Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 151

Thread: How I understand Creationism in a logical way

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    So Let's say Mrs. Hubener didn't put that muffin* in front of you. What are the odds that it exists?
    In what context? The context that it is there, sitting in front of me? Or that it isn't?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    In what context? The context that it is there, sitting in front of me? Or that it isn't?
    No muffin = no discussion.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    No muffin = no discussion.
    So, the muffin is steaming there in front of me, and you are asking me to estimate the odds that it exists.

    Am I missing something?

    In that case: 100% -- you've just stipulated its existence! In reality, as Fly, Bat, Worm teaches us, the odds of it existing are something very slightly less than 100%, since we do not perceive reality directly, but as mediated by our senses. Gotta love those Sconics!

    Anyway, feel free to proceed to give us all a calca on the Anthropic Principle. I am already familiar, of course (as I stated -- perhaps you, while familiar with the concept, are unfamiliar with the term?), but it is certainly called for. Both Mr. Tansill and I dipped into it, without really explaining what we were talking about.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    So, the muffin is steaming there in front of me, and you are asking me to estimate the odds that it exists.

    Am I missing something?

    In that case: 100% -- you've just stipulated its existence! In reality, as Fly, Bat, Worm teaches us, the odds of it existing are something very slightly less than 100%, since we do not perceive reality directly, but as mediated by our senses. Gotta love those Sconics!

    Anyway, feel free to proceed to give us all a calca on the Anthropic Principle. I am already familiar, of course (as I stated -- perhaps you, while familiar with the concept, are unfamiliar with the term?), but it is certainly called for. Both Mr. Tansill and I dipped into it, without really explaining what we were talking about.
    You are missing the point. I'm not talking about perception. I'm talking about projection. Odds are useful in anticipation of future events. That a muffin exists in front of you means that it is the ONLY outcome, not in possibility, but in reality.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    You are missing the point. I'm not talking about perception. I'm talking about projection. Odds are useful in anticipation of future events. That a muffin exists in front of you means that it is the ONLY outcome, not in possibility, but in reality.
    Sigh.

    That "point," that brilliant "point," is called the Anthropic Principle. Look it up, seriously, and try to keep up.

    I will just repeat my response one more time (at least for now), which is: Odds are actually indispensably and unavoidably useful in reconstructing the past as well. They are useful in looking at a given situation and trying to decide "Who Done It?" Watch any murder mystery show. Poirot's "little gray cells" are put to work largely looking at facts and creatively comparing them to odds.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Sigh.

    That "point," that brilliant "point," is called the Anthropic Principle. Look it up, seriously, and try to keep up.

    I will just repeat my response one more time (at least for now), which is: Odds are actually indispensably and unavoidably useful in reconstructing the past as well. They are useful in looking at a given situation and trying to decide "Who Done It?" Watch any murder mystery show. Poirot's "little gray cells" are put to work largely looking at facts and creatively comparing them to odds.
    You are going to have to help me understand what the Anthropic Principle has to do with my point.
    EDIT:
    You employ Poirot to deduce the origin of your mystery muffin. What are the odds that the feisty Belgian will crack your case? After he solves it, what are the odds that he'll crack your case?
    Last edited by otherone; 04-15-2017 at 02:58 PM.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    You are going to have to help me understand what the Anthropic Principle has to do with my point. IRT reconstructing the past, you are using the term "odds" incorrectly.
    OK. Thanks, otherone.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Roguebeeker View Post
    There seem to be two dominant views on the origins of a planet that supports human life.

    The first is an atheist view, it is widely taught in schools, even religious folks will accept many or some of the points of this view. This is the view that our world is one incredible coincidence. If you have a 1 in 1,000+ (hundreds of zeros) chance of a planet that can support humans and a 1 in 1,000+ (hundreds of zeros) chance of life, let alone sentient life developing then there is still a chance and it happened. We are proof. Anything else is not worth worrying about.

    The second is the deist view (any or most religions, the story changes a bit but the theme is the same), a deity or multiple deities designed and crafted this world that we live in. Maybe in 6 days.

    So how would a deist/religious person defend creationism? A atheist may protest and question how this god came about to create such a grand thing. Did the god come from an accident?

    "Imagine that you live inside of a video game, lets say Minecraft. You are the character and know nothing else outside the game. One day you meet another character that tells you that he studied the bricks in Minecraft up close and found that really everything is made up of ones and zeros. He tells you that the origin of the world is, he suspects, the result of many ones and zeros lining up over time after an explosion of some sort to create the world you both live in. After all, the evidence of evolution and geology can be viewed anywhere."

    "You may point out that too much in the world is too orderly and too perfect. Sure, it may be all ones and zeros in the code but someone probably wrote that code. An all powerful code writer."

    "The other character points out that there could be no code writer because then he too would be made of ones and zeroes. Could an all powerful code a block so heavy that he himself could not lift it? Has anyone in Minecraft ever seen said code writer? Why did the code writer allow death by creepers and other misfortunes?"

    Such is my understanding of deity. Deity would need to be made of a greater stuff than us. Adam, after all was made of nothing but dust. Isn't that what we all are? dust and space? Could the world be programmed in six days? Why not? A programmer like god could create our world a million times over at the press of a button, could see the future and the past, could be all powerful in this realm.

    Just a thought that I felt like sharing. Thanks for reading.
    Don't bother, creationism with religion is just dangerous. Just stick to the evidence. There is no good, so you probably have nothing to worry about, except what you think is right and wrong. Oh, hopefully a little health care for those who need it. Not some walk one way, and believe another.

  11. #39
    The theory that seems to fit best for me is the Participatory Anthropic Principle which was advocated by the physicist John Wheeler that coined the word wormhole and used the word 'black hole' to describe a singularity.

    Quantum mechanics has held up be useful in our daily lives.. the transistor, lasers and LEDs are examples of quantum mechanics describing how things work reliably.

    Quantum mechanics also requires a system to have an observer to actually have a measurable outcome. You could call this original observer god. Or perhaps the universe ended up with consciousness (us, and maybe others) in order for it to actually exist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A...er#It_from_bit

    "Wheeler speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asked about the existence of space and time.[87] He also coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle. From a transcript of a radio interview on "The anthropic universe":

    Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
    Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.[88]"


    This doesn't fit into the creationist idea at all.
    “…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    The theory that seems to fit best for me is the Participatory Anthropic Principle which was advocated by the physicist John Wheeler that coined the word wormhole and used the word 'black hole' to describe a singularity.

    Quantum mechanics has held up be useful in our daily lives.. the transistor, lasers and LEDs are examples of quantum mechanics describing how things work reliably.

    Quantum mechanics also requires a system to have an observer to actually have a measurable outcome. You could call this original observer god. Or perhaps the universe ended up with consciousness (us, and maybe others) in order for it to actually exist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A...er#It_from_bit

    "Wheeler speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asked about the existence of space and time.[87] He also coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle. From a transcript of a radio interview on "The anthropic universe":

    Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
    Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.[88]"


    This doesn't fit into the creationist idea at all.
    If the observer is "God" then that observer cannot be a product of these processes, and therefore these processes are not the absolute explanation but rather an intermediate explanation. The absolute explanation is the eternal "observer" in this case.

    Again when you invoke any form of physics to explain existence you have to presuppose those natural laws always existed without reason, otherwise you're just explaining a force that itself must be explained.
    “I'm real, Ron, I'm real!” — Rick Santorum
    “Congratulations.” — Ron Paul¹



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Something doesn't arise from nothing.

    Nothing and something arise from Emptiness. This is eastern thought 101.

    Emptiness is the primordial quality, not nothing. Emptiness implies being completely empty of even the thought of emptiness and of not-emptiness.

    A Kyoto school philosopher called this "Absolute Nothingness".

    Because absolute nothingness pervades the underlying reality of everything it implies an inherent one-ness at the source.

    Did God create the Absolute Nothingness? No. A created thing would be a something. The nameless nothing, is what God fully embodies. And the Tao is the expression of the true nature of Emptiness. Tao means "The Way", Christ says, "I am the way."

    Even though God precedes all things, any knowable aspect of God is still known through form, be it spiritual or physical form.

    Even God does not claim this "existed for all eternity" backwards silliness. There was a beginning to time. It is also a "thing" that was created. And in a sense God was created:

    Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    Quantum mechanics has held up be useful in our daily lives.. the transistor, lasers and LEDs are examples of quantum mechanics describing how things work reliably.
    There is, however, more than one interpretation of the practical (real) data.

    The big question is: when an uncertainty resolves (a quantum state collapses), what decides which way it resolves? What decides whether the electron goes left or right? Who decides whether the cat lives or dies?

    One answer is the now-standard, vanilla Copenhagen answer currently ascendant story: both happen. "We haven't found any causal factor that would make that choice one way or the other, so both must happen! The universe splits (actually, duplicates)." A quite extreme measure to take to solve the problem! So you get an extremely large number of parallel time tracks (aka "the Multiverse").

    A second answer, just as reasonable and coherent actually, and advocated by at least one great quantum physicist, is that God decides. This answer was.... not generally popular. So, instead of accepting the possibility of a cause we have not (yet) observed, we end up with a universe that's having infinite babies. Interesting.

    The first answer just fits more satisfyingly to the modern Zeitgeist. After all, it makes humans completely impotent and freedom and free choice utterly meaningless, and that is always a plus, believe me. Anything that makes you a victim with no control over your environment is very appealing to the r-selected mind. The Multiverse just happens! You may think you can choose excellence and beauty and self-improvement, but actually even if you do there's another copy of you that will choose the opposite. Ha, ha, loser!

    Forget tomorrow, live for today!
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-25-2017 at 07:17 AM.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Not so.

    In the case of the existence of life, under our current scientific understanding, it is absolutely impossible for life to exist. That's it. It just is. Impossible. It turns out, the odds are far, far beyond astronomical. You could make every single atom in the observed universe -- and the universe is a big place; you have no idea! -- make every atom into primordial soup and it still wouldn't work. Actually, fill up all the empty(ish) space, too. No big empty gaps between planets and stars and galaxies. Just a huge, huge, 10^24th mile-diameter endless, endless sea of primordial soup. Life would never arise, not in the entire lifespan of the universe. You'd have to run the universe 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000...th times before life would have a fair sporting chance of happening. And you can't do that anymore, sorry, because it turns out the universe is going to end in the Big Freeze, not the Big Crunch, and there's no real reason for the Big Bang to happen in the first place, so it can only happen once.

    This is all according to our current scientific understanding, you understand. It says it can't happen. Science has, at the moment, no story for the origin of life which is even remotely plausible. That's just the situation. It could change, but that is where we find ourselves currently.

    So the only thread we're left with to grab onto is the Anthropic Principle, which is highly unsatisfying to everyone, to say the least, and probably does not actually qualify as an explanation; rather, it is (by definition) the lack of an explanation. It's a white flag of surrender.

    It's also not science, not empirical science, because it's not falsifiable.

    In fact, none of this (theories of the origins of life) is empirical science because none of it is falsifiable! Nobody gets to claim the mighty Mantle of Science ("Bow down and believe me, for I am Science") on this one. Sorry. We're all just telling stories.


    ~~~


    I personally believe in God, because of personal revelation. I think that revelation is a very rational and reasonable reason to believe in God. I think that God would want us to know He exists.

    Now, He'd have to strike a balance: it would not be beneficial for us for Him to personally host His own nightly newscast. He has to leave space for doubt and questioning, otherwise there would be no space for faith. There would be a lack of real freedom, of real choice. He has to step back and give us some space, in order for this growth and personal development project we call life to be able to work as designed.

    But, for those who want to know, those who seek Him.... well, He has made them certain promises. He is a rewarder of them.
    Your statistical analysis given above would be correct in a completely randomized universe. The trouble is, the universe evolves according to certain natural laws - such as the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, electromagnetics, etc. Leaving that aside, even if the universe was completely randomized, that still leaves a small, non-zero probability of it proceeding in exactly the way it currently is...stated in another way: given enough time, any non-zero probability WILL occur. It may be that we are witnessing such an event. There's no way to "prove" it.

    In any case, that analysis is merely to show you that your logic doesn't rule out what is going on - not to say that I subscribe to it. Rather, patterns emerge from the interaction of the laws I stated above and this leads to complexity developing over the span of time. Looking out across the span of the universe, we can tell that the same processes are occurring everywhere. There is no space in space that appears to be special for any reason. If you're curious as to how many times the big bang can occur, check this out:

    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv...g-ed7ed0f304a3
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-from-nothing/

    Hint, it's more than once, and is, again, not surprisingly, the result of a natural process.

    As far as the Anthropic principle is concerned, at first reading it seems very interesting to me. My immediate critique, however, is that what was the universe doing before there was anyone to observe it? It seems to me just a re-dressing of the age old question that asks whether or not a sound is made in a forest as a tree falls if no one is around to hear it.
    Reflect the Light!

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    The big question is: when an uncertainty resolves (a quantum state collapses), what decides which way it resolves? What decides whether the electron goes left or right? Who decides whether the cat lives or dies?

    One answer is the now-standard, vanilla Copenhagen answer: both happen. "We haven't found any causal factor that would make that choice one way or the other, so both must happen! The universe splits (actually, duplicates)." A quite extreme measure to take to solve the problem! So you get an extremely large number of parallel time tracks (aka "the Multiverse").
    That is not the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    What you are talking about is the so-called "Many Worlds" interpretation (which is not the dominant or "standard" interpretive framework).

    The Copenhagen interpretation does not involve or suggest any kind of "multiverse" - and it certainly does not assert that "both [do or must] happen."

    Despite the fact that it is indeed the prevailing or "standard" interpretive framework for quantum mechanics, there is actually no formal and precise definition of exactly what the Copenhagen interpretation is. Such as it is (and in a crude nutshell), it asserts that it is not cognitively meaningul to speak of quantum objects or phenomena as having any definite or particular states prior to their being measured. IOW: Copenhagenists regard discussions about whether the cat is alive or dead to be pointless nonsense until the cat's state is actually measured by an observer.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    given enough time, any non-zero probability WILL occur.
    No Big Crunch = No infinitely yo-yo-ing Universe = Not Enough Time (not even close).

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    That is not the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
    OK, thank you for the accuracy correction. That's what one gets when writing without bothering to look things up.

    I'm just happy there's still someone here (out of the three people or whatever who read the post) smart enough to notice and willing to correct the error!

    I would have to push back slightly on this point, though:

    What you are talking about is the so-called "Many Worlds" interpretation (which is not the dominant or "standard" interpretive framework).
    If that doesn't count as dominant, I don't know what does. It clearly has strong mind share among professional physicists, as well as (and I would say even more-so) among the general laymen who have heard of it. Let us call it the "currently ascendant story."

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv...g-ed7ed0f304a3
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-from-nothing/

    Hint: it's more than once, and is, again, not surprisingly, the result of a natural process.
    What makes it happen "more than once"? Oh: the Multiverse theory. The same magical, non-disprovable metaphysical framework that makes everything happen more than once. No profound Revelation there.

    As far as the Anthropic principle is concerned, at first reading it seems very interesting to me. My immediate critique, however, is that what was the universe doing before there was anyone to observe it? It seems to me just a re-dressing of the age old question that asks whether or not a sound is made in a forest as a tree falls if no one is around to hear it.
    Nay, it is exactly what you were saying earlier: We are here, therefore things are going to be suited for life. The odds of all conditions being perfectly tuned and life having arisen in a Universe being observed is 100%. Because it's being observed. Or, as you pithily put it:

    "Given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?"

    The Anthropic Principle is a true principle. Using it as a proof for one's Creation Story -- whatever that story may be -- is also a gross misapplication of the principle, in my opinion. Used in that manner, it is basically a way of ignoring the question. It is a way of defining away impossibility by stipulation. It is a way of "refuting" glaring holes and huge problems in the story you've concocted via, well, waving your hand.

    Dismissively skeptical: "Your story is wildly improbable to the point of complete unbelievability! There's no way it happened that way."

    In a Deep, Numinous voice: "And yet: here we are."

    Profound silence for a few moments.

    In awed whisper: "Whoa! Yeah -- you're right!"

    Do you see the logical error they both made? OK, we're here; great. Amazing observation. The whole question in question is how that happening happened. Who Done It? Not whether it happened. "Look, the muffin's here! Therefore my story about how it got here is right. Whee!"
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-25-2017 at 07:56 AM.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    "Look, the muffin's here! Therefore my story about how it got here is right. Whee!"
    Surprised you haven't eaten that muffin yet. Maybe you shouldn't...you don't know where it's been...
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Surprised you haven't eaten that muffin yet. Maybe you shouldn't...you don't know where it's been...



  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    The protest that theists make when they suggest that the probability is so fantastically small as to preclude it, is to completely mis-understand probability and large numbers - improbable things happen all the time; in fact, any non-zero probability, given enough time, WILL occur...consider that closely.
    Some incredibly improbable events don't take much time at all to occur. Suppose four people played ten hands of bridge in the course of an evening. The a priori probability that they would receive the very hands that they were dealt is astronomical -- something like one in 10^288. Yet the event occurred and no one claims that someone stacked the deck.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I would have to push back slightly on this point, though:
    What you are talking about is the so-called "Many Worlds" interpretation (which is not the dominant or "standard" interpretive framework).
    If that doesn't count as dominant, I don't know what does. It clearly has strong mind share among professional physicists, as well as (and I would say even more-so) among the general laymen who have heard of it. Let us call it the "currently ascendant story."
    Many Worlds does have its proponents among professional physicists, as do several other interpretations. But by far, the dominant understanding of quantum mechanics among professional physicists is and always has been Copenhagenism. Most physicists are not philosophers and have no interest in philosophizing about their work - and the Copenhagen interpretation is the most amenable (or perhaps it would better to say "least unamenable") to this mindset.

    Compared to other interpretations (such as the extravagant Many Worlds), though, Copenhagenism is pedestrian. It is "boring" and not "sexy" - which is why Many Worlds and other frameworks get highly disporportionate attention in pop-science outlets, science fiction stories, and other popular (rather than professional) venues. This may give the impression that Many Worlds et al. dominate among working physicists, but it is not so.

    While we're on this particular subject: I strongly recommend the book "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert for anyone who is interested in the various "schools" of interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was published in the mid-80s, so it doesn't cover things like Cramer's "transactional" interpretation or some of the more recent decoherence-based interpretations, but it does an excellent job of unbaisedly discussing (in a way accessible to the intelligent layman) eight of the most significant quantum "realities" - including Copenhagenism, Many Worlds, Einsteinian "realism," etc.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Many Worlds does have its proponents among professional physicists, as do several other interpretations. But by far, the dominant understanding of quantum mechanics among professional physicists is and always has been Copenhagenism. Most physicists are not philosophers and have no interest in philosophizing about their work - and the Copenhagen interpretation is the most amenable (or perhaps it would better to say "least unamenable") to this mindset.

    Compared to other interpretations (such as the extravagant Many Worlds), though, Copenhagenism is pedestrian. It is "boring" and not "sexy" - which is why Many Worlds and other frameworks get highly disporportionate attention in pop-science outlets, science fiction stories, and other popular (rather than professional) venues. This may give the impression that Many Worlds et al. dominate among working physicists, but it is not so.
    I know professional physicists. Just had one over to dinner last week. Everybody likes philosophizing! Now should one keep it separate from one's scientific work? Probably (at least somewhat). But I think most are aware of the Many Worlds story (I say story, not theory, because it's not a theory until you can disprove it) and many subscribe to it. And, as you say (and as I said) it is even more popular and influential out among the people at large. For the past decade it has been gradually becoming an important part of our culture, and an unfortunate, corrosive one in my opinion. A grand new element in the West's secular religion, joining nature-worship, Freudian-Kinseyanism, egalitarianism, and all the other wonderful tenets we've come to know and love.

    While we're on this particular subject: I strongly recommend the book "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert for anyone who is interested in the various "schools" of interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was published in the mid-80s, so it doesn't cover things like Cramer's "transactional" interpretation or some of the more recent decoherence-based interpretations, but it does an excellent job of unbiasedly discussing (in a way accessible to the intelligent layman) eight of the most significant quantum "realities" - including Copenhagenism, Many Worlds, Einsteinian "realism," etc.
    Sounds really good! You might know, then: who was the theologian-physicist I was thinking of who proposed the "God decides" explanation? I don't recall his name.

    Anyway, the pilot-wave theory is getting some new attention lately, thanks to NASA's EM drive. One explanation the researchers proposed involves the pilot-wave theory.

    Interesting stuff!

  27. #53
    All of this does not take into account the fact that we are TEMPORAL BEINGS. Time... We cannot wrap our feeble organic minds around such concepts. Everything for a temporal being must have a beginning and an end. It must be viewed from the perspective of someone passing through time in the present. The universe, I would posit, does not operate on such limited ideas... and we haven't even started talking about different dimensions yet.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    You might know, then: who was the theologian-physicist I was thinking of who proposed the "God decides" explanation? I don't recall his name.
    John Polkinghorne, maybe? That's just a guess.

    I have no familiarity with the content of his thought, but he is the only theologian-physicist of whom I am aware to have addressed God vis-à-vis quantum mechanics.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    John Polkinghorne, maybe? That's just a guess.

    I have no familiarity with the content of his thought, but he is the only theologian-physicist of whom I am aware to have addressed God vis-à-vis quantum mechanics.
    Yeah, I think you did the same Google search I already did. The description of his work didn't seem familiar, though. I don't think it was him.

    Upon a little further searching, maybe it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Pollard I'm thinking of.

    Anyway, does Quantum Reality cover pilot wave theory and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie? Is it one of the eight?

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    No Big Crunch = No infinitely yo-yo-ing Universe = Not Enough Time (not even close).
    The article doesn't go into the big crunch, and the current cosmological viewpoint has basically ruled it out as a possible future of the universe - on that point, you are correct, but it's a strawman to say that because there is no yo-yo-ing universe the discussion is closed. The theory presented in those articles suggests that small quantum fluctuations can basically cause a big-bang. I've read articles that liken it to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle that says you can only know the position AND momentum of a certain mass down to a finite level.

    Analogously, the theory, as now formulated, posits that a similar balance exists between Energy and Time. Over very, very, very short periods of time, energy can be "borrowed" from that equation - this temporary imbalance gives way to a new universe. This "process" is always occurring, and while very unlikely, one could follow immediately after another. i.e., the theory states that there is a small probability that we might just see another universe spring into existence right within our own.

    Is any of this "provable"? No way. But it is plausible and reasonable, in that it conforms to our current understanding of science and mathematics. That is an advantage it has over the religious "who done it".

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    What makes it happen "more than once"? Oh: the Multiverse theory. The same magical, non-disprovable metaphysical framework that makes everything happen more than once. No profound Revelation there.

    Nay, it is exactly what you were saying earlier: We are here, therefore things are going to be suited for life. The odds of all conditions being perfectly tuned and life having arisen in a Universe being observed is 100%. Because it's being observed. Or, as you pithily put it:

    "Given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?"

    The Anthropic Principle is a true principle. Using it as a proof for one's Creation Story -- whatever that story may be -- is also a gross misapplication of the principle, in my opinion. Used in that manner, it is basically a way of ignoring the question. It is a way of defining away impossibility by stipulation. It is a way of "refuting" glaring holes and huge problems in the story you've concocted via, well, waving your hand.

    Dismissively skeptical: "Your story is wildly improbable to the point of complete unbelievability! There's no way it happened that way."

    In a Deep, Numinous voice: "And yet: here we are."

    Profound silence for a few moments.

    In awed whisper: "Whoa! Yeah -- you're right!"

    Do you see the logical error they both made? OK, we're here; great. Amazing observation. The whole question in question is how that happening happened. Who Done It? Not whether it happened. "Look, the muffin's here! Therefore my story about how it got here is right. Whee!"
    I guess I think I see what you're getting at? It's a form of "begging the question"? Yes, we exist - Descartes proved that and I think he would be very fond of the Anthropic principle. Immediately leaping to conclusion that it was a "who" that did it is the logical error the religious make.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Some incredibly improbable events don't take much time at all to occur. Suppose four people played ten hands of bridge in the course of an evening. The a priori probability that they would receive the very hands that they were dealt is astronomical -- something like one in 10^288. Yet the event occurred and no one claims that someone stacked the deck.
    That's exactly right. Our issue as humans is that we see something "improbable" happen, and then impose meaning where there isn't any. It's a form of haruspicy. Every single hand of Bridge is as equally probable as any other. We are only surprised by those that follow a pre-determined set of rules or have 'value' according to the rules of the game which we developed. If we were truly being honest from a probabilistic standpoint, however, we would express astonishment with every Bridge hand that was dealt. Ultimately, we look for a reason, and attempt to divine meaning where there isn't any.
    Reflect the Light!



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Anyway, does Quantum Reality cover pilot wave theory and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie? Is it one of the eight?
    De Broglie and pilot waves are discussed at several points over the course of the book.

    Pilot waves are an element of the interpretations Herbert labels under the rubric of "neorealism" (e.g., De Broglie-Bohm theory).

    The eight interpretations covered by the book are briefly noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantu...nterpretations
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-26-2017 at 01:47 AM.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    De Broglie and pilot waves are discussed at several points over the course of the book.

    Pilot waves are an element of the interpretations Herbert labels under the rubric of "neorealism" (e.g., De Broglie-Bohm theory).

    The eight interpretations covered by the book are briefly noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantu...nterpretations
    Cool, thanks! I don't really know anything about this stuff, and have long wanted to do some reading to get a good understanding of Einstein's relativity, and now I want to read the book you recommend too and get some understanding of of the Quanta. My wife majored in physics. Can't have the womens knowing more than the mans!

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Some incredibly improbable events don't take much time at all to occur. Suppose four people played ten hands of bridge in the course of an evening. The a priori probability that they would receive the very hands that they were dealt is astronomical -- something like one in 10^288. Yet the event occurred and no one claims that someone stacked the deck.
    Of course. That is why, to assess things, one must understand the entire situation and the entire argument being made. If I were simply hollering the word "Improbability!," as if the word were an argument in and of itself, then your post would be an excellent rejoinder to me.

    As it is, it still is an excellent reminder and illustration for anyone who was making the mistake of thinking so shallowly.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    The article doesn't go into the big crunch
    Yeah, no duh, I know, because I read it. Whichever one you're referring to, because I read both of them.

    the theory states that there is a small probability that we might just see another universe spring into existence right within our own.
    It is only a theory once you come up with a good way to potentially disprove it. Until then, it is not part of the rubric we call empirical science. It's just a story.

    This goes back to Occam's point that it really is a good idea to keep physics and metaphysics separate (if you're serious about either), or at least to distinguish between the two. But, that would be less persuasive. The most persuasive thing to do is to stir and mix your metaphysical theories together with science. One sentence one, one sentence the other. This gives the impression to the listener/reader that it's all part of the same grand system and thus imparts the Mantle of Science to your metaphysics. Physics has a good track record as being level-headed, rigorous, and producing real, useful results in the real world. If you can draft off some of that sweet, sweet credibility, well, you're gonna be persuasive.

    Is any of this "provable"? No way.
    More precisely, Disprovable. And if it's not, then it is not empirical science! Actually empirical science can't technically prove or disprove anything, only logic can do that. But it can at least induct! You've got to at least be able to do that much! If you can't induct, you must rejuct!

    But it is plausible and reasonable, in that it conforms to our current understanding of science and mathematics.
    Not really. It actually does not conform at all. For it to conform, there would have to be a major advance in our current understanding of abiogenesis. Until then, it just doesn't work. Have as many Big Bangs as you want. It just doesn't work. According to our current understanding, there may not even be any mechanism that *could* work, at all, ever, even giving infinite time to infinite primordial ooze. Going back to Sunny Tuft's bridge game, it would be like getting a hand of 200 King Kandy cards that were alive and self-aware and talked incessantly to you.

    1) You can't get a hand of 200 cards in bridge
    2) There are no King Kandy cards in a bridge deck, they belong to a different game called Candy Land
    3) The artificial intelligence technology that would make the cards self-aware does not exist
    4) Talking incessantly is against the rules of bridge



    Yes, we exist - Descartes proved that


    Thank goodness. Where would we be without Descartes to tell us we exist? Lost in an infinite void. Though, I think you have not kept up to date: later research showed that actually it is I feel therefore I am. Please make a note and apply the recommended patch (Hume.dll) to your philosobrowser as soon as possible to prevent malware.

    That is an advantage it has over the religious "who done it". Immediately leaping to conclusion that it was a "who" that did it is the logical error the religious make.
    Here's the truth. Here's the actual bottom line. Can you take it? Can you handle it? No one has an advantage. No metaphysics that *I* can comprehend is going to solve the origin question. No one's making any (important) logical errors, not the religious, not the non-religious (religious refers actually to lifestyle, character, and actions, -- to the ligaments that tie your life together -- not to belief, BTW), not even wizardwatson. Not even the muffin, as impaired as it may be.



    It is an unanswerable riddle, by nature. God does not solve it. If God created everything, even if He created it out of nothing, or emptiness or whatever (I do not believe He did), do you think He ever wonders as He sits on His throne: "Where did I come from?" You bet He does! And what's the answer? No matter what the answer is, there's always one more "Why" to be asked. Oh, small quantum fluctuations: why are there small quantum fluctuations? Oh, the Heisenberg Principle: why is there a Heisenberg Principle? Oh, God was created by His own God, created in turn by His own God, in an infinite regression? Why is there an infinite regression? What started it? What started any of it? Even if you come to some kind of an answer, whatever it is you figure out that "started it," well, what created that?

    Goethe had it right, the great question of all: Why is there something, rather than nothing?

    And we will never come to a final answer, due to the unplumbable nature of the concept "Origin."
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-26-2017 at 09:51 AM.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Creationism and Global Warming
    By Madison320 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 10:58 AM
  2. Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children
    By QuickZ06 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 09-03-2012, 09:14 PM
  3. Both Creationism and Evolution Are Religious
    By Theocrat in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 10-11-2011, 09:31 PM
  4. Creationism = Holocaust Denial
    By Reason in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 12:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •