Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176
Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Big Bang
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978
“Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=3594
“There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE
“,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.”
Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’
,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events'
Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video
Scott, you ask;
ReplyDelete'Because a magic man wanted us to? But, this leaves us with the question of why should the magic man comprehend reality?'
Thus Scott, I guess your reasoning is that since you don't believe in God then this is a rigid refutation of God? Sorry Scott, you have to tell me exactly what it is about your materialistic worldview that prevents God from existing. Good luck with that since the Big Bang show that material reality was brought into being instantaneously! Moreover to repeat what was clearly outlined in another post, you have no epistemological basis to form your materialistic worldview.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/you-wont-believe-this-one-even.html?showComment=1334670241300#c1733559902263546669
As for the rest of your argument you, all 10^500 versions of you, are merely punching in the air trying to find something solid, but alas your whole worldview is built on thin air and imagination. i.e. seeing faces in the clouds. Good luck with all that. :)
Born: Thus Scott, I guess your reasoning is that since you don't believe in God then this is a rigid refutation of God?
ReplyDeleteHuh? That's quite a non-sequitur you have there.
The rest is merely an argument from ridicule and incredulity.
Scott LOL, '10^500 versions of Scott' is a self-ridiculing statement, nothing has to be added by me, nor does any spin have to be given by me, the insanity of the statement, within itself, is totally sufficient for anyone to see it is insane. That is anyone who is not a-priori committed to believing in a atheistic/materialistic no matter what they have to believe. But alas, I saw in a earlier post that you had claimed that free-will was really a illusion, so I guess you have no choice in the matter of choosing whether to believe whether there are 10^500 versions of you or not for you claim really have no free will choice at all. Myself, I just take that as another example of how wrong you are!
ReplyDelete“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
Adapted to new systems and processes well and seeks out training to enhance knowledge, skills and abilities.
ReplyDelete야동
오피헌터
외국인출장
마사지
카지노사이트존