Bruce Gordon and Michael Egnor: Why idealism is actually a practical philosophy

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 15, 2021

Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism}

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

Not what you heard? Philosopher of science — and pianist — Bruce Gordon, think again.

Michael Egnor: Is reality fundamentally more like a mind than a physical object?
Many are sure of the answer without understanding the question.
News, “Why idealism is actually a practical philosophy” at Mind Matters News

Basically, it’s the idea that material substances, as substantial entities, do not exist and are not the cause of our perceptions. They do not mediate our experience of the world. Rather, what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God, who, as an unlimited and uncreated immaterial being, is the ultimate cause of the sensations and ideas that we, as finite spiritual beings, experience intersubjectively and subjectively as the material universe.

Note: Philosopher George Berkeley (1685–1753) was a Church of England bishop in Ireland. Among his other accomplishments were his studies of human vision: “Berkeley’s empirical theory of vision challenged the then-standard account of distance vision, an account which requires tacit geometrical calculations. His alternative account focuses on visual and tactual objects. Berkeley argues that the visual perception of distance is explained by the correlation of ideas of sight and touch. This associative approach does away with appeals to geometrical calculation while explaining monocular vision and the moon illusion, anomalies that had plagued the geometric account.” – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
About his idealism: “Berkeley’s system, while it strikes many as counter-intuitive, is strong and flexible enough to counter most objections.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth — in a word, all those bodies which compose the frame of the world — have not any subsistence without a mind.” ~ George Berkeley

Bruce Gordon: So we are, in effect, living our lives in the mind of God. And he is a mediator of our experience and of our inner subjectivity, rather than some sort of neutral material realm that serves as a third thing between us and the mind of God, so to speak.

Gordon thinks idealism (= reality is first and foremost a mental phenomenon) is defensible, reasonable, and too easily discarded.

(We enjoy setting the cat among the pigeons. But remember, the cat is serious. )

See also: Bill Dembski on how a new book expertly dissects AI doomsday scenarios

Comments

Capalas in response to this statement by Dr. Gordon,
“Basically, it’s the idea that material substances, as substantial entities, do not exist and are not the cause of our perceptions. They do not mediate our experience of the world. Rather, what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God..”
In response to that statement, you asked,
Does this mean there really are no stars, and no big bang 13 billions years ago?
No it doesn't mean that in the least, it simply means that besides God creating the universe and stars, (and our conscious selves), that God also sustains the universe and stars (and our conscious selves) in their continual existence. i.e. God did not create the universe as a self-existent entity, and then walk away to let the universe unfold along its own merry course, (as Deists, and Theistic evolutionists, hold), but God not only created the universe but upholds the universe (and our conscious selves) in their continual existence. And this view where God created and also sustains the universe, (and our conscious selves) in their continual, moment by moment, existence is in fact the correct Christian view to hold. As Acts 17:28 states "For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'"
Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
i.e. God is not some distance clock maker, nor is He aloof from his creation, (as some people are prone to think), but God is intimately involved in sustaining every aspect of His creation in its continual existence. i.e. Our very 'being' depends on God! And as the scripture also says, a sparrow "shall not fall on the ground without your Father."
Matthew 10:29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father."
Even Dr. Jason Lisle, who is a YEC, holds that the correct Christian view to hold is that God sustains the universe in its continual existence.
Why does the universe continue to exist? by Dr. Jason Lisle on June 26, 2007 God is not simply a passive observer, the Bible tells us that He sustains His creation—something that is evident from scientific research. Excerpt: Many Christians have the view that God created the universe, and then “let it go.” That is, they assume that the universe runs by itself, mechanically obeying impersonal laws that the Lord created at the beginning. The Lord is viewed as a passive observer, only occasionally “intervening” in the natural order by performing a supernatural miracle. But such a view is unbiblical. The God of Scripture is the sovereign King of kings (1 Timothy 6:15). He upholds all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3). And in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:17). God is personally involved in all aspects of the created world. The laws of nature are not impersonal, mechanical creations of God; rather, they are descriptions of the logical, orderly way God normally upholds His universe.,,, https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/god-is-good/why-does-the-universe-continue-to-exist/
My question to you is this, what other worldview, other than Idealism, would explain the infinite Mind of God upholding the universe in its continual existence. That is to say, if God really does uphold the universe in its continual existence, (as is held in Christianity) then some form of idealism must necessarily be true. So exactly what other worldview are you putting forth other than Idealism to explain the infinite Mind of God sustaining the universe (and our conscious selves) in their continual existence.?bornagain77_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Hi, Bornagain77 Looks like mentioning YEC struck a raw nerve. My intent was not to defend YEC (although all your arguments are rebutted by, for example, J. Sarfati's "The Genesis Account"). Rather, my point is that in judging YEC to be scientifically disproven Gordon assumes a scientific realism, where stars and big bangs exist objectively. But his idealism is better suited to a non-realist, instrumentalist view of science. In that case the 13 billion year history of the universe before man has no real existence.capalas_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Via Stephen Meyer’s new book, "Return of the God Hypothesis", here are the three necessary presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
And here is a short defense of all 3 presuppositions
1 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727893 2 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727959 3 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727980
Moreover, none of the Christian founders of modern science that I am aware of, (Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Kelvin, etc.. etc..), held to a strict 6000 year YEC view of creation. Thus, in my honest opinion, since modern science owes its very origins to Christianity, it is a crying shame that YECs would portray to the general public that Christianity entails a certain animosity towards science. If anyone has a direct conflict with science, it certainly is not Christians, but it is Darwinists. In fact, Darwinists, and naturalists in general, with their insistence on 'methodological naturalism' as a guiding principle in science, actually drive science into catastrophic epistemological failure. I recently defended that claim here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-heres-why-an-argument-for-gods-existence-is-a-scientific-argument/#comment-728164 Thus Capalas, in conclusion, I share much of Dr. Gordon's deep frustration with the YEC movement, in that well meaning Christians should willingly, and needlessly, portray themselves to the general public as being somewhat unscientific. Especially when Christianity itself provides the correct conceptual foundation for us to even 'do science' in the first place. YEC is simply not warranted biblically, nor, (in my honest opinion), is it scientifically defensible in any robustly consistent manner.bornagain77_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Capalas, although I take it you are a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), I still want to thank you for citing Bruce Gordon's critique of YEC. In his critique Dr. Gordon states, "unfortunately, young-earth literalism about the early chapters of Genesis fails to employ a sound grammatical-historical approach to the text. Classical Hebrew literary devices and the ancient Near Eastern context of biblical revelation are virtually ignored by young-earth interpreters. Instead, a naively literal modern reading driven by linguistic conventions embedded in a contemporary understanding of the world and what it means to write history is embraced.",,,,
Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: A Biblical and Scientific Critique of Young-Earth Creationism PDF File by Bruce L. Gordon - 2014 Excerpt: Evangelicals share the belief that all of Scripture is inspired by God and, when properly interpreted, completely trustworthy and authoritative in everything it teaches. The key question, of course, is one of proper interpretation, which is one reason there are so many doctrinal differences among Christians today. These differences can arise even when sound principles of interpretation are followed,,,, but unfortunately, young-earth literalism about the early chapters of Genesis fails to employ a sound grammatical-historical approach to the text. Classical Hebrew literary devices and the ancient Near Eastern context of biblical revelation are virtually ignored by young-earth interpreters. Instead, a naively literal modern reading driven by linguistic conventions embedded in a contemporary understanding of the world and what it means to write history is embraced. The result is a bad reading of the text that pays very little attention to the ways in which Hebrew vocabulary and literary devices structure and affect interpretation, and no attention at all to the facts that: (1) the language of Scripture is never that of anachronistic scientific description, but rather a report of what human observers directly see (i.e., the language is phenomenological) and it is broadly reflective of an ancient Near Eastern cosmology; and (2) the opening chapters of Genesis are a theological polemic, that is, an argument against the mythology and polytheism of the cultur es surrounding ancient Israel. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/critique_of_young_earth_creationism.html
That pretty much hits the nail on the head. Thanks again for citing the link. The main conflict in interpretation seems to center on the Hebrew word "Yom". And I hold that old Earth Creationists are correct to point out that, to be consistent in your interpretation of the Bible, YEC cannot maintain that "Yom" must always and only refer to 24 hour periods.
Old Earth Creation Science Word Study: Yom Conclusion With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods. Rules of Hebrew, created by young earth Hebrew scholars, are invalid. Because of their biased position, they are trying to prove their own agenda. Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God’s concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines. 1 Television Show and Transcript, “Are the Genesis Creation Days 24 Hours or Long Periods of Time,” The John Ankerberg Show, 2005. http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth - Jonathan M. - 2011 Excerpt: If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods? Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone: 1. Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours). 2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day. 3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days. 4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” http://crossexamined.org/why-i-reject-a-young-earth-view-a-biblical-defense-of-an-old-earth/
It is also interesting to note that, historically speaking, the roots for YEC are not that deep, and that YEC is a fairly recent invention. In the following reference, a YEC himself states that, "Creation Science (YEC) is a new movement of the twentieth century."
History of Creationism - March 23, 2013 - The Creationists - By Ray Lakeman Excerpt: Creation Science (YEC) is a new movement of the twentieth century. It arose as a movement composed of trained scientists and lay Christian supporters from a wide range of Christian churches, and it has grown despite almost universal opposition from both mainstream scientists and the mainstream leaders in churches. In the early years of the twentieth century the self-described geologist George McCready Price stood virtually alone in insisting on the recent appearance of life and on a global flood catastrophe that massively rearranged the earth’s crust. Price was well-received by creationists, but made few converts beyond his Seventh Day Adventist Church. In 1932 the Evolution Protest Movement was formed in London, and is now called the Creation Science Movement, the oldest creationist society on Earth.,,, https://reasonablefaithadelaide.org.au/history-of-creationism/
It is also interesting to note that Augustine himself, one of the early church fathers, writing in the fifth century, stated that "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine”,,,
BIBLICAL REASONS TO DOUBT THE CREATION DAYS WERE 24-HOUR PERIODS - January 28, 2015 Excerpt: it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this (strict 24 hour period) interpretation. Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7). https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/
Thus holding to a strict YEC interpretation of the Bible was certainly not required in Augustine's view of scriptures and in Augustine view of being a Christian. And I certainly don't think that YECs want to go down the road of calling Augustine himself a heretic of the Christian faith for failing to hold to a strict YEC view of scripture. Likewise, many prominent biblical scholars of the modern era, who hold to the inerrancy of scriptures, also hold that the word "Yom" does not imply a literal 24 hour day.
BIBLICAL REASONS TO DOUBT THE CREATION DAYS WERE 24-HOUR PERIODS - January 28, 2015 Excerpt: J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.” Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.” Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.” Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.” I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods,,,. - ibid
Moreover, In my honest opinion, it is a crying shame that YEC have, scientifically, chosen to die on this particular hill. Modern science, out of all the possible worldviews it could have been born out of, (and directly contrary to what atheists try to claim today), was uniquely born out of the Christian worldview, and the Christian worldview alone.
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 The Christian Origins of Science - Jack Kerwick - Apr 15, 2017 Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,, Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,, In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.” He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593
bornagain77_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

"Basically, it’s the idea that material substances, as substantial entities, do not exist and are not the cause of our perceptions. They do not mediate our experience of the world. Rather, what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God.." Does this mean there really are no stars, and no big bang 13 billions years ago? If so, how can he claim that YEC has been scientifically falsified (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/critique_of_young_earth_creationism.html)? But then, I suppose Bruce Gordon believes that the Bible - which speaks of both matter and mind - doesn't really exist either.capalas_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

So we are, in effect, living our lives in the mind of God. And he is a mediator of our experience and of our inner subjectivity, rather than some sort of neutral material realm that serves as a third thing between us and the mind of God, so to speak.
That is not much different than classical theology. The only real difference is speaking of "the mind of God" as if that is a separate part of God. St. Paul explains:
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else ... ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’
It's not "God's mind" but God Himself - His unity being. His nature is the same as His attributes (He is wisdom, He is justice). I'd think an analysis of this view would require a lot of knowledge about God.Silver Asiatic_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Such idealism runs into the grand delusion problem. Our civilisation is haunted by radical doubt and a thirst for general certainty that retreats each time we approach it. Wisdom is to recognise what can be known with certainty, e.g. that error exists, what can be known with responsible confidence short of incorrigible certainty and what is uncertain but may confront us existentially in the moment of decision.kairosfocus_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Prior to that encounter with Carnap, Einstein also had another "heated" disagreement with another famous philosopher, Henri Bergson, over what the proper definition of time should be (Bergson, a very famous philosopher of his time, was also very well versed in the specific mental attribute of the ‘experience of the now’). In fact, that disagreement with Henri Bergson over what the proper definition of time should be was one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity:
Einstein, Bergson, and the Experiment that Failed: Intellectual Cooperation at the League of Nations! – Jimena Canales page 1177 Excerpt: Bergson temporarily had the last word during their meeting at Société française de philosophie. His intervention negatively affected Einstein’s Nobel Prize, which was given “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect” and not for relativity. The reasons behind this decision, as stated in the prize’s presentation speech, were related to Bergson’s intervention: “Most discussion [of Einstein’s work] centers on his Theory of Relativity. This pertains to epistemology and has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles. It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly.”51 For a moment, their debate dragged matters of time out of the solid terrain of “matters of fact” and into the shaky ground of “matters of concern.”52 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3210598/canales-Einstein,%20Bergson%20and%20the%20Experiment%20that%20Failed%282%29.pdf?sequence=2
Here is an article, (via Harvard educated historian of science Jimena Canales), that goes into a bit more detail about the particular confrontation between Einstein and Henri Bergson:
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism. Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more. Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death. ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’ Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568
The specific statement that Einstein made to Carnap on the train, “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” was a very interesting statement for Einstein, (one of the greatest theoretical Physicists to ever live), to make to the philosopher since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics. For instance, the following delayed choice experiment with atoms, via 2015, demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’? The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett's inequality stressed the "quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it."
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
As well, 'the experience of 'the now' is also confirmed to be a defining feature of reality in quantum mechanics in that, via the Quantum Zeno effect, atoms appear to be frozen in time from a quantum mechanical perspective. Specifically, as the following article states, "One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can’t change while you’re watching it – has been confirmed in an experiment by Cornell physicists.,,,"
'Zeno effect' verified: Atoms won't move while you watch By Bill Steele | October 22, 2015 Excerpt: One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can’t change while you’re watching it – has been confirmed in an experiment by Cornell physicists.,,, “We now have the unique ability to control quantum dynamics purely by observation.” https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/zeno-effect-verified-atoms-wont-move-while-you-watch
And here are a few more experiments that further drive this point home that 'the experience of 'the now" takes precedence over events that occur in space time. The following experiment found that "Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,,"
Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time – 2016 Bizarre quantum bonds connect distinct moments in time, suggesting that quantum links — not space-time — constitute the fundamental structure of the universe. Excerpt: Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,, “If you have space-time, you have a well-defined causal order,” said Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna who studies quantum information. But “if you don’t have a well-defined causal order,” he said — as is the case in experiments he has proposed — then “you don’t have space-time.”,,, Quantum correlations come first, space-time later. Exactly how does space-time emerge out of the quantum world? Bruner said he is still unsure. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/ Entangled Quantum Particles Can "Communicate" Through Time - 2019 This (spooky action at a distance) entanglement, it turns out, extends to time as well — "spooky action at a delay," as George Musser put it in Quanta Magazine. In 2013, a team of researchers at the University of Jerusalem actually demonstrated this weird phenomenon in the lab. https://www.discovery.com/science/Entangled-Quantum-Particles-Communicate
The following experiment by Anton Zeilinger, circa 2012, demonstrated that “quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
And as the following 2017 article states, “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.”
Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga Excerpt: retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past. - per physorg
Thus in conclusion, despite how reasonable Dr. Torley's objection to Dr. Egnor may seem at first glance, (i.e. perception cannot possibly occur ‘at a distance’ since a Supernova that we might be observing “ceased to exist nearly 200 millennia ago, long before the dawn of human history”), no matter how reasonable that objection may seem, the fact of the matter is that Dr. Egnor's contention that “Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance” finds strong experimental support from quantum mechanics and Dr. Torley's objection, (as far as experimental evidence from quantum mechanics itself is concerned), is found to be severely wanting. To repeat Professor Crull's provocative statement which he made in 2018 “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”
You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time - 2018 Excerpt: it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old. - ibid
Quote and Verse
“the future is a concept—it doesn’t exist-There is no such thing as tomorrow There never will be because time is always now. That’s one of the things we discover when we stop talking to ourselves and stop thinking. We find there is only present, only an eternal now.” - Alan Watts Psalm 46:10 He says, “Be still, and know that I am God;,,,"
bornagain77_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

As to:
WHY IDEALISM IS ACTUALLY A PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY Excerpt: Dr. Gordon. What is idealism? Bruce Gordon: "There are a lot of different varieties of idealism, and rather than go through a laundry list of its variations, let me just start with the kind of idealism that I would be an advocate of, which is an ontic theistic idealism, essentially a form of idealism that is probably most closely identified with the Anglican Bishop, George Berkeley [pictured in 1727]. Basically, it’s the idea that material substances, as substantial entities, do not exist and are not the cause of our perceptions. They do not mediate our experience of the world. Rather, what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God, who, as an unlimited and uncreated immaterial being, is the ultimate cause of the sensations and ideas that we, as finite spiritual beings, experience intersubjectively and subjectively as the material universe." Note: Philosopher George Berkeley (1685–1753) was a Church of England bishop in Ireland. Among his other accomplishments were his studies of human vision: “Berkeley’s empirical theory of vision challenged the then-standard account of distance vision, an account which requires tacit geometrical calculations. His alternative account focuses on visual and tactual objects. Berkeley argues that the visual perception of distance is explained by the correlation of ideas of sight and touch. This associative approach does away with appeals to geometrical calculation while explaining monocular vision and the moon illusion, anomalies that had plagued the geometric account.” – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - per linked article in OP
I didn't know that Berkley's Idealism was empirically developed to the point that it explained "monocular vision and the moon illusion, anomalies that had plagued the geometric account.” It is very interesting that Berkley, in the early 1700s no less, had a 'empirical theory of vision' that he used to explain why we perceive the world as we do, and not as would be expected under the "standard account of distance vision, an account which requires tacit geometrical calculations." This disagreement between Berkley and the "standard account of distance vision' reminds me very much of the disagreement that Dr. Egnor had with Dr. Torley over perception. Dr. Michael Egnor, via Aristotle, contended that “Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance.”
Perception and the Cartesian Theater – Michael Egnor – December 8, 2015 Excerpt: Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance. The notion that a perception of the moon occurs at the moon is “bizarre” (Torley’s word) only if one presumes that perception is constrained by distance and local conditions — perhaps perception would get tired if it had to go to the moon or it wouldn’t be able to go because it’s too cold there. Yet surely the view that the perception of a rose held up to my eye was located at the rose wouldn’t be deemed nearly as bizarre. At what distance does perception of an object at the object become inconceivable? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/perception_and101471.html
Dr. Torley strenuously objected to Dr. Egnor's contention. Dr. Torley strenuously objected that perception cannot possibly occur ‘at a distance’ since a Supernova that we might be observing “ceased to exist nearly 200 millennia ago, long before the dawn of human history.”
The Squid and the Supernova: A Reply to Professor Egnor – December 9, 2015 – vjtorley Excerpt: In February 1987, a supernova appeared in the Southern skies, and remained visible for several months. ,,, The problem is that the object itself ceased to exist nearly 200 millennia ago, long before the dawn of human history. Even if the squid that witnessed the explosion were capable of having perceptions which are located in intergalactic space, as Egnor contends, they are surely incapable of having perceptions which go back in time. ,,,perception is a bodily event, and that an event involving my body cannot take place at a point which is separate from my body. An event involving my body may occur inside my body, or at the surface of my body, but never separately from it. Thus it simply makes no sense to assert that I am here, at point X, but that my perceptions – or for that matter, my actions – are located at an external point Y. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-squid-and-the-supernova-a-reply-to-professor-egnor/
At first glance, that sounds like a very reasonable objection to me. Yet, much like Berkley's empirically supported Idealism, quantum mechanics, (which is considered our best scientific theory in terms of accuracy and descriptive power), has recently empirically supported Dr. Egnor's contention and rendered Dr. Torley's objection to Dr. Egnor to be irrelevant as far as quantum mechanics itself is concerned. Specifically, (despite Dr. Torley’s strenuous objection against Dr. Egnor’s claim that “Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance”), experiments in quantum mechanics have now confirmed what is termed 'quantum entanglement in time' which “implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”
You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018 Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,, Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,, The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted. What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old. https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time
It is also interesting to note that this disagreement between Dr. Torley and Dr. Egnor, (where Dr. Torley stressed the objective existence of a physical reality over and above our conscious perception of it), also played out Einstein's disagreement with philosopher's of his day over what the proper definition of time should be. But before we get into that specific disagreement between Einstein and philosophers of his day, over what the proper definition of time should be, it is first necessary to lay some groundwork. There are several defining attributes, and/or properties, of the immaterial mind which are irreconcilable with the 'standard belief' in science today that consciousness is a product of material/physical world, rather than the material/physical world being derivative from consciousness, (as is held in the Theistic view of reality. Indeed, as was held by Max Planck himself).
“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?
Dr. Michael Egnor, (who is a neurosurgeon as well as professor of neurosurgery at the State University of New York, Stony Brook), states six properties of immaterial mind that are irreconcilable to the view that consciousness is a product of the material physical world. Those six properties are, “Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,”
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
And in regards to the specific mental attribute of "Persistence of Self-Identity" through time, it is also important to note that "Persistence of Self-Identity" through time can also be defined as being 'the experience of 'the now'. And in regards to 'the experience of 'the now' in particular, it is also important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious outside perspective of time as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, metaphorically we very much seem to be standing on our own little "islands of now’ as the 'river of time' continually flows by us. The 'experience of 'the now' is simply inexplicable for anyone who wishes to explain consciousness as somehow being a product of the material/physical world. As Stanley Jaki explained, “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”
The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
And this inexplicable ‘experience of ‘the now” also happens to be exactly where Albert Einstein got into trouble with leading philosophers of his day, (and also happens to be exactly where Einstein eventually got into trouble with quantum mechanics itself). Around 1935, Einstein was asked by Rudolf Carnap (who was a philosopher):
“Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?” Rudolf Carnap - Philosopher
Einstein’s answer to Carnap was ‘categorical’, he said:
“The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” Einstein Quote taken from the last few minutes of this following video. Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now” https://vimeo.com/10588094
And here is an article that goes into a bit more detail of that specific encounter between Einstein and Rudolf Carnap:
The Mind and Its Now – May 22, 2008 – By Stanley L. Jaki Excerpt: ,,, Rudolf Carnap, and the only one among them who was bothered with the mind’s experience of its now. His concern for this is noteworthy because he went about it in the wrong way. He thought that physics was the only sound way to know and to know anything. It was therefore only logical on his part that he should approach, we are around 1935, Albert Einstein, the greatest physicist of the day, with the question whether it was possible to turn the experience of the now into a scientific knowledge. Such knowledge must of course be verified with measurement. We do not have the exact record of Carnap’s conversation with Einstein whom he went to visit in Princeton, at eighteen hours by train at that time from Chicago. But from Einstein’s reply which Carnap jotted down later, it is safe to assume that Carnap reasoned with him as outlined above. Einstein’s answer was categorical: The experience of the now cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement. It can never be part of physics. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
bornagain77_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Seversky said:
Isn’t this view pretty much what WJM has been assiduously promoting here for a while now?
More or less. I note that there is still a trace of materialist metaphysics involved - the idea that there is some "thing" that is the real "thing," even in universal mind, that our consciousness is translating into an experiential approximation thereof. I think the problem in a lot of these arguments is that there is no well-formed theory of mind. I don't know if my MRT is "well-formed," but it's far less vague than anything else I've come across. My MRT actually makes testable predictions and identifies different categories of mind. It's almost like nobody has given idealism serious thought other than as a comparative philosophical argument against other ontologies. Perhaps nobody thought it was testable? Did nobody else think to create a testable model? Did anyone else even attempt to categorize these different aspects of mind and describe how they function? Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with the literature.William J Murray_{April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

reality = math + consciousness. Math is most certainly immaterial, and unfortunately we have no idea what consciousness is.Eugene_{April 15, 2021
April
04
Apr
15
15
2021
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

Isn't this view pretty much what WJM has been assiduously promoting here for a while now?Seversky_{April 15, 2021
April
04
Apr
15
15
2021
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply