Eric Metaxas responds to critics of his WSJ column on fine-tuning

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 12, 2015

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design}

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

Column. Critics. Metaxas’ response here:

Not surprisingly, the piece had plenty of critics. One scientist wrote to the Journal complaining about “religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments” and “allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist.”

This objection, which I’m told figured prominently in the comments section at the Journal, essentially amounts to saying that only scientists should be allowed to talk about the religious implications of scientific things. Scientists, it seems, can dabble as metaphysicians, philosophers, and theologians, but not vice-versa.

This is the foregone conclusion even when the person of faith is merely citing scientific findings, as I did. However, this objection is not rooted in science but in scientism, which holds that “empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.”

The criticism wasn’t limited to comments from atheistic scientists. Several religious believers, including those whose work I respect, took me to task for saying that science can “prove” the existence of God, much less the God of the Bible. As one Christian philosopher put it, a god whose existence can be proved scientifically isn’t God.

That is true, which is why I’m happy that I never said anything resembling that. More.

It actually doesn’t matter what Metaxas said. He challenged the dhimmis for naturalism (nature is all there is) racket. The racket works both sides of the street (atheists and theists).

See also: In defense of Eric Metaxas: Is God a scientific hypothesis?

Note: Of course, from a naturalist perspective, God is not a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis supports naturalism. That is how you know it is a scientific hypothesis, pure and simple.

Evidence is irrelevant (or else an actual distraction or false trail, or a risk to faith), whether we are talking about cosmology, origin of life, or human evolution, the human mind, or a host of other questions.

Glad we got that sorted. You must not look for evidence for anything but naturalism because if it does not support naturalism, it is not evidence. There. Glad we got that sorted. 😉

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Sorry, Me_Thinks. I forgot the link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPc3DhDQ8Lk It seems strange that that veteran, who was ethnically Jewish, should have seen the world in front of him, emanating from his own revived self (at 40.26), when it had been a Jewish mystic, who observed that when a man dies, a whole world dies with him. Sorry I've not been able to find that quote again on the Net.Axel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Well, Me_Thinks, as long as thee_thinks tha's written a witty satirical riposte.... ! Another nice evasion.... Just remember, he who laughs last.....Axel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Axel, Perched uncomfortably on the 4 legged bar stool,the ID agent in 4th dimension shouted -"Helper agent1, I have a meeting with photons of light which want to hit Axel on Earth, why the heck is it taking forever to tie my shoe lace?" Agent1 replied," Sir, I can't hear you properly, If you meant you can't tie your lace, you should know we can't have knots in any dimension above 3. All knots will be unknots". ID agent -"Huh ? Ok" . Helper agent1- "Sir,because we are in even dimension, the sound waves are rippling back, I can't hear what you said". ID Agent - "To hell with shoes. I will go meet the photons". Photon1 : "Sir, We can't hit any one.We have no preferred direction in 4D. We can only diffuse around in all directions." ID Agent - "Hmm.... so you can't travel down to 3D?" Photon1: " We could diffuse down but you know once we enter 3d, there will be patches of darkness and light. We wouldn't look like light at all" ID Agent - " Why not?" Photon1- " because when we enter 3d from 4d, we will be seen in cross sections...." Loud noise outside. Helper Agent (shouting)-"Oh God, Oh God, my innards are falling off. I didn't realize we are in 4D". His cries echos in 4D as sounds waves ripple around the 4 dimensions. Meanwhile there is chaos outside the conference room. Every atom seems to be confused. ID Agent - " Why is there so much noise ?" "Oh God, Oh God my structure is falling apart. The orbitals in 4D are not stable. Why wouldn't the all knowing being know such simple things?" ID Agent - "Ok, everyone , listen up, we are officially abandoning 4D. We all are now going to 5 D. Let's try our luck there". Would 5D be any better than 4D ? Wait for our next episode !Me_Think_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

I won't hear a word said against Arthur Mee's august children's tomes, Me_Thinks ! You missed the point entirely. Pedantry is of the essence of the empirical, scientific method, but it is risibly absurd to bring it up in the context of metaphysics, however rudimentary. For goodness sake, Einstein stated that his primordial criterion when selecting his hypotheses was aesthetic. And you're blethering on about the niceties relating to how E = MC2 not really being the accurate mathematical formulation. And you STILL haven't answered how the agency governing light could a) know the existence and whereabouts of every candidate for whacking with photons at their absolute speed! And b) the speed of such observers, in order to adjust its own speed to hit them at its own absolute speed, irrespective of their respective speeds in the same direction. It's not rocket science is it ? It's plainly a mystery, unless it's the work of a theistic god - unless Goddidit. The latter explanation also very much favours the primacy of spirit, consciousness over matter; in the same way, as I believe God coordinates the individual personal worlds our respective minds, consciousness, creates. Try to find the time to watch this video-clip of the speech of a navy veteran who was sucked into the intake of a jet-engine on the flight deck of an aircraft-carrier, concerning the NDE he underwent. But, at least, to the part of it beginning at 40.26. Well, you'll need to start a little earlier at least, in order to know the context.Axel_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Me_Think @#104 'Heh. When you describe matter as wave-function, matter doesn’t disappear. It is represented as wave function. If your dollar bill disappears, it is not because it is not matter, it was pick-pocketed. So much for ’egg-head who knows his onions better than their so-called experts’ I see now It was written ambiguously, to say the least, though it was mean to refer to you ! Unfortunately, I can't call you a dummy, now, right after calling you an egg-head!Axel_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Axel @108, Of course not. Children's science books and Encyclopedia are for gaining rudimentary knowledge and that's good enough for general public. We all know E= mc^2, but of course it is not right. The complete equation is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 , so would you ask them to remove the shorter version? Of course not, but if you want to learn more, you should be working with the original equation,not approximations.Me_Think_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Me_Think, do you think those encyclopaedias should remove those explanations and illustrations in relation to light's absolute speed.Axel_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

I was under the impression that the fourth dimension was said to be ‘time’ – which is very much of this universe, is it not.
Pity you can't distinguish when we are talking about spatial dimensions and when we are talking about Space-Time. Just to be clear, I am talking about 4 space coordinates in 4th dimension- hope you didn't think there were only 3 coordinates in 4th dimension !
So your demurral that it only SEEMS to hit objects of any mass on earth at its absolute speed,’ is nonsense.
'egg-head who knows his onions better than their so-called experts' apparently has no idea about luminal velocities and frame of reference.
Both Planck and Bohr stated that we can’t know reality, only what we perceive. Words to that effect. Like poetry. ‘There is no such thing as matter, as such’, was how Planck put it.
Heh. When you describe matter as wave-function, matter doesn't disappear. It is represented as wave function. If your dollar bill disappears, it is not because it is not matter, it was pick-pocketed. So much for ’egg-head who knows his onions better than their so-called experts’Me_Think_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Yep, but a tad below the likes of Einstein, Planck and Bohr, I would venture - if not others, such as Schrodinger, Pauli. Anyway, whatever the hierarchy, as a top scientific thinker AND an atheist, Feynman stands out like a sore thumb. I think the Brethren of the Double Helix, Crick and Watson were atheists, and Rosalind Franklin for that matter. 'If you have inside track on God, you should know that Light can’t come from higher dimension as it doesn’t have a favored direction in the, say, 4th dimension outside our universe! (Just calculate the poynting vector and see).' I was under the impression that the fourth dimension was said to be 'time' - which is very much of this universe, is it not. 'Everything with mass on Earth moves far, far below relativistic speed so light seems to hit at absolute speed. If you have particles traveling at close to luminal speed, you won’t observe ‘Light hitting those at absolute speed’. More irrelevances, M_T. Why would it hit kindred particles at its absolute speed ? They're birds of a feather. You can't get aggregations of any size of such particles to approach luminal speed, can you ? I believe there are a few anomalies concerning luminal speed, such as when the photons are absorbed, but stick with the obvious day-to-day, 'meat and potatoes' version of light. You're dong a Dawkins on us with this SEEMS TO nonsense. That's what empirical science is about. Both Planck and Bohr stated that we can't know reality, only what we perceive. Words to that effect. Like poetry. 'There is no such thing as matter, as such', was how Planck put it. And Bohr : 'There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...' So your demurral that it only SEEMS to hit objects of any mass on earth at its absolute speed,' is nonsense. Otherwise, you should warn all the encyclopedias that their little illustrations of the cars and their headlights, are all nonsense. Tell them about the 4th dimension and the poynting vector, etc. It'll be meat and drink to them. And tell them I referred you to them... as an egg-head who knows his onions better than their so-called experts.Axel_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Axel @ 100,
Do you think you could answer my question now concerning daylight passing through the air at its absolute speed? Anyway, this is an observation of mine of longstanding, not a philosopher’s, yet no-one has answered it, never mind rebutted it.
If you insist. Light is an EM wave. It's propagation direction is perpendicular to EM fields. In fact, the direction light travels is given by poynting vector, so obviously it 'hits' everyone from the direction of the vector. Everything with mass on Earth moves far, far below relativistic speed so light seems to hit at absolute speed. If you have particles traveling at close to luminal speed, you won't observe 'Light hitting those at absolute speed'. If you have inside track on God, you should know that Light can't come from higher dimension as it doesn't have a favored direction in the, say, 4th dimension outside our universe! (Just calculate the poynting vector and see). P.S: Feynman is one of the greatest physicist. Your 'damning Feynman with faint praise' is comical.Me_Think_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Lou Jost at #84 Right at the beginning, at 0.22, you'll see, Feynman starts evidently wishing to rail, but almost immediately, backs off from taking on the religious apologists. He'd obviously had some hard lessons about how little he knows or understands about the really deep matters, the non-material, spiritual ones. So, pardon me if I don't bother to go any further with them. 'In case some reader doesn’t get the joke, go look at the journal of this vanguard of scientific discovery, Bio-Complexity, and compare it with any normal physics or biology journal.' - Lou Jost A very poor excuse for a rebuttal. The fact is, your fabled promissory note always belonged to the realm of the game of Monopoly. You all have to do what comes naturally to the Christian, theist and deist, accept paradoxes 'as is', and incorporate them as staging posts, stepping-stones, to new discoveries, without understanding how they could be. Admit it. Its paradoxes make quantum mechanics as absurd today as when Bohr used to hold forth on it with enraptured fascination. None of you have ever been able to explain how a paradox could be, could make sense. And a pound to a pinch of snuff, you never will, a priori. Only what deceptively appears to be a paradox. QM wouldn't have too many of those, since approaching, as it must the interface with the spirit of the Creator, the great matrix, and matter, the analytical intelligence is well and truly put in its place - as time only serves to increasingly confirm. I've been going on about this since about 1974.Axel_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Me_Think @93 'Which Philosopher thinks light traveling through water and air is ‘exotic’ ?!! I consider that any medium not ambient for the general run of human beings in their daily activities to be exotic in this context - particularly when intended as an evasion. Do you think you could answer my question now concerning daylight passing through the air at its absolute speed? Anyway, this is an observation of mine of longstanding, not a philosopher's, yet no-one has answered it, never mind rebutted it. Your response to it is the first, and that, an evasion ! I have an 'inside track' from God on some things !Axel_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Your # 87, Lou 'Feynman seems to be mentioned here a lot in the comments. Here is what he thinks about god: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4 http://www.reddit.com/r/atheis.....n_atheism/ ------------------------- I seem to remember damning Feynman with faint praise, Lou. Your innocent incomprehension does you credit.Axel_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

AS,
I suggest we don’t bother with photons and music boxes.
The same physical dynamics occur in all the examples. The photon example was your own, and I mentioned the music box to demonstrate the principle at a most self-evident level. Such examples are useful to those who are open to understanding how information is translated into physical effects.
Let’s stick to the biological examples.
At your pleasure.
The only way to establish the functionality in a protein … is to see what it does.
The functional effect of a pheromone is not determined by the properties of the pheromone, it’s determined by the organization of the system that translates it into a specific effect among alternatives. The effect cannot be derived from the arrangement of the medium because of the necessary discontinuity between them, which the system preserves during translation.
Any event requires the interaction of at least two particles.
The issue is not merely that two objects are required by the system. Ignoring context won’t change the physics.
It’s templates all the way down. You’re anthropomorphizing
This is incoherent. It’s unsalvageable.Upright BiPed_{January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Lou, I am certainly not above mis-speaking, or stating a concept improperly. If you think I have made an observation that is factually incorrect, why not point it out? In our previous conversation, we were discussing the rise of the first semiotic system on earth from inanimate matter. As a counter-example to my comments, you pointed to the evolution of a pheromone among existing ants. I'm afraid I remain unmoved by that argument.Upright BiPed_{January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

92 Aurelio Sure a decaying particle counts. I suppose that if we want an event to be defined independent of a reference frame, it does take two particles, but in decays we do have two (or more) particles at the moment of decay. Thanks for trying to help Upright Biped understand an evolutionary viewpoint for the acquisition of meaning. It won't budge him, as we've seen on BioLogos, but maybe other readers aren't so invested.Lou Jost_{January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

mike1962: We are interested in direct answers to all of our specific questions @33. Zachriel: {Direct answers to all the specific questions.} mike1962: {Nevermind.}Zachriel_{January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Zachriel @39: It’s still important to understand the concept.
We do. And nothing you wrote was particularly interesting or enlightening. Thanks for the reply. Ho hum.mike1962_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Axel @ 78
...and I’ll comment on the science relating to the other, more exotic contexts, to which I made no reference, but with the likes of which...
Which Philosopher thinks light traveling through water and air is 'exotic' ?!!Me_Think_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

87 Aurelio, very very sorry for my mistake! Don't know how that happened.Lou Jost_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Followed your link, Biped, and that’s an interesting interpretation of events you have there.
I'm not particularly interested in your assessment, since it would not make any difference whatsoever what the content of the conversation was -- you would position it negatively regardless. In this, there is no doubt. The only thing I am interetsed in is do you yet realize that in order to translate an informational medium into a physical effect requires two physical objects operating in a very specific system, whereby one object evokes an effect within the system, and a second object establishes what that effect will be.Upright BiPed_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

AS
UB: You can’t derive the cognitive effect “a photon” from changes in the arrangement of light on a LED display. AS: Who’s you, specifically? Just me? Any person? Sorry, I can’t really make sense of this sentence. People see by having a nervous system that reacts to photons via the rods and cones in the retina.
When a visual image hits your retina, the organization of your visual system will transcribe that image to an arrangement of neural impulses (a mechanically transcribed representation of the image) traveling through your optical nerve to your visual cortex and brain, where it will be translated by other arrangement(s) of neural patterns, resulting in a cognitive effect. Can you intercept the arrangement of neural impulses traveling through the optical nerve, and from that representation can you derive the cognitive effect? Or, is the cognitive effect established by the onward translation apparatus in your visual cortex and brain?
UB: You can’t derive a song from the pins on a music box cylinder. AS: Again, not sure what you mean. A music box has a comb of tangs that produce notes of different pitches when struck by a pin on a cylinder.
Thank you for making my point. You cannot derive a song from the pins on a music box cylinder. It is not an innate property of the metal that the pins are made of. Instead, you must have the arrangement of the tines on the comb to establish the effect. One arrangement of matter evokes a functional effect within a system; the other establishes what the effect will be.
UB: You can’t derive “attack the intruder” from the surface properties of a pheromone compound. AS: Ants! No indeed. At least we are into biology. There is no method yet devised (though I am sure it is an active area of research) to predict the properties of a a protein other than finding it in nature or by synthesizing it and seeing what properties it has…
I can assure you that “attack the intruder” is not a property that can be measured in the surface properties of a protein. It requires the translation apparatus to establish the effect. One arrangement of matter evokes an effect within a system, and a second arrangement of matter establishes what the effect will be.
UB: And you can't derive an amino acid from the arrangement of three nucleic acids. AS: The genetic code is almost (with the few extremely interesting variations) universal across all terrestrial life. How this whole arrangement of parts came together is really an “Origin-of-Life” problem and must have occurred way back at the dawn of life, which estimates put between 3 and 4 billion years ago. We have no direct evidence to tell us what went on this long ago.
Uh, okay. So can you derive an amino acid from the arrangement of nucleic acids in a codon, or is the correct amino acid established in temporal and spatial isolation by the aaRS? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - One arrangement evokes an effect within a system, and another arrangement established what the result of translation will be. This is not difficult a material. All translated information has this same physical architecture, its a requirement dictated by physical law.Upright BiPed_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Lou, It was not Smith you were arguing with at Biologos, it was me. You raised what you thought was a meaningful counter-argument. Your counter-argument fell apart.Upright BiPed_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

80 Axel
It is precisely this visceral lack of an affinity for mysteries qua paradoxes that has, with rare exceptions, rendered materialists as useless as a chocolate fire-guard, and religious people in the vanguard of scientific discovery.
OK, I have to admit that is comic genius. In case some reader doesn't get the joke, go look at the journal of this vanguard of scientific discovery, Bio-Complexity, and compare it with any normal physics or biology journal. Feynman seems to be mentioned here a lot in the comments. Here is what he thinks about god: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4 http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1gbt53/richard_feynman_on_atheism/Lou Jost_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

81 Aurelio Smith, now I recognize you from BioLogos, where you made the same arguments about semiotics. There I not only showed you how your example of ant alarm signals could have evolved from attack behaviors, but I also showed you that this hypothesis has empirical evidence backing it up (the alarm signals have evolved from the attack compound, formic acid). But you just keep on going as if nothing has changed. That's sad.Lou Jost_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Still no comment from the "consciousness" crowd about Wigner changing his mind about consciousness's role in QM. Will they go on quoting him later in support of their view, as if nothing had changed? Will they address the problems that Wigner saw in this view? You can't get from nonlocality to mind. You can't even get from nonlocality to faster-than-light transmission of information.Lou Jost_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

'‘Everything from Sun, Rain, lighting, magnetism, earthquake was spooky till scientists toiled hard to unravel the mystery beyond various forces, so don’t be surprised if QM mystery too is solved ‘materialistically’. Every magic is mysterious till the trick is revealed. Wait for it.’ There is a contradiction between : ‘Everything from Sun, Rain, lighting, magnetism, earthquake was spooky till scientists toiled hard to unravel the mystery beyond various forces,....'; and 'so don’t be surprised if QM mystery too is solved ‘materialistically’. Every magic is mysterious till the trick is revealed. Wait for it.’ Einstein, Planck and Bohr, to name but three of the great pioneers, did not solve the mysteries of relativity and quantum mechanics AT ALL. THEY MERELY IDENTIFIED THEM ! AND, IF ANYTHING, STRESSED THE UTTER IMPONDERABILITY OF THEIR NATURE AS PARADOXES ! THEIR MYSTERIOUS INSOLUBILITY ! THEIR PRIMA FACIE ABSURDITY. Even Feynman did as much, which, together with the company he was privileged to keep, if at a slight remove - would, I think, go some way towards explaining his less truculent and fatuous, atheist credo, than today's atheist vacuously triumphalist numpties in the field theoretical physics. Even Newton, who, incidentally saw the potential limitations of the mechanistic physics he had inherited and which he embellished to such good effect, conjectured there might be different dimensions that had not yet been established. Also, as was pointed out here, a few weeks ago, gravity is as mysterious today as it was in the eighteenth century. Not an iota of progress re the encashment of that promissory note has been made, or even seems remotely in the offing. It is precisely this visceral lack of an affinity for mysteries qua paradoxes that has, with rare exceptions, rendered materialists as useless as a chocolate fire-guard, and religious people in the vanguard of scientific discovery. So regarding the decisive influencing of past events and the simultaeous enanglement of particles over enormous distances, there is absolutely no reason to believe that, at some later date, any kind of understanding of them will be become more accessible to our analytical intelligence.Axel_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

'Everything from Sun, Rain, lighting, magnetism, earthquake was spooky till scientists toiled hard to unravel the mystery beyond various forces, so don’t be surprised if QM mystery too is solved ‘materialistically’. Every magic is mysterious till the trick is revealed. Wait for it.' Box: When in doubt or totally flummoxed, remember the promissory note.... Note that M_T adduces 'spooky action at a distance' and all the mysteries of physics well established since gargantuan Einstein's paradigm-shifting relativity theories, not to even speak of QM, as if they would in no way conflict with atheism/materialism ! M_T, you people would never have hit upon either the former or the latter, although deists and theists would; for the simple reason that, casting things as counter-intuitive, is the atheists way of saying, 'Well, we could hardly have imagined such a thing, since paradoxes are illogical, and we pride ourselves, above all on being logical. Of course, this hasn't stopped the from following the proper scientists in forging careers by incorporating paradoxes in their research, as comes naturally to the latter, the deists and theists. Do you think any of the great, pioneering physicists of the last century, would not have believed in Einstein's 'illimitable spirit' but, rather, believed matter could produce consciousness? I doubt if even Feynman would have believed that, whatever massive lacuna it left in his world-view.Axel_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

'Which philosopher said that? Light need not travel at constant speed everywhere. What do you think is the speed of light in water and glass, cold air and hot air? If the refractive index of material is n, then speed will be c/n (c=speed of light)' Let's keep it simple, shall we, MT? You give me a relevant and remotely plausible answer to my simple question, and I'll comment on the science relating to the other, more exotic contexts, to which I made no reference, but with the likes of which, you habitually choose to obfuscate the simple questions put to you, which expose materialism as a farce. I know it's a safe bet I won't have to, so I can promise what with my ignorance of science would be impossible.Axel_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Box @ 76
It’s a weird world isn’t it? Your (less weird ??) concept is that the measurement-instruments drive the photons non-locally and even in the past? Something non-local is driving the photons. I say that therefore consciousness is a valid candidate and instruments are not.
No Box,everyone who knows QM experiments is aware that instrument interference is not the decider of photon path, but the experimenters consciousness can't be the variable because even if the technician stays away from the instrument after setting it up, the photons exhibit the same weirdness. Everything from Sun, Rain, lighting, magnetism, earthquake was spooky till scientists toiled hard to unravel the mystery beyond various forces, so don't be surprised if QM mystery too is solved 'materialistically'. Every magic is mysterious till the trick is revealed. Wait for it. P.S: Hope you didn't get 'QM is conscious ' idea from Deepak Chopra - he is worse than Philosophers.Me_Think_{January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply