Experiment: Quantum particles can violate the mathematical pigeonhole principle

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 19, 2019

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

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

Which says that if there are more holes than pigeons, some pigeons must share:

In the study, three photons took the place of the pigeons. Rather than crowding the photons into holes, the researchers studied the polarization of the particles, or the orientation of the photons’ wiggling electromagnetic waves, which can be either horizontal or vertical. Since there were three photons and two polarizations, standard math would suggest that at least two must have had the same polarization. When the scientists compared the particles’ polarizations, the team found that no two particles matched, verifying that the quantum pigeonhole effect is real.Emily Conover, “Photons reveal a weird effect called the quantum pigeonhole paradox” at Science News

Paper. (paywall) Significance:

We have demonstrated the quantum pigeonhole paradox with three single photons. The effect of variable-strength quantum measurement is experimentally analyzed order by order and a transition of violation of the pigeonhole principle is observed. We find that the different kinds of measurement-induced entanglement are responsible for the photons’ abnormal collective behavior in the paradox. The experimental violation of pigeonhole principle presents a challenge to the fundamental counting principle of nature. – Ming-Cheng Chen, Chang Liu, Yi-Han Luo, He-Liang Huang, Bi-Ying Wang, Xi-Lin Wang, Li Li, Nai-Le Liu, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan PNAS January 29, 2019 116 (5) 1549-1552; published ahead of print January 29, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815462116

See also: Whether or not man has free will, quantum mechanics means that nature does

and

If quantum mechanics were a researcher, she’d be fired

Note: The recent uproar around a review of Adam Becker’s book at Inference Review, denounced by Becker at Undark, turned on issues in quantum mechanics. “So Inference Review allows dissenting opinion and Peter (PayPal) Thiel made money in the new economy. Which proves what, exactly? Becker goes on at length, editorializing against Inference Review, which he is compelled neither to read nor support through his tax funds. – News ”

Comments

BA77 @59: “the most ‘metaphysically pragmatic’ position that WJM could possibly take is to adopt the Christian worldview” That’s a very good point. However,... Can one adopt it without having saving* faith in Christ, an event that requires both free will + supernatural intervention? (*) not just faithPaoloV_{February 22, 2019
February
02
Feb
22
22
2019
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

WJM says that he is first and foremost a 'metaphysical pragmatist' who says that he hopes to "have my views and logic critically challenged in case there’s something I missed, am in error about or a different perspective is presented that is a more pragmatic option." To which I say, Okie Dokie.
prag·mat·ic adjective dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. prac·ti·cal adjective 1. of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas. "there are two obvious practical applications of the research" synonyms: empirical, hands-on, pragmatic, real, actual, active, applied, experiential, experimental, nontheoretical, in the field; 2. (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.
Might I be so bold as to point out to WJM the fact that Christianity, since it has given us the 'miracle' of modern science itself, has proven itself to, by far, the most pragmatic, practical, worldview? As Calvin Beisner points out in the following article, "science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme." And that modern science arose precisely because Christians believe, "a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image."
The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.
And as pointed out in the following article, “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.”,,,
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
And as Dr. Michael Egnor points out in the following article, "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."
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. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html
And as the following article points out, "Informed by Jewish wisdom and Greek reason, the Christian God was “not only eternal and immutable but also conscious, concerned, and rational.” Jesus Christ is the embodiment of this rational principle as “the Word (logos) made flesh,” reason incarnate.,,,". Moreover, "Christendom ventured forward to establish freedom and capitalism, organize universities, invent science, abolish slavery while at the same time bestowing virtue on physical labor all of which drove the incomparable advances in Western technology. And finally, Christendom spread these gifts around the world."
No False Gods Before Me: A Review of Rodney Stark’s Work by Terry Scambray (December 2018) Excerpt: Informed by Jewish wisdom and Greek reason, the Christian God was “not only eternal and immutable but also conscious, concerned, and rational.” Jesus Christ is the embodiment of this rational principle as “the Word (logos) made flesh,” reason incarnate.,,, “The early Christians fully accepted this image of God,” Stark writes and then reasonably deduced “the proposition that our knowledge of God and his creation is progressive.” For example, even though the Bible does not condemn astrology, Augustine reasoned that if human destiny was determined by the stars, humans would lack one of Christianity’s indispensable features, free will; therefore, practicing astrology was sinful. So also slavery was normative in all ancient societies and rationalized even by many Christians; yet slavery clearly violated Jesus’ revolutionary concept that individuals are created in God’s image and thereby possess inherent value of immeasurable worth. As Paul wrote, “All are one in Christ Jesus.” From this theocentric faith in reason and progress, Christendom ventured forward to establish freedom and capitalism, organize universities, invent science, abolish slavery while at the same time bestowing virtue on physical labor all of which drove the incomparable advances in Western technology. And finally, Christendom spread these gifts around the world. Stark distances this version of progress from the meme of “Enlightenment progress,” sometimes called “Whig history.” With his usual deftness, he calls this claim, as well as other Enlightenment disinformation, “nonsense.” And that’s because progress was inherent in Jewish and Christian millenarianism, the idea that “history has a goal and humanity a destiny,” as the peerless historian, Paul Johnson puts it.,,, The basis for much of the antipathy toward Christianity is the image of the medieval Catholic Church fostered by “distinguished bigots,” as Stark calls Edward Gibbon and Voltaire among other Enlightenment notables. Stark, relying on primary source historians like the renowned Marc Bloch, shows, on the contrary, that medieval Catholicism was the breeding ground for modernity. Most, if not all, ancient societies believed in fate. However, Yahweh gave humans the wondrous and terrifying attribute of free will, freedom. Individual freedom in the West then merged with the legacy of Athenian democracy and the Roman republican tradition to form “the new democratic experiments in the medieval Italian city-states,” as Stark reminds us. These rival polities organized the first universities in a unique tradition of institutional learning and discourse which began at Bologna then spread to Oxford, Paris and elsewhere in Europe. From the medieval university science was born. The distinguished philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead, astonished a Harvard audience in 1925 when he said that science is a “derivative of medieval theology [since it arose] from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher.” Whitehead’s thesis was but another bolt from out of the blue because the notion that medieval philosophy, scholasticism, led to the development of science was astonishing! Though it should not have been, since scholasticism was complex, diverse, penetrating and devoted to reasoning from the two books that undergird Christianity: the book of God, Scripture, and the book of nature, Creation. As Stark writes, “Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable—the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious, Christian scholars.”,,, So Christianity, then and now, never was antithetical to science. And this is because European Christians believed in a rational God whose imprint could be discovered in nature; thus, they confidently looked for and found natural laws. As Johannes Kepler, the venerable 17th century cosmologist, wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world” is to discover this harmony imposed by God in the language of mathematics. Stark concludes, “That the universe had an Intelligent Designer is the most fundamental of all scientific theories and that it has been successfully put to empirical tests again and again. For, as Albert Einstein remarked, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” which Einstein called a “miracle.” And this “miracle” confirms the fact that creation is guided by purpose and reason. https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189497&sec_id=189497
And as Professor Koons points out in the following article, "Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has."
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Thus from WJMs criteria of being a 'metaphysical pragmatist' who is open to adopting "a more pragmatic option", might I suggest that Christianity fulfills WJMs criteria of being proven to be far more practical, i.e. pragmatic, than any other worldview that has thus far been conceived of in world history. WJM might object that his branch of "Murrayism" might be more practical for the world sometime in the future if his worldview were somehow given a chance. To which I point out that until "Murrayism" proves itself to be more pragmatic and practical than Christianity has thus far proven itself to be, then the most 'metaphysically pragmatic' position that WJM could possibly take is to adopt the Christian worldview until, if an when, "Murrayism" ever proves itself to be more useful than Christianity has thus far proven itself to be. Quote and verse:
"Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy" - Francis Bacon - widely regarded as the founder of the scientific method,,, a devout Anglican Christian https://books.google.com/books?id=xlPFDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false Matthew 7:16-20 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
bornagain77_{February 22, 2019
February
02
Feb
22
22
2019
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

I have a few comment on wjm’s post at 56. Wjm writes,
Believing there is an external, material reality and that we are having mental experiences caused by that reality is a fairly useful model of experience, but is it the most useful? Or is it unnecessarily complicated, unprovable and ultimately, does it cripple us more than empower us? How effective or useful would a different model be?
I think I now have, somewhat, an understanding of “murrayism”, and I remember he said things like the above before. But what I don’t understand is why he thinks his model is better than having a model that there is actually a external, material reality. How does that cripple us in ways his model would empower us. What better results about anything would result if I, or people in general, adopted wjm’s model. William, can you explain more about the pragmatic benefits of your model? Wjm writes,
... the question would be, is there a deliberate, conscious purpose that integrates all things that exist (are experienced) into a one overall design? From my perspective, the answer is not in the way we think of consciousness or deliberate design of “a” thing.” ... The experience of purpose and design that we are familiar with can only come from an individuated perspective that doesn’t have immediate access to the whole. Purpose requires limitations that drive the direction of purpose; the whole has no such limitations
I don’t think that this is actually what wjm means, but I read this as somewhat compatible with something I wrote earlier:
I think things like conceptual knowledge and willful, chosen actions are part of the nature of an individuated consciousness in a person, but I don’t think those qualities are likely to apply to the oneness that is the source of mind any more than “redness” would apply to the source of matter. ...I doubt that the source of mind (or whatever whole wjm envisions) thinks, knows, acts, or cares in ways that are at all analogous to the ways that we think, know, act, or care. Another way of saying this is that I think “personhood” is a quality that arises out of the underlying oneness in certain conditions, such as human beings, but that the underlying oneness which manifests as mind (as well as matter) is not like a person. Thus, I don’t think of this underlying oneness as having qualities traditionally associated with a divine being, nor as “God”.
Wjm seems to be saying something similar when he writes,
The non-ordinary limitation that the whole has is this: it cannot experience something because it is innately and ubiquitously everything “all the time”. Only a “self” has experiences; “self” requires a non-self context – the identity of any “A” requires that “not-A” exists in order to provide identification of A.
Yes: human beings are “selfs”, but the underlying oneness or wholeness is not a self. It is not like a person, and in my opinion, it is a mistake to personify it as such, Then, in the context of summarizing some points, wjm writes,
5. All possible psyches exist. All possible experiences are being had.
I don’t understand what this could mean. It sounds like a “many worlds” philosophy. Is there another Hazel in some other quantum branch that is almost just like me, or many (a very large number) Hazels, and likewise wjm’s? Stephen points out that such psyches being actual, rather than potential, brings up problems of instantiated infinities. Taken to what I think is a logical conclusion (but I doubt my understanding is correct), this implies that there are not only an infinite number of slightly different branches of this universe since it’s beginning, but perhaps an infinite number of universe of which this universe is just one branch. I really don’t think this is what wjm means, but I don’t know know what he does mean.hazel_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

WJM
So you’ve actually used two different words here to describe what I assume you would think is the best way to define ( and by “define”, do you mean “characterize the existence of”?) a truck – “realistic” and “useful”. I think you are probably using “realistic” in the sense that something “is useful”. Being a metaphysical pragmatist, I would wholeheartedly agree that the best way to characterize the existence of something is so that it provides the best practical use for that thing.
I hold that a proper definition characterizes what a thing is – not the fact of its existence, but the essence of its *whatness.* By realistic, I mean in accordance with reality, or what *is*
However, I’m not talking about the usefulness of the things that exist; I’m talking the usefulness of how we characterize or model our experiences of things – not “an” experience, but the very model of everything I experience (consensual physicality, dreams, imagination, thought, logic, math, etc.) So it’s not about the truck, per se, it’s about the nature of the experience of the truck and everything else.
If I understand you correctly, you are defining a truck by your experience of it, or how “useful” the definition may be to you. For me, this would be problematic since I don’t know how we could we discuss trucks if I define one as a large heavy motor vehicle used for transporting things and you define it as something that may kill you if you step in front of it? I don’t understand why the nature of your experience has anything to do with the whatness of a truck.
Believing there is an external, material reality and that we are having mental experiences caused by that reality is a fairly useful model of experience, but is it the most useful? Or is it unnecessarily complicated, unprovable and ultimately, does it cripple us more than empower us? How effective or useful would a different model be?
I submit that we can apprehend reality as it is (in a limited sense) and do not need to formulate models to make sense of everything. However, I will respond based on my understanding of your premise that we merely perceive reality and form mental “models” in that context. I think that the assumption of an extra-mental reality is the most useful model precisely because it seems to correspond to reality. It provides information about what is possible and what is impossible. Example: The music is played before we hear it. The process begins with the former event followed by our experience. We cannot reverse the process, extend our ear, and expect it to generate the music, but we can go somewhere where music is being played and luxuriate in it. So it is with the truck. First, it runs over the poor victim, and then he dies (or wishes he had). Knowing this, we don’t get in the way of a moving truck– very useful. With these examples, the physical event precedes the mental event. In other contexts, the order is reversed and the mental event precedes the physical event, as in the case of Intelligent Design. I could provide numerous other examples where this reverse order of events happens, (suggesting a circumstance where we cease being an effect and start being a cause), but the broader point is that it is extremely useful to know the truth about when we can change reality and when we must conform to it. I don’t understand why a false model, perceived as useful, would provide any long-lasting benefits. If it’s really true, for example, that men and women are different then it is exceedingly harmful to propagate mental models of reality that reject the complementary of the sexes. Even if that model might work for or be useful to a transgender, it would be harmful to the common good. Truth doesn't deceive us, but it allows us to know when we have been deceived (if we want to know).
From my perspective, the answer is not in the way we think of consciousness or deliberate design of “a” thing. The whole (God) is not designed for a purpose; it simply is.As “all that exists,” it (from the “whole” perspective) doesn’t design anything for a purpose because all things that can exist have always existed within that whole (which includes all temporal locations). All possible designs and purposes are all already fulfilled in the whole. The only way the “whole” can have an overall, specific designed purpose is if something designed the whole to serve a purpose. That’s irrational because everything that exists is contained within the whole, including all temporal locations; there was no “before God” or “something other than God” that could have designed the parts of God to serve this other thing’s purpose.
For me, God is God and he transcends the creation that he designed. Obviously the creator cannot also be his creation. He is the first cause of every other cause or movement just as the engine of a train is the first cause of a moving caboose. That seems very simple and true to me. What seems unbelievably complex (and false) is the “all is one” philosophy that might lead some to think that the engine could also be the caboose.
The experience of purpose and design that we are familiar with can only come from an individuated perspective that doesn’t have immediate access to the whole. Purpose requires limitations that drive the direction of purpose; the whole has no such limitations (well, in the ordinary sense, but it does have a limitation in a non-ordinary sense, which I’ll get to later). Therefore, from our perspective, inventions and purpose can be experienced in a way that it makes sense – in a passage through the temporal axis from where the purpose is manifest from limitations and context, then the design to fulfill that purpose is created (found, really, along the way – discovered) and the design is, let’s say, manufactured into the truck.
If we are searching for a useful paradigm, couldn’t we just say that God has no limitations, but in an act of loving generosity, decided to create a purposeful universe in which is creatures could purposefully pursue their eternal destiny? Couldn’t we just say that the Creator, who is eternal and exists outside of time, created time and space and endowed his creatures with the capacity to design and manufacture trucks?
The non-ordinary limitation that the whole has is this: it cannot experience something because it is innately and ubiquitously everything “all the time”. Only a “self” has experiences; “self” requires a non-self context – the identity of any “A” requires that “not-A” exists in order to provide identification of A.
Can’t we just say that there is [a] a thinking self (who he is) and [b] the object of his thought (what he is thinking about). Some people refer to it as the subject/object model. I find that paradigm much easier to understand and apply. I also think that it is consistent with the real world. Why do we need a “whole” to carry out that transaction? I would also suggest that there is a big difference between having the capacity to be anything at all (potential) and being everything all the time (actual).
1. At the unity or “whole” “perspective” (which cannot actually be “a” perspective, but bear with me conceptually/hypothetically), everything is an uncollapsed wave field because it is the whole potential of the wave field.
I am not sure how this is possible, but we can follow the thought and discover where it takes us.
2. The only way for identifiable things to exist is if a correlated consciousness experiences both the A and the not-A of it (what we might call the local collapse of the quantum wave field in relationship to an observer).
For my part, a things existence (both its origins and its continuation) depends totally on the creator’s actions, which would include the action of creating a wave field if things were designed that way. The take home message, though would be this: A thing is comprehensible only if it was designed to be comprehended (ontology) and only if we were designed to comprehend it (epistemology). One without the other is useless. I don’t understand how a wave field could integrate those two spheres.
3. The “observer” (an individual) cannot be the whole because it must have a not-self for contextual identification, but cannot escape being of the whole; it would necessarily have to be a subset of the whole. So, we have universal mind and individuated mind, individuated minds being limited subsets of the whole. I call them “psyches”, or we can call each an individual an “identity matrix.”
Is the universal mind at peace even though the individual minds may be at war with one another? Or is the universal mind at home with millions of contradictory formulations conceived by individual minds with no reference to objective truth? If so, of what use is the universal mind?
4. Each psyche is a unique perspective, a unique individual that necessarily exists within a corresponding wave-collapsed context that has both complimentary and contrasting elements. To say that the psyche is causally creating the collapse, IMO, is a somewhat problematic framing. Perhaps more on that at some later date.
Yes, this hearkens back to my comment about physical events preceding mental events, mental events preceding physical events, and the task of knowing which is the case in any given situation. We really need to know how much control do we have over these things so we exert ourselves or back off at the right time for the right reason. In my judgment, to say that God is our creator and that we are his creatures serves that purpose.
5. All possible psyches exist. All possible experiences are being had.
I don’t think that all possible psyches or experiences can exist (in actuality) because I don’t believe that infinity (in numbers) can be instantiated in reality. Whether all such things can exist *potentially* is a decidedly different question, which I will not pursue right now. Since you didn’t use the word “potential,” I assume that you meant actual.
In that sense, the “parts of the whole” are required for the whole to exist, but also the whole must exist for all the parts to exist.
Agreed.
Sorry, it’s a work in progress. Not really expecting that to be well understood. This is the first time I’ve gone down this particular line of reasoning and I’m still unpacking and sorting through the concepts. Very exciting!
Thinking hard to solve intellectual challenges is one of the noblest of human activities. I define education as a series of questions, the answers to which cause confusion and frustration, and a whole new set of questions at a higher and more important level.StephenB_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

StephenB @50 said:
Yes, I agree that impressions and appearances can mislead. It would seem, though, that deception can cut both ways. In my judgment, it is for more realistic to define a truck by its purpose, design, and proper function than to understand it as a collection of molecules and atoms or as a manifestation of quantum events. I submit that knowing what the crankcase does is far more useful (and less likely to deceive) than knowing how many alpha particles are involved.
So you've actually used two different words here to describe what I assume you would think is the best way to define ( and by "define", do you mean "characterize the existence of"?) a truck - "realistic" and "useful". I think you are probably using "realistic" in the sense that something "is useful". Being a metaphysical pragmatist, I would wholeheartedly agree that the best way to characterize the existence of something is so that it provides the best practical use for that thing. However, I'm not talking about the usefulness of the things that exist; I'm talking the usefulness of how we characterize or model our experiences of things - not "an" experience, but the very model of everything I experience (consensual physicality, dreams, imagination, thought, logic, math, etc.) So it's not about the truck, per se, it's about the nature of the experience of the truck and everything else. Believing there is an external, material reality and that we are having mental experiences caused by that reality is a fairly useful model of experience, but is it the most useful? Or is it unnecessarily complicated, unprovable and ultimately, does it cripple us more than empower us? How effective or useful would a different model be?
I don’t think is a coincidence that the structure of an atom at the micro level resembles the structure of the solar system at the macro level.
I think the fundamental mathematical, logical and geometric principles that generate form at all levels would of course reflect throughout the whole from top to bottom, so to speak, in every single part. So to bring your design, purpose, parts and whole perspective into play: if we take all the parts (everything that exists), the question would be, is there a deliberate, conscious purpose that integrates all things that exist (are experienced) into a one overall design? From my perspective, the answer is not in the way we think of consciousness or deliberate design of "a" thing. The whole (God) is not designed for a purpose; it simply is. As "all that exists," it (from the "whole" perspective) doesn't design anything for a purpose because all things that can exist have always existed within that whole (which includes all temporal locations). All possible designs and purposes are all already fulfilled in the whole. The only way the "whole" can have an overall, specific designed purpose is if something designed the whole to serve a purpose. That's irrational because everything that exists is contained within the whole, including all temporal locations; there was no "before God" or "something other than God" that could have designed the parts of God to serve this other thing's purpose. The experience of purpose and design that we are familiar with can only come from an individuated perspective that doesn't have immediate access to the whole. Purpose requires limitations that drive the direction of purpose; the whole has no such limitations (well, in the ordinary sense, but it does have a limitation in a non-ordinary sense, which I'll get to later). Therefore, from our perspective, inventions and purpose can be experienced in a way that it makes sense - in a passage through the temporal axis from where the purpose is manifest from limitations and context, then the design to fulfill that purpose is created (found, really, along the way - discovered) and the design is, let's say, manufactured into the truck. The non-ordinary limitation that the whole has is this: it cannot experience something because it is innately and ubiquitously everything "all the time". Only a "self" has experiences; "self" requires a non-self context - the identity of any "A" requires that "not-A" exists in order to provide identification of A. Let me see if I can organize this more succinctly an simply: 1. At the unity or "whole" "perspective" (which cannot actually be "a" perspective, but bear with me conceptually/hypothetically), everything is an uncollapsed wave field because it is the whole potential of the wave field. 2. The only way for identifiable things to exist is if a correlated consciousness experiences both the A and the not-A of it (what we might call the local collapse of the quantum wave field in relationship to an observer). 3. The "observer" (an individual) cannot be the whole because it must have a not-self for contextual identification, but cannot escape being of the whole; it would necessarily have to be a subset of the whole. So, we have universal mind and individuated mind, individuated minds being limited subsets of the whole. I call them "psyches", or we can call each an individual an "identity matrix." 4. Each psyche is a unique perspective, a unique individual that necessarily exists within a corresponding wave-collapsed context that has both complimentary and contrasting elements. To say that the psyche is causally creating the collapse, IMO, is a somewhat problematic framing. Perhaps more on that at some later date. 5. All possible psyches exist. All possible experiences are being had. 6. In that sense, the "parts of the whole" are required for the whole to exist, but also the whole must exist for all the parts to exist. 7. In order for any particular thing to exist, the whole of what can exist must exist. (Version of Parmenides' argument). 8. In order for the whole (not "a" whole) to be complete, every possible thing/psyche experience must be realized, or else the whole is incomplete (something possible is not realized as an experience). Sorry, it's a work in progress. Not really expecting that to be well understood. This is the first time I've gone down this particular line of reasoning and I'm still unpacking and sorting through the concepts. Very exciting!William J Murray_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

“As I see our world right now, I have never seen greater confusion, greater loss of meaning, greater uncertainty, and greater fear of what looms in front of us. Politics has gotten out of control everywhere. Nobody sees a mascot or a leader, and everyone wants to know what really lies ahead here. But instead of thinking on the outside of all that’s wrong, the Gospel of Christ brings me inside. My life has to change, my life has to be transformed. Before asking the question of evil around me, I have to ask of the evil in me – my proclivities, my drives, my temptations, my struggles. And I believe only Christ is enough to transform my heart. And so, it’s sort of a multiplied opportunity of individual conquest. That’s the way I look at it. The Gospel of Christ, as we speak to the masses, is multiplied opportunity of individual conquest. His message conquers the individual, and life changes.” “I think this was being talked about in the cultural revolution of the sixties and seventies, where we were heading. Everett Coop, Frances Schaefer were talking about it in the United States; Malcolm Muggeridge in England; prior to that, G. K. Chesterton. If you go back, actually, as far as William Booth. He was talking about all that was looming ahead, the possibilities of travel and knowledge, gain and profit making, and so forth. Yes, we are in a post-Christian era in that the terms are not understood, but ironically, we are still living off of the bequest of its values in the West. And once those values have been expended, and we no longer have the roots from which to draw, then we will find out the ramifications of it. Nietzsche, of all people – the atheist – warned us. He said, “Will there be any up or down left? Who’ll give us a sponge to wipe away the horizon? Will we need lanterns to be lit in the morning hours? Will we need to invent sacred games?” And so on.” —Ravi Zacharias (2015 interview at Baltimore Post-Examiner)PeterA_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Hazel comments:
I doubt that the source of mind thinks, knows, acts, or cares in ways that are at all analogous to the ways that we think, know, act, or care. Another way of saying this is that I think “personhood” is a quality that arises out of the underlying oneness in certain conditions, such as human beings, but that the underlying oneness which manifests as mind (as well as matter) is not like a person. Thus, I don’t think of this underlying oneness as having qualities traditionally associated with a divine being, nor as “God”.
WJM seems to agree with Hazel's sentiment and/or with her self-admitted unsubstantiated and speculative opinion.
That’s fairly well stated (except for the unnecessary “source of mind” part). IMO, if by “traditionally” you mean in Judeo-Christian theologies. There are other traditional religions/spiritualities that actually define the nature of God pretty much like you did,
Thus it seems that WJM (and Hazel) are drifting away from classical Theism, like many ancient and modern Muslim and Jewish intellectuals did and do, and are drifting into some type of eastern mysticism and/or pantheism, where "All is One" and/or "God is all". Though Hazel and WJM may quibble over philosophical details, I hold that they both have not presented a robust empirical defense of their philosophical position(s) and/or claims (however they may philosophically define them contrary to Judeo-Christian Theism).. Nor have they countered the empirical evidence I presented in posts 25 through 27 pointing out that Christian Theism alone provides a coherent solution for the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything’. Classical Theism (and WJM and Hazel's ill-defined Pantheism or whatever they want to call it) is left wanting for a singular explanation as to why Quantum Mechanic and General Relativity will not reconcile into a single overarching ‘Theory of Everything”. Christianity provides a empirically robust solution for that 'oneness'. That would, IMHO, constitute a fairly gigantic hole in both of their overall 'oneness' philosophies. In short, although WJM and Hazel may speak of the 'oneness' of God being lofty and beyond us, (and, in the process, seemingly disparage the Judeo-Christian conception of a personal God who became one of us and defeated death on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins), yet WJM and Hazel cannot account for the empirical fact that the 'oneness' for the much sought after 'theory of everything' is found in none other than Christ's resurrection from the dead. If WJM and Hazel were truly trying to be empirically rigorous and robust in 'challenging their worldview' (instead of, more or less, just putting forth highly speculative philosophical positions), I would certainly consider that, (the resurrection of Christ from the dead providing a empirically robust solution for the 'theory of everything), to repeat the emphasis, to be a major unresolved problem of the overall 'oneness' that seems to be integral to their current philosophical positions. On top of that, I would be remiss in my duties as a Christian if I did not warn both WJM and Hazel of the dangers associated with forsaking Christianity in particular. I already referenced Near Death Experiences, in post 46, in my reply to Hazel's false claim that God is not personal, (and could have referenced much more empirical evidence to counter Hazel's overall claim that God does not care about each of us personally),
Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog
And while I've already referenced Near Death Experiences in my reply to Hazel's false claim that God is not personal, I can further reference Near Death Experience to support my claim that Christianity is true. All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian cultures, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability').
Near-Death Experiences in Thailand: Excerpt: The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of `going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. (Murphy 99) http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Near Death Experience Thailand Asia - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8M5J3zWG5g Near-Death Experiences in Thailand: Discussion of case histories By Todd Murphy, 1999: Excerpt: We would suggest that the near-constant comparisons with the most frequently reported types of NDEs tends to blind researchers to the features of NDEs which are absent in these NDEs. Tunnels are rare, if not absent. The panoramic Life Review appears to be absent. Instead, our collection shows people reviewing just a few karmically-significant incidents. Perhaps they symbolize behavioral tendencies, the results of which are then experienced as determinative of their rebirths. These incidents are read out to them from a book. There is no Being of Light in these Thai NDEs, although The Buddha does appear in a symbolic form, in case #6. Yama is present during this truncated Life Review, as is the Being of Light during Western life reviews, but Yama is anything but a being of light. In popular Thai depictions, he is shown as a wrathful being, and is most often remembered in Thai culture for his power to condemn one to hell. Some of the functions of Angels and guides are also filled by Yamatoots. They guide, lead tours of hell, and are even seen to grant requests made by the experient. per shaktitechnology (dot) com Near-Death Experiences of Hindus Pasricha and Stevenson's research Except: "Two persons caught me and took me with them. I felt tired after walking some distance; they started to drag me. My feet became useless. There was a man sitting up. He looked dreadful and was all black. He was not wearing any clothes. He said in a rage [to the attendants who had brought Vasudev] "I had asked you to bring Vasudev the gardener.,,, In reply to questions about details, Vasudev said that the "black man" had a club and used foul language. Vasudev identified him as Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. http://www.near-death.com/hindu.html Near-Death Experiences Among Survivors of the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake (Chinese) Excerpt: Our subjects reported NDE phemenological items not mentioned, or rarely mentioned in NDE's reported from other countries: sensations of the world being exterminated or ceasing to exist, a sense of weightlessness, a feeling of being pulled or squeezed, ambivalence about death, a feeling of being a different person, or a different kind of person and unusual scents. The predominant phemenological features in our series were feeling estranged from the body as if it belonged to someone else, unusually vivid thoughts, loss of emotions, unusual bodily sensations, life seeming like a dream, a feeling of dying,,, These are not the same phemenological features most commonly found by researchers in other countries. Greyson (1983) reported the most common phemenological feature of American NDE's to be a feeling of peace, joy, time stopping, experiencing an unearthly realm of existence, a feeling of cosmic unity, and a out of body experience. http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Zhi-ying/Zhi-ying-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1992-11-39-48.pdf The Japanese find death a depressing experience - From an item by Peter Hadfield in the New Scientist (Nov. 30th 1991) Excerpt: A study in Japan shows that even in death the Japanese have an original way of looking at things. Instead of seeing 'tunnels of light' or having 'out of body' experiences, near-dead patients in Japanese hospitals tend to see rather less romantic images, according to researchers at Kyorin University. According to a report in the Mainichi newspaper, a group of doctors from Kyorin has spent the past year documenting the near-death experiences of 17 patients. They had all been resuscitated from comas caused by heart attacks, strokes, asthma or drug poisoning. All had shown minimal signs of life during the coma. Yoshia Hata, who led the team, said that eight of the 17 recalled 'dreams', many featuring rivers or ponds. Five of those patients had dreams which involved fear, pain and suffering. One 50-year-old asthmatic man said he had seen himself wade into a reservoir and do a handstand in the shallows. 'Then I walked out of the water and took some deep breaths. In the dream, I was repeating this over and over.' Another patient, a 73-year-old woman with cardiac arrest, saw a cloud filled with dead people. 'It was a dark, gloomy day. I was chanting sutras. I believed they could be saved if they chanted sutras, so that is what I was telling them to do.' Most of the group said they had never heard of Near-Death Experiences before. http://www.pureinsight.org/node/4 Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in a Melanesian Society by Dorothy E. Counts: Excerpt: "When you were in your village you claimed to be an important man. But in this little place you have been eaten up by a knife, a dog, and a pig. And now fire will utterly destroy you." When the loudspeaker had finished, a fire blazed up and destroyed the remains. http://anthropology.uwaterloo.ca/WNB/NearDeath.html
Needless to say, these far eastern NDE's, based more or less on pantheism, and indeed ALL religions other than Judeo-Christianity, are drastically, horrifically, different from the 'typical' Judeo-Christian NDEs
The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html Life After Life - Raymond Moody - Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z56u4wMxNlg
Verse:
Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.…
bornagain77_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

New Age devotees, who today are unlikely to call themselves by this name, may not share a cohesive focus or an organizational center, but there are certainly consistent and underlying tenets of thought among them. The movement is syncretistic, in that it incorporates any number of spiritual and religious ideologies at one time, but it is consistently monistic and pantheistic. New Age seekers are informed by the belief that all of reality is essentially one. Thus, everything is divine, often including themselves; for if all is one, and there are no distinctions, then all is God. Or, in the words of Shirley Maclaine in Dancing in the Light, "I am God, because all energy is plugged in to the same source.... We are individualized reflections of the God source. God is us and we are God." Within its historical context, mysticism, like many other Christian movements, was an expression of faith in response to faithless times. In this regard, New Age seekers are not entirely different. Some New Age seeking is, I think, a legitimate reaction to the comfortable and shallow religious life we find within our society. But as New Age seekers long for the depth and freedom to believe in everything, the result is often contrary to what they seek. Their theology and spirituality are entirely segregated. The quest for illumination is a quest that can begin and end anywhere; thus, they find neither depth nor freedom. On the contrary, Julian of Norwich and other early Christian mystics sought an authentic experience of faith as a result of an already dynamic understanding of that faith. Their theology in and of itself is what led them to spirituality. For the Christian today, illumination still begins with Light itself, God unobscured, though incomprehensible, revealed through the glory of the Son. Starting with light and standing beside Christ, the Christian begins his or her journey as a seeker knowing there is one unique being who hears our prayers and cries and longings. There is a source for all illumination, and that God is light of the world. Those for whom New Age thought seems attractive would perhaps be helped to know there is a great tradition of seeking within Christianity, a tradition that began with the recognition that we could not fix what is wrong, and a tradition that continues because there is one who can, one who also longs to find and to be found. The human heart is ever-seeking, showing the longing of a soul to be known. In the words of Julian of Norwich, "We shall never cease wanting and longing until we possess [Christ] in fullness and joy... The more clearly the soul sees the Blessed Face by grace and love, the more it longs to see it in its fullness."(4) For the Christian seeker, communion with God is far more than self-discovery or personal freedom; it is theology that has become doxology, which in turn becomes life. —Jill Carattini (RZIM)PeterA_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Oh, StephenB, thank you. You have just made this conversation SO much fun for me. However, it's late and I'll respond tomorrow.William J Murray_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Hazel @41,
My thought, which I have shared a number of times, is that there is some kind of unknowable “oneness” that is “behind” (or the source of, or the foundation of) both mind and matter.
Until someone can show me "matter" at the fundamental level, I cannot hold "matter" to be anything more than an experiential construct. Logically, I agree that "oneness" or "unity" cannot be known or experienced in any way that means what we normally mean by the terms "known" or "experienced", which requires identity and non-unity/non-"oneness". But, I think it can be "known" and 'experienced" in ways that are unlike what we usually mean by those terms.
In the world we experience these are separate,
No, they are not. Experience is a mental phenomena. Whether or not it relates to a hypothetical, exterior world of matter is entirely irrelevant. Every experience you have is mental in nature, regardless of the supposed nature of what is supposedly causing it. Dreams can feel every bit as solid and real. So can a delusion.
but they arise from some source which is neither mind nor matter.
We can postulate all sorts of things that are "not mind" or that exist "outside of mind" or which "cause mind"; unfortunately, it can never be anything other than a theory brought forth in mind regarding experiences that occur in mind.
We have no idea how mind and matter interact within ourselves, but they do.
You might want to stop universalizing your own limitations and perspectives as if they apply to everyone.
It is true that the physical world at the quantum level is extremely different than our sensory experience of the physical world. Among other things, we suspect that the individual “parts” of the physical world we can experience when we study QM are connected/entangled into what might be a comprehensive whole throughout the physical world. However, this oneness of the physical world is “behind the quantum curtain”, inaccessible to us, and arises from the underlying oneness that is neither/more than mind and matter.
Again, you can theorize something other than mind exists in order to make the whole thing more mysterious or complicated, but if we go by occam's razor, there's no reason to add such things to one's metaphysics unless one simply has some ideological/psychological need. "Matter" and "an external world" and "something other than mind or matter" add absolutely nothing necessary to the table that "mind" doesn't already have covered.
Similarly, I think my human consciousness is probably as much unlike what mind “really is” as my experience of a tree is compared to the tree’s “real” nature as a thoroughly quantum phenomena. In particular, I think things like conceptual knowledge and willful, chosen actions are part of the nature of an individuated consciousness in a person, but I don’t think those qualities are likely to apply to the oneness that is the source of mind any more than “redness” would apply to the source of matter.
I think there's a far longer and deeper conversation to be had about this before we can even begin to sort this out, beginning with basic terms and definitions and concepts about "universal mind" vs "individual mind", consciousness (including being conscious, the subconscious, and the unconscious), what the "observer" is, what identity is and how it is achieved, what it means as compared to unity/oneness, etc.
So I think applying adjectives like omniscient, omnipotent and personal to the source of mind is wrong: those are anthropomorphisms.
Depends on how you're using them. In oneness, everything that is or can be known, everything that is or can exist, and everything that can be or is done exists within that oneness, which can be termed as that oneness being omniscient, omnipresent and and omnipotent. The personal nature of the oneness depends upon how it relates to and interacts with and through the individual.
I doubt that the source of mind thinks, knows, acts, or cares in ways that are at all analogous to the ways that we think, know, act, or care. Another way of saying this is that I think “personhood” is a quality that arises out of the underlying oneness in certain conditions, such as human beings, but that the underlying oneness which manifests as mind (as well as matter) is not like a person. Thus, I don’t think of this underlying oneness as having qualities traditionally associated with a divine being, nor as “God”.
That's fairly well stated (except for the unnecessary "source of mind" part). IMO, if by "traditionally" you mean in Judeo-Christian theologies. There are other traditional religions/spiritualities that actually define the nature of God pretty much like you did, so the term "God" or "Divine Being" would be completely appropriate even given your perspective under other traditional views.William J Murray_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

As a general summary, I submit that it is impossible to understand the concept of unity except in the context of diversity, and vice versa. Unity, properly understood, refers to the purpose for which diverse elements are brought together. On the flip side, diversity, properly understood, refers to the diverse elements that serve the unified purpose. If we don’t speak of one in the context of the other, then we are misusing the term. Unity without diversity yields rigid uniformity; diversity without unity yields mindless chaos: in both cases, disorderliness is the consequence. WJM
I don’t mean illusion in the sense that a truck would only be a visual image and wouldn’t be tangible ( better word for that may be “mirage”). I meant it in the sense of “a deceptive appearance or impression” in relation to it’s foundational qualities of being 99.9999999% empty space at the subatomic level, or just another uniform part of the quantum wave field from that perspective.
Yes, I agree that impressions and appearances can mislead. It would seem, though, that deception can cut both ways. In my judgment, it is for more realistic to define a truck by its purpose, design, and proper function than to understand it as a collection of molecules and atoms or as a manifestation of quantum events. I submit that knowing what the crankcase does is far more useful (and less likely to deceive) than knowing how many alpha particles are involved. We don’t find unity in the constituent (diverse) parts of a thing, but in the ways in which those parts are arranged (unified). That is when we begin to understand what the word "design" really means. I don’t think is a coincidence that the structure of an atom at the micro level resembles the structure of the solar system at the macro level.StephenB_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

ba77 or wjm? :-) And don't leave me out!hazel_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

BA77: “foggy and without rigorous empirical support” That’s a pretty mild description in this case. Perhaps a more accurate description would include the term “nonsense” or an equivalent?PeterA_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

WJM per 46 "I’m not arguing a case for pantheism. I don’t know how I can make that more clear." WJM per 30: "I don’t think I could be classified as a classical theist anymore. As Mr. Arrington noted, I’m better described as a Pantheist." Seems your metaphysical pragmatist position would have noted that. Frankly, I don't care what you believe. I have laid out the empirical evidence that strongly supports my Christian position and have basically been given nothing of substance from you that either counters my position or else puts your position on some type of 'real world' empirical footing. For instance, your appeal to quantum eraser (retrocausality) does not support pantheism (or whatever in blue blazes you call yourself today) but in reality supports classical theism and even supports Christian Theism. As does every other experiment in quantum mechanics:
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
Whatever,,,, I can see this is going nowhere.,,,, but I find your position foggy and without rigorous empirical support to put it as friendly and mildly as I can.bornagain77_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Bornagain @42 I'm not arguing a case for pantheism. I don't know how I can make that more clear. PeterA @ 44: I'm assuming your question was meant for me in response to my statement: "While these are necessary perceptual, ordered constructs for individuated experience, IF the nature of our existence is fundamentally unitary and whole (metaphorically, “beneath the illusion), there would be a limit as to how deep one could examine their experience and still get results that correspond to the idea that there are separable parts with intrinsic, distinct qualities." I didn't close my scare quotes around "beneath the illusion", but I think it was apparent that I wanted to set it apart from a common translation. I don't mean illusion in the sense that a truck would only be a visual image and wouldn't be tangible ( better word for that may be "mirage"). I meant it in the sense of "a deceptive appearance or impression" in relation to it's foundational qualities of being 99.9999999% empty space at the subatomic level, or just another uniform part of the quantum wave field from that perspective. Just because a truck is not fundamentally what one thinks it is in terms of materialism or physicalism in no way changes or invalidates what one experiences when they step in front of it. The experience is utterly valid and real; but how one conceptualizes how that experience is generated and what the components fundamentally are can be completely wrong. We've seen just such paradigm shifts occur in science - quantum physics is one example. Information theory (in a cosmological sense) is one going on right now. That we change what we think about about the nature of existence and experience doesn't invalidate the experience, but it can be used to better frame what that experience is/represents/means. And, unless it has practical applications, I have no use for it.William J Murray_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

“either or” ? “both and”? :)PeterA_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Oops! Didn’t expect my comments to provoke such a lengthy debate. :) When crossing a road, would you look out for oncoming cars, trucks, buses, or disregard them as illusions? :)PeterA_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

hazel claims that "So I think applying adjectives like omniscient, omnipotent and personal to the source of mind is wrong: those are anthropomorphisms. I doubt that the source of mind thinks, knows, acts, or cares in ways that are at all analogous to the ways that we think, know, act, or care" She admits that it is 'highly speculative philosophy', which means, in other words that she has no evidence, nor would I hold, sound logic to her claims. On the flip side of that self admitted evidence free philosophical posturing on her part, I will say that I do have empirical evidence for supporting my claims that God does indeed care for us, think about us, know about us (indeed created each of us), and that He is indeed Omniscient, Omnipotent and Eternal. Perhaps the easiest way to do this is to reference the testimonies of Near Death Experiences,, particularly of the life review portions of NDEs. Around the 20 minute mark of the following Near Death Experience documentary, the Life Review portion of the Near Death Experience is highlighted, with several testimonies relating how every word, thought, deed, and action, of a person's life (all the 'information' of a person's life) is gone over in the presence of God:
Near Death Experience Documentary – commonalities of the experience – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uDA4RgHolw
Moreover, I can appeal to special relativity and general relativity to match what the people in Near Death Experiences claimed happened to them, (about going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension (or to a lower hellish dimension)
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity (USA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
Verse:
Matthew 12:36-37 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
bornagain77_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

WJM, you ask "are you asking me how I would respond, under my current views, to my prior argument?" Sure, but given that your prior argument stated that,
"To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.” – William J. Murray
,,, given that your prior argument stated that, just don't use your 'primary' mind to argue your case for pantheism. It seems with pantheism you have gone from the clarity of classical Theism into a fog where it will be impossible for you to make clear distinctions.bornagain77_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

First, I will start with Barry’s caveat: what I offer is highly speculative. It takes into account modern quantum mechanics (QM), and is stimulated by it, but is about things that are beyond the reach of evidence. My thought, which I have shared a number of times, is that there is some kind of unknowable “oneness” that is “behind” (or the source of, or the foundation of) both mind and matter. In the world we experience these are separate, but they arise from some source which is neither mind nor matter. We have no idea how mind and matter interact within ourselves, but they do. It is true that the physical world at the quantum level is extremely different than our sensory experience of the physical world. Among other things, we suspect that the individual “parts” of the physical world we can experience when we study QM are connected/entangled into what might be a comprehensive whole throughout the physical world. However, this oneness of the physical world is “behind the quantum curtain”, inaccessible to us, and arises from the underlying oneness that is neither/more than mind and matter. Similarly, I think my human consciousness is probably as much unlike what mind “really is” as my experience of a tree is compared to the tree’s “real” nature as a thoroughly quantum phenomena. In particular, I think things like conceptual knowledge and willful, chosen actions are part of the nature of an individuated consciousness in a person, but I don’t think those qualities are likely to apply to the oneness that is the source of mind any more than “redness” would apply to the source of matter. So I think applying adjectives like omniscient, omnipotent and personal to the source of mind is wrong: those are anthropomorphisms. I doubt that the source of mind thinks, knows, acts, or cares in ways that are at all analogous to the ways that we think, know, act, or care. Another way of saying this is that I think “personhood” is a quality that arises out of the underlying oneness in certain conditions, such as human beings, but that the underlying oneness which manifests as mind (as well as matter) is not like a person. Thus, I don’t think of this underlying oneness as having qualities traditionally associated with a divine being, nor as “God”. /highly speculative philosophy>hazel_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

BA @39 I really don't see how how that is relevant, considering I've already stated that my views change and I've already said that if you don't find Pantheism to be an appropriate label for my views as I'm expressing now, we can dispense with it. Or, are you asking me how I would respond, under my current views, to my prior argument?William J Murray_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

William J Murray,
Pantheism identifies everything, collectively, with God, as a single unified being. For the pantheist, the universe itself is God. https://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/
Yet, from the Big Bang, to the falsification of 'realism', modern science has consistently shown us that the universe is contingent upon the Mind of God. Modern science certainly does not support the pantheistic notion that the universe itself IS God. WJM, you yourself, in the past, have argued very strongly against the pantheistic position.
"In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray
bornagain77_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

I like what wjm says about philosophical labels. I ran into this problem here one time when I spoke favorably of one idea associated with a particular label, and all of a sudden it seemed I was held accountable for that entire philosophical perspective. I've learned my lesson, and hereby declare that any philosophical perspectives I may express are part of "hazelism", and nothing else! :-)hazel_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

I'm not here to talk anyone out of their views or into mine, BA. At best, I hope to have my views and logic critically challenged in case there's something I missed, am in error about or a different perspective is presented that is a more pragmatic option. When Mr. Arrington suggested I was a pantheist, I looked it up and saw several definitions like this: "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God." That pretty much corresponded with my current views, although I did add the caveat that what I call "God" is interchangeable with "everything that exists" - including what exists that lies beyond what we refer to as our consensually experienced physical universe. However, if some aspect of my views is not compatible with pantheism according to you, some other definition or consensus here, we can just call what I believe "Murrayism". It doesn't make me any difference.William J Murray_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

WJM, while the usual cause and effect relationship of 'material' reality is definitely not applicable in quantum mechanics, in the 'measurement problem' conscious observation, and even free will itself, STILL necessarily takes precedent to whatever way we may choose to collapse and/or measure the wave function. Pantheism, as it is classically understood, simply cannot account for this. Moreover, I don't hold that we ourselves are collapsing the wave function per se. I hold that only the infinite Mind of God has the causal sufficiency to collapse the wave function. At best, we can be thought of as 'participating' with God, via our free will, in what type of reality is ultimately presented to us via wave collapse.
Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM
Also see Zeilinger: Kochen-Speckter Theorem
"The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
bornagain77_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

BA@32: I don't believe in a "material reality," my current view is that we all exist in what can best be described as "universal mind" that can provide the experience of consensual physicality. As the quantum eraser experiment shows, causality is not confined to a linear model of time, and therefore does not, experimentally, have to precede effects. IOW, we can actually change the history of a particle's path and characteristics depending upon our observational choices. In my view, we're not actually collapsing anything other than our own experiential framework by the observational choices we make (big subject). IMO, ultimately, time is just another dimensional axis. ALL locations described by all axis vectors eternally exist; in this framework set, we observe our "neighborhood" of location potentials as "wave" potentials, and when we pick a path (observationally) that "wave" is actualized in our experience as specific locations and characteristics. One might characterize this as constantly traveling through a neighborhood of associated dimensions. Also to be clear, I characterize myself as a pantheist only inasmuch as it fits my views. It's not like I adhere to any particular belief structure because I think it is objectively true. As I said, I'm more fundamentally a metaphysical pragmatist, meaning I adopt whatever beliefs and views that work best for me in my experience, and only as long as they work well for me.William J Murray_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Thanks DaveS, from your link we find that they used 'non-local' entanglement in a disingenuous manner to try claim 'a challenge to the fundamental counting principle of nature':
By the logic the paper uses to conclude that the pigeonhole principle doesn't apply to quantum states, the above paragraph proves the pigeonhole principle doesn't apply to classical states. Alternatively, having a clever indirect way of knowing if a single unknown parity check came up odd doesn't quite equate to "all the parities must have been odd and reality is a lie!". And the fact that overlapping parity checks, the ones that would actually confirm an impossible pigeonhole violating state, prevent the strategy from working is kind of a big hint. That's really all there is to it. The paper's strategy is clever, sure. But concluding the pigeonhole priciple was violated because you cleverly discarded all the cases where coins were caught in the same state? That's just wrong. And describing this as world-view shattering? That's downright absurd. Summary Measuring the parity of two qubits can entangle them. You can rotate the parity of that entanglement by rotating the individual qubits. This allows you to sometimes determine if a parity measurement was odd, by using the resulting entanglement to toggle the parity and watching for all-parities-agree states. The way this paper was framed and presented by the media, and especially by the authors, makes me sad. https://algassert.com/quantum/2016/01/30/quantum-pigeonhole.html
Thanks again DaveS, I will erase this paper from my notes.bornagain77_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Apparently this claimed violation of the PHP is quite controversial. Here's a non-technical analysis by a Google software engineer/physicist (Craig Gidney) of the original paper authored by Y. Aharonov et al. A couple of quotes by Gidney:
My personal opinion is that the paper's details are correct, but that the authors' framing of those details is off-the-wall ridiculous.

That's really all there is to it. The paper's strategy is clever, sure. But concluding the pigeonhole priciple was violated because you cleverly discarded all the cases where coins were caught in the same state? That's just wrong. And describing this as world-view shattering? That's downright absurd.
Gidney's blog post includes links to other physicists' tepid to skeptical reactions as well. For example, Stephen Parrott:
When I saw this a few weeks ago, I looked forward to an amusing puzzle, in view of previous experience with writings of some of the authors. I did not expect to find a convincing quantum violation of the classical pigeonhole principle, and after reading the paper’s short and simple example, I did not find one.
daveS_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

WJM, post 29 was not addressing your worldview. Post 29 was a supplemental note to the OP. Makes me wonder whether you even read my posts. You say you are a Pantheist, exactly how do you reconcile the dichotomy of consciousness necessarily preceding wave collapse? By necessity consciousness cannot be coterminous with what we perceive to be material reality but must precede it. That facet of the 'measurement problem' in quantum mechanics simply is irreconcilable with pantheism as it is commonly held.
The Measurement Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
Perhaps your worldview would be more in line with Panentheism rather than classical Pantheism:
Christianity and Panentheism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4
bornagain77_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Meant to say about my metaphysical pragmatism: All my views are adopted, evaluated and dismissed accordingly.William J Murray_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply