Brian Keating on the problem with “Follow the Science”

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 5, 2021

Culture, Intelligent Design, Popular culture, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Readers might remember that Brian Keating recently interviewed Steve Meyer but here he himself is interviewed:

As another example, Keating reminds us that “In the 20th century some of the most respected scientists in the world, including Nobel prize winners, believed in eugenics, the reprehensible idea that the human race could be improved by selective breeding. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the Rockefeller Foundation supported it. By the middle of the century it had been thoroughly rejected as quackery. No reputable scientist would have anything to with this idea.”
“So, we all need to get over this notion that just because someone — be it a politician, a bureaucrat, or even a scientist — employs the phrase ‘science says’ means whatever they’re saying is right,” Keating notes. “It might be right. But it might also be wrong. And if it’s wrong, it won’t necessarily be a bunch of scientists who say it’s wrong. It might be one guy.”
Keating then references Einstein, who quipped after 100 German scientists argued that his theory of relativity was flawed, “If I were wrong, then one would’ve been enough.” Prager U, “Scientist Unpacks The Problem With ‘Follow The Science’” at DailyWire

The craziness around COVID-19 will either cure people of “trust the science” for good or demonstrate that they are unable to think critically and therefore beyond help.

See also: Asked of Steve Meyer: If humans are so important to God, why did they take so long to develop? In the book, Meyer argues from three scientific discoveries to an inference to a personal God. If God is the creator, Keating wants to know, why was He so patient as to wait billions of years, during which not much that was very interesting happened, for the fulfillment of His purpose in initiating the universe to begin with?

Comments

CofC 20 BA77 does not merely cut-paste, but instead he does ask many pertinent questions and he offers his opinion frequently. He made his opinion clear in #23:
As you know, I have my answer, i.e. God imparts ‘concreteness’ to the rock via the immaterial laws of the universe
For agnostics and everyone else who struggles to answer the origin of how we perceive concreteness from immaterial structures (effects) ... why is BA77's opinion here not a philosophically consistent and comprehensive one? What's the alternative? (That's actually the question he is asking).Silver Asiatic_{April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

I would think the intelligent person is the one who answers the questions, not the one who asks them.ET_{April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

"it takes an intelligent person, like Viola, to actually ask pertinent questions" Translated: It takes a troll to troll. Andrewasauber_{April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

I do not read most of what BA77 writes. It’s too TLDR. But when I do, it is usually very content full and relevant. Is all he is saying that for our understanding of the world through science, two (maybe more) things are necessary that are inexplicable. One is consciousness or the ability of some entities to reflect and organize the material world and find some amazing things about it that are unaccountable. Which leads to the second inexplicable thing is that the world is composed of some mysterious particles/elements/entities that are held together with even more mysterious forces with extreme preciseness. Both of these conditions of the universe seem so outlandishly unlikely to just exist or happen that one postulates some intelligence behind it that made them happen. So science can not take place without these inexplicable events. The more important thing is that maybe we should be focused on the intelligence behind these inexplicable events. Through most of history we were focused on this intelligence until a few became so enamored with the end product that we ignored who made the product itself. I once posted a very long comment that transcribed an article on this. If I can find it, I will link to it understanding that most will not read it because it’s TLDR. Here is the link to the comment about this change in emphasis in history. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rush-limbaugh-reviews-expelled-on-talk-radio/#comment-190514jerry_{April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Ooops! Forgot to quote-ify the above: Sev said:
It’s not like in The Matrix where the enlightened ones who understand it’s a giant simulation are able to change the rules by which it’s organized and bend it to their will.
It’s not?William J Murray_{April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

It’s not like in The Matrix where the enlightened ones who understand it’s a giant simulation are able to change the rules by which it’s organized and bend it to their will. It's not?William J Murray_{April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

VL et al, actually, materialism does have a significant problem you are collectively side-stepping. Here is J B S Haldane:
"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 [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes] 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. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
As to the strawman that materialism speaks to billiard ball like atoms no one still believes in, materialism is also commonly used to denote what some call physicalism, whatever lies behind the London force type inter-molecular repulsion. Which is what gives rise to macro solidity. As in solids have a definite volume and shape, liquids flow under their weight but have a definite volume and gases will fill available volume. So, no that side step does not address the problem of reducing mind [ground-consequent inference] to computational [cause-effect, dynamic-stochastic] substrate. BA77 has a valid point and the OP on follow the lab coat clad ideology is bang on. Eventually, this sort of ideology is going to discredit genuine science. Indeed, the suspicion that those dressing up in lab coats too often fail to do homework adequately and have ideological axes to grind is leading to a good slice of the skepticism directed towards the current vaccines push. As for Eugenics, it was ethically dubious but was lab coat clad and used the star power of Darwin's family to promote it. 100 years ago, the age of international eugenics conferences there was but a handfull or less of the alleged benighted among the chattering credentialed classes who objected, starting with one certain G K Chesterton. It is after the horrors of the holocaust were exposed that the mystique was broken. The parallels to our own time, looks like, are going to be coming out more and more in coming months. Not just science and medicine, but statist[r]ics and big tech are likely to find themselves in the position of the IJN striking force at Midway. KF KFkairosfocus_{April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

SA2, you said it, that you are thinking in terms of sock puppetry speaks tellingly. KFkairosfocus_{April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

Sev. thanks for clearing up the Johnson confusion. In your response I noticed one thing, you never quite got around to explaining exactly how the rock derives its 'concreteness' that we consciously perceive it to have. As I noted, it is not intrinsic to the 'material' of the rock, (whatever that material 'stuff' of the rock may be defined as being), but is extrinsic to it. So from what extrinsic source does the rock derive it's 'concreteness'? As you know, I have my answer, i.e. God imparts 'concreteness' to the rock via the immaterial laws of the universe, but I'm curious as to what contortions you might put yourself through trying to explain exactly how 'material' and/or 'physical' processes can possibly generate immaterial universal laws so as to give other 'material' and/or physical entities the property of 'concreteness' . Seems like a twisted explanation at first glance, and I'm sure it will not get any better for you if you try to clearly explain just how it is all suppose to work.bornagain77_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

Just to clear up any confusion, the Johnson referred to in the anecdote about kicking a rock is Dr Samuel Johnson, the eighteenth-century English scholar and lexicographer, not Phillip Johnson, the twentieth-century American lawyer and proponent of Intelligent Design. Neither Johnson was an atheist. Viola Lee, unlike me, has denied being a materialist and I would suggest that, as a matter of courtesy, you should take her at her word. In most other respects, she and SA2 and I are in agreement and I am happy to let her words stand for what I believe. On the question of "materialism", the word broadly has two meanings. The first is what is sometimes referred to as "classical materialism" and is the belief that everything is made of matter, understood as little lumps of hard stuff. In the second meaning "materialism" is used interchangeably with "physicalism" understood as the physical nature of the Universe we observe as revealed by physics being all that there is. In other words, this is the many arrangements of matter and energy that make up the macroscopic world, the domain of quantum phenomena which underlie it and the "laws" by which it is all ordered. I am a materialist by the second meaning although, given the current limitations of our scientific knowledge and theories, I am open to the possibility that there is much more out there that we have yet to discover, even that it is all something like WJM's MRT. I am an atheist inasmuch as I don't believe in any of the various gods that people have believed - and do believe - in but I am agnostic in the sense that i believe we do not know enough to be able to rule out such beings absolutely. For me, the point of the anecdote about Dr Samuel Johnson kicking the rock is that it hurt his foot in the eighteenth century just as it would in the twentieth. He knew nothing about quantum theory in his day but all our current knowledge about the underlying quantum nature of a rock does not change the reality that it will still hurt your toe if you kick it. It's not like in The Matrix where the enlightened ones who understand it's a giant simulation are able to change the rules by which it's organized and bend it to their will. When our most advanced technology was the telephone exchange we used that as an analogy for how the human brain worked. When the electronic computer was developed we tried to understand the brain in those terms. When we developed virtual reality software we began to speculate that the Universe could be some giant simulation. With the elaboration of information theory we have begun to talk about the Universe being nothing but information at its root. Perhaps that's true or perhaps we have just run out of analogies for the present.Seversky_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Ouch. Fifteen yards for piling on. :) A paranoid person might conclude that Viola Lee, Count of Crisco and myself are actually the same person and beg the moderator to ban us all. :)Steve Alten2_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

I’m not sure what BA77’s background is, but she obviously doesn’t have half the intelligence, education or reasoning power that Viola Lee does. Any fool can cut-and-paste massive tracts of cherry-picked nonsense, but it takes an intelligent person, like Viola, to actually ask pertinent questions, listen to the responses, and develop an opinion, rather than selectively pick the data that supports your pre-determined opinion.count of crisco_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

In your everyday life, BA, how do you experience your understanding when you put a lamp on the table. Do you implicitly think, "The table is solid so the map will stay there," or do you implicitly think, "The Mind of God is manifesting through a whole bunch of immaterial quantum events that keeps the lamp on the table," or what? When you aren't arguing philosophy, but just living, how do feel about the solidity of the table?Viola Lee_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 “ SA2, I suggest you find someone else to troll.” If by “troll” you mean pointing out the blatantly obvious, I plead guilty. Or do you deny that you label people as a tactic in your arguments? Before you respond, I strongly recommend that you look back over your last 100 or 200 thousand words posted. Don’t worry, you shouldn’t have to look back further that April 5th.Steve Alten2_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

VL states, "Well, this is a religious view, and not scientific, so it doesn’t mean much to me." Funny, science itself is impossible without presuppositions that can only be based in the Theistic worldview. So VL's claim that he is being 'scientific' and I am not, does not mean that much to me other than meaning that VL has no real clue what science actually is.
Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (that enabled the rise of modern science). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html
Methodological Naturalism, in particular, is simply insane as the supposed 'scientific' worldview Although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinian atheists, without God, are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 2021 - Detailed Defence of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327
In fact, as I have pointed out in this very thread, atoms themselves lack any concrete 'realness' to them,,, Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the support, Steve. I think one thing that is hard for BA to accept, because it doesn't fit his dichotomous worldview, is that I am a non-materialistic atheist in the sense that I have described myself in other posts. I accept the "reality" of the fundamental quantum world, and I understand that it brings up many unresolved issues about what in fact reality is. I understand that his Christian theistic interpretation is one metaphysical possibility, but just one of many, and in my opinion very unlikely to have an impact on the body of quantum physicists philosophizing about the nature of reality as hinted at by quantum mechanics.Viola Lee_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

SA2, I suggest you find someone else to troll.bornagain77_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

BA, I "stepped in" because you mischaracterized the meaning of the Johnson anecdote. ("Stepping in" is sometimes called "replying.") The fact that Seversky's name was involved was incidental to the main point. Johnson wasn't an atheistic materialist, as I'm sure you know, and it is a story about him. You write, "He is more than capable of stating his own position and certainly doesn’t need you to tell me what you think his position is." I wasn't telling you what I think Seversky thinks, I was telling you what I think.Viola Lee_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

BA writes,
Since ‘concreteness’ is not a property of atoms, and since ‘concreteness’ does not ’emerge’ in a macroscopic collection of microscopic ‘non-concrete’ atoms in a rock, the question now becomes ‘just where does ‘concreteness’ in a rock come from?’ [Note: this is a good question.] Well, to cut to the chase, it is the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants of the universe, which are immaterial and ‘unseen’, that tell the energy and matter of the rock exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, that can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock that is giving the rock its property of ‘concreteness.’ And the unseen and immaterial,, laws of the universe, contrary to what atheists try to claim, are from God. They are definitely NOT from some ‘bottom-up’ materialistic process as atheists try to claim.
Well, this is a religious view, and not scientific, so it doesn't mean much to me. But BA presents a false dichotomy when he writes, "They are definitely NOT from some ‘bottom-up’ materialistic process as atheists try to claim". The scientific view is that "concreteness' and other properties are built from the "bottom up" - from quantum events-but that those quantum events are NOT "materialistic" in the out-dated way BA continues to use that word. The properties of the world are built-up from quantum events, which are very different from the "little bits of matter" view of 100 years ago. BA inserts God into his interpretation about why quantum events are as they are, but that is a metaphysical overlay that adds nothing to scientifically understanding the situation.Viola Lee_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee, "I am not a materialist.” Then do not step in and suppose you can speak for Seversky, who toes the materialistic party line every chance he gets. He is more than capable of stating his own materialistic position and certainly doesn't need you to tell me what you think his position is. I for one, would be interested in knowing exactly where Seversky, not you, thinks the 'concreteness' of the rock comes from in his materialistic worldview.bornagain77_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee “ Hi BA. 1. I am not a materialist.” You would think that he would catch on after the fiftieth time you told him. :) Sadly, there are a few who automatically assign people to a specific category after they disagree with them on something. I guess it makes it easier to dismiss their views. It’s lazy, but if it makes them feel better with their lives. Who are we to argue.Steve Alten2_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Hi BA. 1. I am not a materialist. I'm sure I've explained that a number of times, and sometimes to you. I also am quite aware that at the quantum level there are no solid particles as were thought to be the constituent basis of reality in the past. That idea has been gone for 100 years. Perhaps you can remember both these things in the future. 2. You write,
But anyways,,, interestingly, VL used the word “experientially” in his response. I guess he wanted to sound “scientific” in his answer. But alas for VL, the word ‘experimentally’ opens VL up to questioning. i.e. Exactly which scientific experiment is VL referring to when he says, “Yes, it is true that experientially, at the macro level, concrete is concrete”.
Experientially and experimentally are two different words. I didn't say "experimentally". You write,
I guess VL is trying to postulate that ‘concreteness’ is simply a ’emergent property’ from some type of materialistic basis as long as you have enough of these microscopic ‘non-concrete’ particles to overcome their intrinsic ‘non-concreteness’." I am just talking about our everyday experience: we experience a world of solid objects: we set a lamp on a table, and the lamps just sits there. From a practical point of view, we say the table is a solid object even though we know it is not. It is from this practical, experiential view that we say matter exists even though the knowledgeable person knows that solid matter does not exist. Yes, what is really going on is countless numbers of quantum events, but we don't experience them: we experience the lamp sitting on the table. Do you agree that this is just everyday language that is separate from scientific exactness. In your everyday life I'm sure you live as if some things are solid matter, putting things on the table, not trying to walk through walls, etc., even though you know, scientifically, that no solid matter really exists This practical, experiential everyday language and event is the kind of thing the Johnson story is about. I just see that BA posted something while I was writing. I may take a look at that.
Viola Lee_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Since 'concreteness' is not a property of atoms, and since 'concreteness' does not 'emerge' in a macroscopic collection of microscopic 'non-concrete' atoms in a rock, the question now becomes 'just where does 'concreteness' in a rock come from?' Well, to cut to the chase, it is the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants of the universe, which are immaterial and ‘unseen’, that tell the energy and matter of the rock exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, that can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock that is giving the rock its property of 'concreteness.' Thus, 'concreteness' is not some intrinsic property of the atoms of the rock, but is a extrinsic property that is imparted to the rock by the unseen, unchanging, and immaterial laws of the universe. And the unseen and immaterial,, laws of the universe, contrary to what atheists try to claim, are from God. They are definitely NOT from some 'bottom-up' materialistic process as atheists try to claim. At the 28:09 minute mark of the following video, Dr Hugh Ross speaks of the 7 places in the bible that speak of unchanging universal constants.
Symposium 2015 : Scientific Evidence For God's Existence - Hugh Ross - video https://youtu.be/4mEKZRm1xXg?t=1689
Here is one example out of the seven verses cited by Dr. Ross:
Psalm 119:89-91 Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.
In fact, modern science was born, in large measure, from the Christian presupposition that God imposed law on nature,
The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - Monday, Aug. 2012 Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/ Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt:,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, ,,, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
Atheistic materialists try to explain everything, including the laws of nature themselves, with bottom-up' materialistic explanations. A shining example of this is inflationary theory which seeks to explain the macroscopic structures of this universe. They fail in their attempts to try to explain the laws of nature. Without getting too far into the weeds, lets just say that Atheists simply have no clue how these unseen, immaterial, laws of nature can possibly emerge from some 'bottom-up' materialistic explanation.
“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes
Thus in conclusion, the 'concreteness' that we perceive in a rock is due to, not the atoms of the rock, nor some 'emergent' property of a large collection of atoms that compose the rock, but is instead due to the unseen, unchanging, and immaterial, laws of the universe,,,, and these unseen, unchanging, immaterial, laws of the universe come from God. In short, the rock receives any 'concreteness' that it may be perceived to have from God.
Psalm 119:89 Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens. Matthew 7:24-27 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
bornagain77_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee tries to find a work-a-round for atheistic materialism and states this, "Yes, it is true that experientially, at the macro level, concrete is concrete," I guess VL is trying to postulate that 'concreteness' is simply a 'emergent property' from some type of materialistic basis as long as you have enough of these microscopic 'non-concrete' particles to overcome their intrinsic 'non-concreteness'. ? :) I don't know what others may think of VL's answer, but that certainly sounds very much like the hand-waving excuses we encounter from atheistic materialists whenever we ask them to try to explain the origin of consciousness from a materialistic basis. But anyways,,, interestingly, VL used the word "experientially" in his response. I guess he wanted to sound "scientific" in his answer. But alas for VL, the word 'experimentally' opens VL up to questioning. i.e. Exactly which scientific experiment is VL referring to when he says, "Yes, it is true that experientially, at the macro level, concrete is concrete". It certainly is not this following experiment:
Experiments testing macroscopic quantum superpositions must be slow - 2016 Excerpt: Introduction The existence of coherent superpositions is a fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics but, apparently, implies very counterintuitive consequences when extended to macroscopic systems. This problem, already pointed out since the beginning of quantum theory through the famous Schrödinger cat paradox1, has been the subject of a large scientific debate which is still open and very active. Nowadays there is no doubt about the existence of quantum superpositions. Indeed this effect has been demonstrated in a number of experiments involving microscopic systems (photons2,3, electrons4,5, neutrons6, atoms7,8, molecules9,10, etc.). However, at least in principle, the standard theory of quantum mechanics is valid at any scale and does not put any limit on the size of the system: if you can delocalize a molecule then nothing should forbid you to delocalize a cat, apart from technical difficulties. Such difficulties are usually associated with the impossibility of isolating the system from its environment, because it is well known that any weak interaction changing the state of the environment is sufficient to destroy the initial coherence of the system.,,, https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22777
Leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger also disagrees with VL assessment and says that this quantum 'non-concreteness' witnessed at the microscopic level of particles is also present in macroscopically large objects. In fact, I've heard Zeilinger jokingly say that his ability to demonstrate superposition for macroscopically larger and larger objects, even as large as planets, is only limited by the amount of money in his budget. More seriously, in the following interview Zeilinger simply states that, "superposition is not limited to small systems,,,"
Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics - video - 2018 (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA 5:10 min quote:,,, superposition is not limited to small systems,,,
And here is Zeilinger's experimental work, thus far, disproving the oft repeated false claim from atheistic materialists that quantum effects are limited to only microscopic systems and are not applicable to macroscopically large systems.
Macroscopic quantum superposition Zeilinger is also interested to extend quantum mechanics into the macroscopic domain. In the early 1990s, he started experiments in the field of atom optics. He developed a number of ways to coherently manipulate atomic beams, many of which, like the coherent energy shift of an atomic De Broglie wave upon diffraction at a time-modulated light wave, have become cornerstones of today's ultracold atom experiments. In 1999, Zeilinger abandoned atom optics for experiments with very complex and massive macro-molecules – fullerenes. The successful demonstration of quantum interference for these C60 and C70 molecules[25] in 1999 opened up a very active field of research. Key results include the most precise quantitative study to date of decoherence by thermal radiation and by atomic collisions and the first quantum interference of complex biological macro-molecules. This work is continued by Markus Arndt. In 2005, Zeilinger with his group again started a new field, the quantum physics of mechanical cantilevers. The group was the first – in the year 2006 along with work from Heidmann in Paris and Kippenberg in Garching – to demonstrate experimentally the self-cooling of a micro-mirror by radiation pressure, that is, without feedback.[26] That phenomenon can be seen as a consequence of the coupling of a high-entropy mechanical system with a low-entropy radiation field. This work is now continued independently by Markus Aspelmeyer. Most recently, using orbital angular momentum states, he was able to demonstrate entanglement of angular momentum up to 300 ?.[27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Zeilinger#Macroscopic_quantum_superposition
Thus, contrary to what VL claimed, I certainly have not heard of any scientific experiment that has ever definitely shown us exactly where the supposed 'concreteness' kicks in for macroscopically large objects. All experiments that I am aware of thus far in quantum mechanics have only proven that quantum mechanics is also applicable to macroscopically large objects, with no foreseeable intrinsic limit for how large the macroscopic system may be. i.e. 'Concreteness' never kicks in for VL at the macroscopic scale. As Vlatko Vedral stated, "The division between the quantum and classical worlds appears not to be fundamental. It is just a question of experimental ingenuity, and few physicists now think that classical physics will ever really make a comeback at any scale.,,, Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales."
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: experiments now leave very little room for such processes to operate. The division between the quantum and classical worlds appears not to be fundamental. It is just a question of experimental ingenuity, and few physicists now think that classical physics will ever really make a comeback at any scale.,,, Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf Vlatko Vedral - Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Oxford and Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) at the National University of Singapore
bornagain77_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

The story you quote about Johnson does not mean that Johnson, or Seversky, believes that ultimately matter is "concrete". Yes, it is true that experientially, at the macro level, concrete is concrete, but that is very different than believing that "atoms, and/or sub-atomic material particles, are ‘concrete’” You are drawing an erroneous conclusion from the Johnson story.Viola Lee_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee, instead of you assuming that you know what other people believe, I think you need to read my posts where I specifically quoted Seversky's belief in materialism being 'concrete'. Specifically this portion, ,,, When I point out that, according to our best science from quantum mechanics, the most fundamental definition of reality is now considered to be immaterial information, not material particles,,,
“The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.” – Vlatko Vedral – Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Oxford and Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) at the National University of Singapore
,,, when I point that fact out, Seversky, our resident atheist, often likes to recount the following episode with Phillip Johnson, (who was a early, and prominent, ID advocate)
Furthermore, in his The Life of Samuel Johnson James Boswell recounts the following episode: “After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.” The reality is that, if you kick a stone hard now, it will hurt your foot just as much as it did in Johnson’s day. Quantum theory has not changed that one jot.”
What Seversky, and apparently Phillip Johnson, both fail to realize in the preceding episode is that without consciousness there can be no experience of hardness, nor any experience of pain from kicking a rock with your foot, in the first place. You can drop a rock as hard as you want on an unconscious person and he will feel absolutely nothing. PERIOD!,, etc.. etc.. I then go on to point out that there is nothing that can be considered concrete in the atom. And how all this 'non-concreteness' of the material realm fits perfectly into my Judeo-Christian view of reality, (and how it is extremely antagonistic to Seversky's materialistic conception of reality) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727672 Sure, when confronted with the scientific evidence, Seversky will, from time to time, try to backpedal a bit on his straight up materialism, and try to find a work-a-round for his atheism, but since their really can be no work-a-round, he always ends up coming back to straight up materialism.bornagain77_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

BA writes, "And as if this realm of pure abstraction was not already bad enough for the atheistic materialist’s belief that atoms, and/or sub-atomic material particles, are ‘concrete’" I don't believe any knowledgeable person, "atheistic materialist" or not, believes that atoms or sub-atomic particles are "concrete", and probably haven't for close to 100 years. I think you are tilting at a very old and out-dated windmill.Viola Lee_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

From a week ago on this question. It’s politics not science.
There is also the expression “follow the science” or “I believe in science” which populate the popular press or people’s front lawns. There are extremely wide interpretations of the same facts by different scientists. The question becomes then which scientist to believe when they are interpreting the “facts” of science. I asked a neighbor who proudly displayed a sign about believing in science what science he meant. He said climate science, evolution, C19 and threw in elections too. I smiled and said good bye. It was useless to engage such a person. He also had a BLM sign on his lawn too. This is the bigger issue not the facts themselves. It’s all about politics not science
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/we-are-urged-to-believe-in-the-facts-of-science-yet-historically-these-facts-often-change/#comment-726945jerry_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

And as if this realm of pure abstraction was not already bad enough for the atheistic materialist's belief that atoms, and/or sub-atomic material particles, are 'concrete', quantum mechanics adds even further insult to injury to the atheist's belief and shows us that, prior to measurement, atoms do not even exist. As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment that was done with atoms demonstrated, ”It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” and as the researcher added, “”Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,”
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
And as Anton Zeilinger stated in the following interview, “there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is.,,, and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don’t know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is.,,, This “nonexistence” is an objective feature of reality.,,,”
Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics – video – 2018 (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA 40 sec: Every object has to be in a definite place is not true anymore.,,, The thought that a particle can be at two places at the same time is (also) not good language. The good language is that there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is. (and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don’t know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is). This “nonexistence” is an objective feature of reality.,,, 5:10 min:,,, superposition is not limited to small systems,,,
It is hard to imagine a more complete and thorough 'scientific' falsification of the atheist's materialistic belief, (that 'concrete' particles are the most fundamental 'stuff' of the universe that everything else in the universe derives from), than the fact that atoms themselves do not even exist prior to our measurement of them. But exactly where is the atom prior to measurement? Well, according to quantum mechanics, and prior to measurement, the atom, and/or photon, is mathematically defined as existing in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. A infinite dimensional Hilbert space which also happens to take an infinite amount of information to describe properly. Now being 'mathematically' required to describe the atom, prior to measurement, as being in a 'infinite dimensional' and 'infinite information' state, certainly sounds very much like the atom, though not existing in the physical realm, is existing in the omnipresent and omniscient Mind of God prior to measurement.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Thus in conclusion, although atheists may claim that they 'believe in Science', rather than believing in God, the fact of the matter is that without God, nothing, not even material particles themselves, turn out to be 'real' for the atheist. In short, if the atheist truly wants to believe in 'reality', and not in illusions and abstractions, he is forced to believe in God. Only with God can anything truly be held to be 'real' for the atheist, or for anyone else.
Acts 17:24-25 The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands. Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.
Here is a fitting poem for our materialistic friends:
A Dream Within a Dream BY EDGAR ALLAN POE Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow — You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream. I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand — How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep — while I weep! O God! Can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?
bornagain77_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Like the seemingly pithy saying “Follow The Science”, likewise, in response to the question, 'Do you believe in God?", many times atheist will answer, "I believe in Science". I saw a similar seemingly pithy saying on a sign in somebody's front yard yesterday which stated, (among other statements of faith on the sign), "Science is Real". Here is the sign that I saw yesterday:
"SCIENCE IS REAL" https://www.etsy.com/listing/830794484/auto-magnet-science-is-real-black-lives
Yesterday, when I saw the sign it immediately struck me that, number one, atheists are using the word science as a stand in for belief in God,,, please note how easily, and aptly, the word 'science' is replaced with the word 'God',
“Follow God” "I believe in God" "God is Real"
And secondly, I also realized that, without God, science, nor anything else, can be actually be "real" for the atheist in the first place. Without God to ground his definition of what is 'real' in the first place, then everything in the atheist's naturalistic worldview dissolves into a world of illusion and fantasy with no discernible anchor for 'reality' to hand his hat on. I've listed the following list several times before, but here is what happens when atheists forsake God as the foundation for what they consider to be 'real'.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
And I recently made a fairly detailed defense of each of those claims in the following posts
April 2021 - Defence of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327
What I did not do in the preceding defense of the fact that, without God, everything dissolves into a world of illusion and fantasy for the atheist,,, what I did not do in that defense is also point out the fact that science, (which the atheist supposedly believes in, and even believes to be quote-unquote 'real'), has now shown that even what the atheist regards as being unquestionably 'real', (namely the 'concrete' material particles themselves),,,, likewise these supposedly 'concrete' atoms also turn out be illusory and abstract. When I point out that, according to our best science from quantum mechanics, the most fundamental definition of reality is now considered to be immaterial information, not material particles,,,
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy but information--and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." - Vlatko Vedral - Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Oxford and Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) at the National University of Singapore
,,, when I point that fact out, Seversky, our resident atheist, often likes to recount the following episode with Phillip Johnson, (who was a early, and prominent, ID advocate)
Furthermore, in his The Life of Samuel Johnson James Boswell recounts the following episode: "After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.” The reality is that, if you kick a stone hard now, it will hurt your foot just as much as it did in Johnson’s day. Quantum theory has not changed that one jot."
What Seversky, and apparently Phillip Johnson, both fail to realize in the preceding episode is that without consciousness there can be no experience of hardness, nor any experience of pain from kicking a rock with your foot, in the first place. You can drop a rock as hard as you want on an unconscious person and he will feel absolutely nothing. PERIOD! Every experience of the world that we may have, and especially any abstract scientific model of 'reality' that we may construct, presupposes the existence of consciousness, and does not presuppose the existence of 'concrete' material particles. As the quantum luminaries, Planck, Schroedinger, and Wigner all noted, consciousness MUST be fundamental to any definition of reality we put forth.
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), one of the primary founders of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” - Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.? “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
And even Werner Heisenberg himself, another quantum luminary, was very close to saying the exact same thing when he stated,
“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” - Werner Heisenberg - As quoted in The New York Times Book Review (March 8, 1992). - "Uncertainty," David C. Cassidy's biography of my father, Werner Heisenberg
Yet, even though Seversky apparently believes material particles to be concrete and 'real', (and believes consciousness to be derivative from 'real' material particles, and does not believe material particles to be derivative from consciousness, as Max Planck himself held), these supposedly concrete and 'real' material particles themselves, the closer science has looked at them, dissolve into a world of complete abstraction and defeats the atheist's belief that material particles are irreducibly 'concrete' That is to say, although Seversky, as a reductive materialist, may be clinging to a 19th and early 20th century construct of atoms, in which atoms were thought to be concrete little billiard balls, that billiard ball construct of atoms has now long been known to be false conception of atoms. Instead of a billiard ball model of atoms, we now have a far more 'ethereal' quantum cloud model of atoms. You can see this on this timeline that depicts how our models of atoms have changed over time:
History of the Atom – timeline image http://thehistoryoftheatom.weebly.com
As well in this modern picture of atoms, you can see for yourself that atoms are far more ethereal and ‘non-concrete’ than was originally depicted in our early billiard ball model of atoms:
Depiction of a ‘non-particle’ atom, http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-flinte/stm15.jpg
As well, in the following video, at the 24:31 minute mark, you can also see close up pictures of atoms that clearly get this ‘ethereal’, i.e. non-concrete’, point about atoms across.
Discovering Science: Uncertain Principles – video – 24:31 minute mark https://youtu.be/iu6kqO4L0KQ?t=1471
Science itself, which atheists claim to resolutely follow, has now unequivocally shown that there simply are no 'concrete billiard ball' particles in the atom to be found, as we had originally, and erroneously, presupposed in our models of atoms. As Bernardo Kastrup explains, "according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,"
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/
And as Werner Heisenberg himself stated, “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.”
“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.” – Werner Heisenberg (1962). “Physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science”, Harpercollins College Div.)
These ‘non-concrete’, abstract, and ethereal, properties of atoms puts the die-hard materialist, (such as Seversky), in quite the conundrum because, as Bernardo Kastrup further explains in his article, to make sense of this non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God! As Kastrup himself put it, "The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness"
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,, Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,, As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism. – ibid
Or to put the situation that quantum mechanics has presented to us much more simply, and as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.” – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
bornagain77_{April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply