God of the gaps. Really ?

_{Otangelo

January 18, 2023

Intelligent Design}

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

The arguments for God’s existence are based on positive evidence and logical inferences. Not gaps of knowledge.

God of the gaps and incredulity, a justified refutation of ID arguments? https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1983-gaps-god-of-the-gaps-and-incredulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments

125 reasons to believe in God

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god

There is no evidence of Gods existence. Really?

1. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most likely, they were designed.

2. The universe is like a wind-up clock, winding down as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. That means, it had a beginning, therefore a cause.

3. Laws and rules of mathematics and physics are imprinted in the universe, which obeys them. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned to permit life. Hundreds, if not thousands of constants must be just right. Who/what finely adjusted these parameters to permit life?

4. Cells ARE literally factories. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines, production lines, computers, energy turbines, etc.

5. Cell factories have a codified description of themselves in digital form stored in genes and have the machinery to process that information through transcription and translation into an identical representation in analog 3D form, the physical ‘reality’ of that description.

6. DNA has the highest storage density known, stores the blueprint of life, has information encoding, transmission, and decoding, and translation machinery.

7. Humans are moral beings, and have conscious intelligent minds, able to communicate, use language, and objective logic. Morals, the mind, information, and logic, are non-material, non-physical entities.

Comments

Bornagain77 @155, Thanks for once again posting the link to the excellent video The Measurement Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE When you think about it, the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is absolutely the most egregious violation of parsimony imaginable! What Henry Stapp calls “metaphysical prejudice,” I’d call ideological poisoning, since it prevents theoretical physicists in this case from even considering the obvious conclusion—that consciousness, choice, observation and information are not emergent from nature, but rather they instantiate nature from mathematical probabilities! This conclusion, rather than rationalizing why deterministic materialism isn’t busted, actually follows the science rather than tirelessly invoking the twin gods of the gaps, MIGHTA and MUSTA. How refreshing! -QQuerius_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

@157
WRT consciousness, eliminative materialism, panpsychism, and emergentism form an amusing trio: “Doesn’t exist”, “Exists everywhere”, “**Poofs** into existence.”
I've given up trying to convince people for whom it's a simple article of faith that emergentism is magic, and who refuse to consider arguments otherwise.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

PM1@
.... panpsychism strikes me as a desperate attempt to avoid emergentism.
WRT consciousness, eliminative materialism, panpsychism, and emergentism form an amusing trio: "Doesn't exist", "Exists everywhere", "**Poofs** into existence."Origenes_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

@153
Eliminative materialism claims that consciousness does not exist, and panpsychism claims that consciousness is everywhere. Both attempts stem from desperation.
Just to note, eliminative materialists do not claim that consciousness doesn't exist. Paul Churchland, who picked up the ball of eliminative materialism and ran with it, wasn't even talking about consciousness at all: he was arguing that we should eliminate propositions in light of what neuroscience tells us about how the brain actually represents its environment. Even illusionists like Keith Frankish don't deny that consciousness is real -- they deny that introspection is a reliable guide to what consciousness is. That said, I find eliminative materialism a bit too eager to throw out the baby (phenomenology) with the bathwater (introspection), and panpsychism strikes me as a desperate attempt to avoid emergentism.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Querius, as you touched upon with the link to the "Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2)" video, quantum mechanics falsifies materialism. In fact, I personally think that atheists, if they want to remain self-respecting atheists, should stay as far away from quantum mechanics as possible. That Carroll would even try to invoke Quantum Mechanics to support his atheistic worldview is, in my view, laughable. One of the main problems for atheists in quantum mechanics is the 'measurement problem'. Which is to say that atheists have no causal 'mechanism' in order to explain the collapse of the wave-function.
The Measurement Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
In fact, in the atheistic Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, (MWI), (which is the 'delusional' interpretation of quantum mechanics which Sean Carroll himself champions),,,,
Sean Carroll Thinks We All Exist on Multiple Worlds - Sept. 10, 2019 https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/ Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God – Michael Egnor – August 2, 2017 Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic. The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less. Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,, What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/
,,, In fact, in the atheistic Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, (MWI), the reality of wave-function collapse is simply denied.
Many-worlds interpretation Excerpt: The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse.[2] – per wikipedia Quantum mechanics – Philosophical implications Excerpt: Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[52] This is a consequence of removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet. – per wikipedia
And in the atheist's denial of the reality of wave function collapse, and as Philip Ball notes, MWI “destroys any credible account of what an observer can possibly be.”
Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems – Philip Ball – October 18, 2018 Excerpt: It, (The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics), says that our unique experience as individuals is not simply a bit imperfect, a bit unreliable and fuzzy, but is a complete illusion. If we really pursue that idea, rather than pretending that it gives us quantum siblings, we find ourselves unable to say anything about anything that can be considered a meaningful truth. We are not just suspended in language; we have denied language any agency. The MWI — if taken seriously — is unthinkable. Its implications undermine a scientific description of the world far more seriously than do those of any of its rivals. The MWI tells you not to trust empiricism at all: Rather than imposing the observer on the scene, it destroys any credible account of what an observer can possibly be. Some Everettians insist that this is not a problem and that you should not be troubled by it. Perhaps you are not, but I am. https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-has-many-problems-20181018/
Luckily for our existence as observers, (and for sanity itself I might add), wave function collapse, (and directly contrary to what atheists hold in their MWI), is now experimentally shown to be a real effect. As the following article states, experiments have now demonstrated “the non-local, (i.e. beyond space and time), collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function”,, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”,, “the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected”,, and “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”,,
Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015 Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle. ,, Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,, According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,, ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,, This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,, “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman. “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points. “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.” “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.” http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html
So, regardless of how atheistic materialists may feel about it, wave function collapse is now shown to be a real effect and, as such, the MWI is now experimentally shown to a false interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is also interesting to note that the wave function, prior to collapse, is mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimension state that requires an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
Wave function Excerpt: As has been demonstrated, the set of all possible wave functions in some representation for a system constitute an in general infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. - per wikipedia “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics? You need an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to represent a wavefunction of any continuous observable (like position for example). https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149786/why-do-we-need-infinite-dimensional-hilbert-spaces-in-physics Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the superposition of the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, - per Stanford Encyclopedia
As is fairly obvious, the ‘infinite dimensional’ Hilbert space corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omnipresence. Whilst the infinite information required to describe the ‘infinite dimensional’ wave function prior to collapse corresponds to the Theistic attribute of omniscience.
Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God: Definition Excerpt: Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence Omnipotence means all-powerful. Monotheistic theologians regard God as having supreme power. This means God can do what he wants. It means he is not subject to physical limitations like man is. Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God’s power is infinite, or limitless. Omniscience means all-knowing. God is all all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future. Nothing takes him by surprise. His knowledge is total. He knows all that there is to know and all that can be known. Omnipresence means all-present. This term means that God is capable of being everywhere at the same time. It means his divine presence encompasses the whole of the universe. There is no location where he does not inhabit. This should not be confused with pantheism, which suggests that God is synonymous with the universe itself; instead, omnipresence indicates that God is distinct from the universe, but inhabits the entirety of it. He is everywhere at once. https://study.com/academy/lesson/omnipotent-omniscient-and-omnipresent-god-definition-lesson-quiz.html
In essence, the wave function is, basically, mathematically described as being one of “God’s thoughts’ prior to its collapse to its finite ‘material’ state. Which is rather stunning confirmation of the Christian’s contention, (via ‘Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology’), that the (infinite-dimensional and infinite information) mathematics that are found to describe this universe at its most basic level really are “God’s thoughts”.
Keep It Simple - Edward Feser - 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
So thus in conclusion, the atheist, (as is apparent in his appeal to MWI) is at a complete loss to coherently explain the collapse of the infinite dimensional-infinite information quantum wave, whereas the Christian Theist readily does have a 'causally sufficient' explanation for the 'non-local', (i.e. beyond space and time), collapse of the infinite dimensional-infinite information quantum wave. There is much more that could be said about quantum mechanics that is antithetical to atheistic metaphysics, but seeing as Carroll's 'delusional' MWI of quantum mechanics is now shown to be experimentally falsified, let's just leave it here for now since that falsification, all by itself, pretty much renders anything else Carroll might have to say about quantum mechanics, via his QET model, null and void.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

Thanks Querius, I can't do anything about Wall's article being paywalled, but as you alluded to, Wall does discuss his paper in more detail on his blog and in a Scientific American article,
Did the Universe Begin? II: Singularity Theorems http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-ii-singularity-theorems/ Did the Universe Begin? IV: Quantum Eternity Theorem http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/ Did the Universe Begin? VI: The Generalized Second Law http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-vi-the-generalized-second-law/ Time Machines Would Run Afoul of the Second Law of Thermodynamics Last year I got talking to theoretical physicist Aron Wall about the thermodynamics of quantum gravity. Now that's a deceptively beautiful phrase: in four words, you get three of the deepest areas in modern science. By George Musser on May 23, 2014 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/time-machines-would-run-afoul-of-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
Also see the following discussion where, at one point, Wall refers to Carroll's QET model as "idiosyncratic" to Carroll, which is to say that Carroll's model is not to be considered a generally accepted model.
A Review of Craig vs Carroll (debate) – 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gye1XE0kVJY I’m joined by Ronald Cram, Dr. Luke Barnes, and Dr. Aron Wall to review the William Lane Craig/Sean Carroll debate on God and cosmology that took place in 2014. We play and comment on select clips from the debate.
I tried to find a live link for the Johanan Raatz article. And from my limited search, I could not find a live link to it. Sorry.bornagain77_{January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

PM1@ 146 Thx. Thomas Nagel tends to panpsychism, he assumes that “conscious experience is a widespread phenomenon." In that context his question “What is it like to be a bat?” is rather unsurprising. What is it like to be a microbe? What is it like to be an electron? My answer: there is no one home, wrong question. Eliminative materialism claims that consciousness does not exist, and panpsychism claims that consciousness is everywhere. Both attempts stem from desperation.Origenes_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @131, Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, Aron Wall’s paper is paywalled, but I get the gist in the abstract. Some of Aron Wall’s other links and posts led me to this excellent video. Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE I liked the conclusion . . .
The very fundamental nature of matter implies consciousness is not a product of it but that the opposite is true. Physical matter is a product of consciousness, thus leading to an idealistic or dualistic approach to reality. The physical universe is a product of mind, and the very fundamental pieces of reality require an observer. The old view of materialism is inadequate in fitting the data. There are simply no hidden variables and no interpretation of quantum mechanics that cannot account for the data without being ad hoc. Reality is dependent on conscious observers, as Nobel Prize winner, Eugene Wigner, said well. A number of philosophical ideas may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics. Materialism is not.
However, what occurs to me is that, while unobserved reality consists of mathematical probabilities (wavefunctions), what determines whether wavefunctions collapse as electrons vs. photons or any other particle since there are no hidden variables? It seems like there need to be as many overlapping mathematical probability fields as different particles, one for each type. Maybe you have a link or reference. Thus, of necessity, there is a source for our existence. This reminds me of a hypothetical conversation between two quantum physicists. One of them tells the other, “There’s some good news and some bad news. The good news is that we now know that God really exists. The bad news is that it appears that God is a mathematician.” Incidentally, your last link in your comment is broken. P.S. I'm now reading this paper by Dr. Wall: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/ -QQuerius_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

A Review of Craig vs Carroll (debate) - 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gye1XE0kVJY I'm joined by Ronald Cram, Dr. Luke Barnes, and Dr. Aron Wall to review the William Lane Craig/Sean Carroll debate on God and cosmology that took place in 2014. We play and comment on select clips from the debate.bornagain77_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

CD I forgot to add that Lord knows I have had to do my share of apologizing on this forum in the past and no doubt I will have to do so in the future LOL Vividvividbleau_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Related re 141 Thanks!! Vividvividbleau_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

CD 142 Your apology speaks well for yourself. Apology accepted of course and much appreciated! Thank you for your response. “ I think these type of provocative stories are designed to support biased agendas rather than report the truth…” Agreed. Vividvividbleau_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Querius at 145, As soon as the appropriate equipment becomes available, it will be possible to create some sort of duplicate of a primitive - meaning, the fewest parts possible - cell. This will be 100% intelligent design. Of course, this sort of ability will automatically be turned into a money-making enterprise. Scientists will be instructed to build "designer cells" but this will not be possible unless cell duplication/reconstruction is fully understood. Then, we will see cells designed to carry out certain functions that are profitable. The more complex cells cannot be duplicated unless a full understanding of all the working parts occurs first. Beyond creating a simple cell duplicate, multicellular life will remain impossible to duplicate. I think some regard creating a simple working cell as 'job over.' Not so. Like all living cells, it needs to eat, metabolize the food and discard waste products. If the simple cell duplicate cannot do this then it will stop functioning.relatd_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

@144
What was he then? I am asking while I hold that a real philosopher should be perfectly clear about his position.
I agree that good philosophers should be as clear as possible about their positions. From what little of Sartre that I've read, I think he had a very distinct position that is not easily classified by any "-ism". As Chuckdarwin mentioned above, Sartre (like Heidegger) was much influenced by Edmund Husserl. Husserl is the founder of phenomenology. Phenomenology, as Husserl intended it, is a distinct method of philosophizing: instead of speculating about what really exists or whatever, phenomenologists describe how things appear to consciousness. Anything that can appear to consciousness -- physical things, dreams, memories, values, numbers, other people, even God (?) -- can be given a phenomenological description. My favorite work of phenomenology is a book written by another French philosopher, Maurice Merleau-Ponty. It's called Phenomenology of Perception, and it's about what is to perceive the world. Merleau-Ponty thinks that it's actually very difficult to really pay attention to how it is that we see and sense the world, because we're so caught up in expectations and assumptions about we think we see. Sartre's distinction between being and consciousness inspired Thomas Nagel's famous "What is like to be a bat?" In that essay, Nagel argues that physicalism is necessarily incomplete as a description of the world because there are phenomenological facts -- facts about subjective experience -- that aren't entailed by any set of physical facts, no matter how precise.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Relatd @143,
I don’t understand your problem with how God did anything. If modern scientists were there and observed Lazarus being placed in a tomb, starting to decay and then Jesus raising him from the dead, they would have zero idea of how it was done regardless of the equipment they brought with them. We can know what God actually did but the how will remain beyond our grasp. God can do things only God can do.
Nicely stated and I don’t disagree at all. There are three categories to consider: • There are things that we as humans both cannot understand, nor can we do. • There are other things that we CAN understand but cannot do. • And some things, we can both understand and do. These last two categories can be subjected to scientific inquiry. Our investigation reveals the brilliance of God’s genius to His glory and our admiration. As Dr. Tour stated, while we are currently clueless about how life originated (if we’re honest about it), he doesn’t at all preclude the possibility that in the future, we might find a way to create living things in a laboratory. However, HOW God originally accomplished such things is beyond our reach. -QQuerius_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

PM1@
Sartre was never a naturalist or physicality ...
What was he then? I am asking while I hold that a real philosopher should be perfectly clear about his position.
... it was never his view that we need to find room for consciousness in a physically determined world. Rather, he took an almost diametrically opposite view (in his earlier works): consciousness is not a thing of any kind whatsoever, it is not a kind of being. Consciousness is “nihilation”, negation of being.
Completely unhindered by the fundamental notion that from nothing nothing comes. Perfectly suitable for a poet or a novelist.
it’s really complicated
That's one way of putting it.Origenes_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Querius at 139, I don't understand your problem with how God did anything. If modern scientists were there and observed Lazarus being placed in a tomb, starting to decay and then Jesus raising him from the dead, they would have zero idea of how it was done regardless of the equipment they brought with them. We can know what God actually did but the how will remain beyond our grasp. God can do things only God can do.relatd_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Vivid I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that your interest was feigned. I’ve read the various accounts of Sartre’s “death bed conversion “ and can only conclude that we will never know. The sources are simply too unreliable. Let me put it this way, folks are still fighting over Darwin’s supposed death bed conversion. I think these type of provocative stories are designed to support biased agendas rather than report the truth….chuckdarwin_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Vb at 130, You, and others, may be interested in the following: https://www.amazon.com/Deathbed-Conversions-Finding-Faith-Finish/dp/161278612Xrelatd_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

PM1 I agree that Being and Nothingness can be tough-going and impossible to understand in parts. There’s a rumor that floats around the edge of existentialism circles that Sartre actually wrote Being and Nothingness partly to parody Heidegger’s Being and Time. Both had attended lectures by Husserl and I don’t think there was any love lost between them, particularly given Heidegger’s political sympathies. Apparently Heidegger had a Bergson-esque personality, arrogant, intolerant, self-important, impenetrable, that Sartre, who was very gregarious, down to earth and popular, found insufferable. I read that when Sartre died, it is estimated that 50 to 60,000 people followed his hearse to Montparnasse cemetery in Paris.chuckdarwin_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin @127,
And yet, that’s exactly what you are suggesting…….
Let me show you how that’s exactly NOT what I’m suggesting. The science referenced in my previous comments will certainly change over time. What I’m saying is that the Bible’s narratives are completely and perhaps surprisingly compatible with scientific inquiry. The Genesis account doesn’t demand a dismissive “God did it,” but it invites the provocative inference of design—there are things that God created to be discovered, and they will be amazing! • Certainly not as Carl Sagan objects, “God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it.” – Dr. Arroway in Contact. • Certainly not as Richard Dawkins objects, “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” Genesis 1:1-5 Let’s consider one interpretation of the first sentences in Genesis: • First something called the abyss came into existence. • The abyss started out in complete darkness and had fluid properties. • Then the abyss became filled with light. • There was a separation between light and dark, where dark could be something that absorbs light rather than being the absence of light. • A periodicity between light and dark established the initial, fundamental unit of time. When we clear our minds of preconceptions, it’s not far-fetched that pulsed light-and-dark transitions enable a basic measurement of time. This is compatible with science.
Note: Just as object of comparison such as a meter stick is needed to measure distance, periodicity is needed to define elapsed time. A light-dark cycle in Genesis defines a day and 1/24th of a day defines an hour. Currently, a solar day is defined as the period of time it takes for the Earth to rotate about its axis so that the Sun appears in the same position in the sky. Astronomers use the sidereal day, which is defined as the period of time it takes for the Earth to rotate about its axis so that the distant stars appear in the same position in the sky. A sidereal day on earth is about 4 minutes shorter than a solar day.
What the Biblical narrative doesn’t address is HOW God accomplished these things. Genesis has a pattern of things being created from out of other things (Adam out of dirt, Eve cloned from Adam) and a series of binary separations (which some software engineers recognize as information being is encoded). There are many additional clues and hints to the compatibility of the Biblical narrative to scientific inquiry. Here's another one: The First Recorded Scientific Experiment in History Jews and Christians have a rich legacy in scientific endeavors and discoveries. The first rigorous scientific experiment recorded in history is found in the writings of Daniel, a young Jewish captive of the Babylonian empire. Daniel and his friends did not want to eat the choice Babylonian food ordered for them by the king. As described in Daniel 1:11-16, Daniel's experiment in nutrition included the essential components of the scientific method: • A hypothesis • A set period of time • More than one experimental subject • Both an experimental group and a control group • Well-defined parameters • A change in a single variable • An independent evaluator • Observation and analysis—subjective in the absence of blood tests • A written record • A grant This text is astonishing considering that Daniel’s experiment was conducted about 2,600 years ago! As a result, Daniel and his friends received a grant—they were allowed to maintain their vegetarian diet. Again, the Bible isn't a science textbook on HOW God accomplished anything, but it encourages structured investigation. It's not at all like the twin Darwinian gods-of-the-gaps, MUSTA and MIGHTA! The primary focus of the Bible, is as a user manual for living life by means of ordinary stories, poetry, and principles, rather than complicated, mind-numbing theology or philosophy. Along the way, it's also compatible with and welcomes scientific inquiry. -QQuerius_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

PMI Two things come to mind when I think of Sartre. The eye on the billboard in the Great Gatsby and Ernest Hemingway. Vividvividbleau_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

@129
Of all the current cosmologists out there, Sean Carroll, in my mind, is at the top of the list in terms of top-drawer scientists seriously addressing issues of philosophy and theology. If you haven’t , you should listen to his debate with Christian apologist William Lane Craig (Google their names and it will pop right up). Carroll also has an incredible podcast called “Mindscape.” Again, simply Google it.
Thanks! I haven't looked for the debate yet, though I did find Carroll's after-action report, and through that, his paper "Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?", which I just finished reading.
I do count Sartre as one of my philosophical “heroes” despite many disagreements I have with him, particularly his alignment with Marxism. It may be generational. When I was in grad school at CU/Boulder, I had the privilege of attending some talks given by Hazel Barnes, the Classics prof who did the English translation of “Being and Nothingness.” She emphasized that Sartre and Camus’ literature must be viewed in the larger context of their involvement in the French resistance during WWII. Their “anti-authoritarianism” was not that of a disaffected and privileged college sophomore, it was a matter of France’s battle for survival. Both Sartre and Camus considered themselves first as authors and not philosophers. It’s no coincidence that they both received the Nobel in literature. What they, along with Nietzsche did do, is make philosophy accessible to non-experts through their novels, plays and essays. As far as I’m concerned, “Nausea” is arguably the greatest philosophical novel written.
I'm envious that you go to hear Barnes in person! She was a legend! I agree that they helped make philosophy accessible, and it was an important rejection of how philosophy had become "professionalized". At the same time, there's no getting around the fact that Nietzsche despised liberal democracy, even though he was not quite a fascist, either. The early Sartre is certainly fascinating, though I suspect he soon realized that a metaphysics ("phenomenological ontology", in his terms) in which each consciousness must regard itself as existing in a solipsistic universe cannot ground any ethics worth having. @134
A philosopher must be concerned about having a coherent worldview/metaphysics. For instance, Sarte has written a lot about being absolutely free, but as far as I can tell he shows no concern as to how this is possible in a physically determined world.
Sartre was never a naturalist or physicalist: it was never his view that we need to find room for consciousness in a physically determined world. Rather, he took an almost diametrically opposite view (in his earlier works): consciousness is not a thing of any kind whatsoever, it is not a kind of being. Consciousness is "nihilation", negation of being. That's why his first masterpiece is called Being and Nothingness: there is that which exists or is (being), and then there is that which nihilates (consciousness). I won't go into the whole argument as to how Sartre identifies consciousness with nihilation or non-being: it's really complicated, I don't fully understand it myself, and from what little of it I do understand, I don't think the argument is logically valid.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

ChuckyD, because Carroll, like yourself, is an atheist (or at least an 'anti-Christian'), you are apparently more than willing to overlook his 'less than forthright' debating tactics with Craig. Others, not so enamored with your and Carroll's nihilistic atheism, (and/or anti-Christianity), and who are concerned with the actual truth of the matter, consider such 'less than forthright' debating tactics on Carroll's part to be 'troubling' to say the least. Moreover, I referenced Wall's paper, "The Generalized Second Law implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem", to refute Carroll's claim that the "Quantum Eternity Theorem" disproves the BGV theorem. You characteristically ignored that paper and simply puffed Carroll up once again as if that 're-puffing up' of Carroll addressed the issue. FYI, It doesn't address the issue. Not even close! Moreover, since Wall's paper incorporates the second law, i.e. entropy, I consider Wall's theorem to be a more robust proof than the BGV theorem that the universe must have had a beginning in time. As Johanan Raatz noted in the reference I provided, "In fact not only is this law (entropy) inviolate, it is also how the flow of time is defined. Without entropy, there is no way to discern forwards and backwards in time." Moreover, entropy is also, by a very wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
“This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.” Roger Penrose - How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989) “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).” - Roger Penrose - The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?
Seeing that Penrose is a staunch agnostic, it is very telling that even he himself would feel compelled to use the word 'creator' when describing the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe. In the following video, Dr, Bruce Gordon touches upon just how enormous that number truly is. Dr. Gordon states, “you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with a zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is.”
“An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you've got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ” Dr Bruce Gordon - Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 - video – 1:50 minute mark - video https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110
Moreover, I can even reference the quantum Zeno effect to more clearly demonstrate that the Mind of God must be behind the staggering initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe. An old entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”
Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox - 2018 The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf
Likewise, the present day entry on wikipedia about the Quantum Zeno effect also provocatively states that "a system can't change while you are watching it"
Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: Sometimes this effect is interpreted as "a system can't change while you are watching it" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
Atheistic materialists have tried to get around the Quantum Zeno effect by postulating that interactions with the environment (i.e. decoherence) are sufficient to explain the Quantum Zeno effect. Yet, the following interaction-free measurement of the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrated that the presence of the Quantum Zeno effect can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015 Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150414/ncomms7811/full/ncomms7811.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20150415
In short, the quantum zeno effect, regardless of how atheistic materialists may feel about it, is experimentally shown to be a real effect that is not reducible to any materialistic explanation. And thus the original wikipedia statement of, “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay”, stands as being a true statement. Moreover, advances in quantum information theory have now shown that "entropy is (not) a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.” As the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,, quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,, Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
To repeat the last sentence from the quantum information paper, “we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.” That statement is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe, entropic actions which also happen to explain time itself, even care if I am consciously observing them, and/or describing them, unless ‘the experience of ‘the now’ (Henri Bergson) really is more foundational to reality than the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe is? To state the obvious, this finding of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system.” is very friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality. For instance Romans chapter 8: verses 20 and 21 itself states, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”
Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Thus in conclusion ChuckyD, you eagerly overlooked Carroll's 'less that forthright' debating tactics with Craig simply because he is an atheist, (and/or anti-Christian), such as yourself, but the Christian Theist is certainly under no obligation to overlook such a biased presentation of facts by Carroll. In fact, in the pursuit of truth, one is obligated to call such dishonesty on Carrol's part out and to instead follow the evidence where it leads, no matter where it leads. And when one follows the evidence where it leads, (and as entropy, the initial entropy of the universe, the quantum Zeno effect, and quantum information theory, all testify), one is led to the fairly strong inference that the Mind of God must be behind the initial entropy of the universe, and thus that the Mind of God must be behind the beginning of time.
2 Timothy 1:9 He has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.
bornagain77_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

CD No I wasn’t trying to start a fight I genuinely was curious what your thoughts were . If I was interested in starting a fight I would not have asked your thoughts, on it. More importantly was the story true., do you think he was senile., etc. I never heard that this happened.Have a great day. PS Just because I read something on the internet does not mean it’s accurate. You mentioned Sartre is your hero so I wanted to confirm it’s veracity. Won’t make that mistake again with you. Vividvividbleau_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin @
Both Sartre and Camus considered themselves first as authors and not philosophers.
I agree with both of them. A philosopher must be concerned about having a coherent worldview/metaphysics. For instance, Sarte has written a lot about being absolutely free, but as far as I can tell he shows no concern as to how this is possible in a physically determined world. In my view, such tendencies are perfectly acceptable for a writer, but not for a philosopher.Origenes_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

BA77/131 We’ve been down this road regarding Sean Carroll before. Your claims that Carroll was “dishonest” in the Craig debate are nonsense. Craig simply got schooled on cosmology, an area where he had no business venturing in the first place……chuckdarwin_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau/130 Of course you are trying to start a fight. I don’t think we will ever really know what happened on Sartre’s deathbed……chuckdarwin_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

ChuckyD, you puffed up Sean Carroll as being "at the top of the list in terms of top-drawer scientists seriously addressing issues of philosophy and theology." And also recommended that "you should listen to his debate with Christian apologist William Lane Craig". Yet, Sean Carrol was found to be, to put it mildly, less than forthright in his debate with Dr. Craig.
Sean Carroll’s Dishonesty: The Debate of 2014 - By Ronald Cram - April 15, 2020 Excerpt: (In his debate with William Lane Craig), Carroll was dishonest on two important points. Carroll claimed BGV theorem does not imply the universe had a beginning. Carroll claimed that quantum eternity theorem (QET) was better than BGV theorem.,,, Carroll,, knows that QET is not really a theorem at all and so cannot honestly be described as better than BGV theorem. Conclusion Uninformed viewers of the 2014 Carroll-Craig debate may think that Carroll won the debate. After all, Carroll is a cosmologist, he’s brilliant, confident and likable. He attacked and undermined BGV theorem, the science upon which Craig often bases his arguments. Carroll even enlisted the help of Alan Guth to undermine his own theorem. Then Carroll sprung the quantum eternity theorem on Craig, who was caught off-guard by the term since it had never appeared in the scientific literature. Informed viewers of the debate came away with a different view. Carroll’s denial that BGV theorem implies the universe/multiverse had an ultimate beginning was shocking and dishonest. Also, informed viewers saw it as rather underhanded for Carroll to claim “quantum eternity theorem” was a recognized theorem that implies the universe is eternal into the past (since the term had not even appeared in the scientific literature at that point). On the basis of the science, Craig was truthful with the audience and Carroll was not. Truth will win out as they say. Carroll’s (dishonest) behavior can only be seen as harmful to science. https://freethinkingministries.com/sean-carrolls-dishonesty-the-debate-of-2014/
Of further note, the Wall Theorem shows that even a quantum regime would have a beginning, and is therefore essentially to Quantum Physics what the BGV is to Classical Physics. You can read a post by Wall here where he explains why Carroll’s appeals to an eternal quantum regime are really unfounded and continue into the comments to see where he mentions his Theorem.
Did the Universe Begin? IV: Quantum Eternity Theorem - by Aron Wall - May 31, 2014 Excerpt: Of course, there is nothing wrong with Carroll putting forward his personal opinion in the debate—I can hardly complain about that after Craig put forward my opinions! But I think he could have been more clear that it was his personal opinion, and that, given more "conventional" beliefs about quantum gravity, the QET probably can't be applied in cosmological settings. http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/ You can find the article online at the journal webpage or on the arxiv. My article extends the Penrose singularity theorem to situations involving quantum fields, which can have negative energy densities. The main assumption is that the Generalized Second Law of thermodynamics holds for all causal horizons, for which there is significant theoretical evidence. There's also some other technical assumptions discussed in the article. I also have a section speculating that these assumptions might be applicable to full quantum gravity, but this can't be proven since nobody understands quantum gravity. I've also described aspects of the article in parts II and VI of this series, and also in a Scientific American blog post. - Aron Wall http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/#comment-2637787 The Generalized Second Law implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem - 2016 Aron C. Wall The generalized second law can be used to prove a singularity theorem, by generalizing the notion of a trapped surface to quantum situations. Like Penrose's original singularity theorem, it implies that spacetime is null geodesically incomplete inside black holes, and to the past of spatially infinite Friedmann--Robertson--Walker cosmologies. If space is finite instead, the generalized second law requires that there only be a finite amount of entropy producing processes in the past, unless there is a reversal of the arrow of time. In asymptotically flat spacetime, the generalized second law also rules out traversable wormholes, negative masses, and other forms of faster-than-light travel between asymptotic regions, as well as closed timelike curves. Furthermore it is impossible to form baby universes which eventually become independent of the mother universe, or to restart inflation. Since the semiclassical approximation is used only in regions with low curvature, it is argued that the results may hold in full quantum gravity. An introductory section describes the second law and its time-reverse, in ordinary and generalized thermodynamics, using either the fine-grained or the coarse-grained entropy. (The fine-grained version is used in all results except those relating to the arrow of time.) A proof of the coarse-grained ordinary second law is given. https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5513 About Aron Wall I am a Lecturer in Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Before that, I read Great Books at St. John's College (Santa Fe), got my physics Ph.D. from U Maryland, and did my postdocs at UC Santa Barbara, the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and Stanford.
Also of note:
The Universe Is Not Eternal - Johanan Raatz - March 1, 2014 Excerpt: we are not completely in the dark. One thing known for certain about quantum gravity is something called the holographic principle. Precisely put, the holographic principle tells us that the entropy of a region of space (measured in terms of information) is directly proportional to a quarter of its surface area. The volume of this region is then actually a hologram of this information on its surface. Except this tells us something interesting about the universe as well. Entropy, or the amount of disorder present, always increases with time. In fact not only is this law inviolate, it is also how the flow of time is defined. Without entropy, there is no way to discern forwards and backwards in time. But if the holographic principle links the universe’s entropy and its horizon area then going back in time, all of space-time eventually vanishes to nothing at zero entropy. Thus Carroll’s argument is unsound. We already have enough knowledge about what happens beyond the BVG theorem that Craig cites. The universe is not eternal but created. It is interesting to note that this also undermines claims made by atheists like Hawking and Krauss that the universe could have fluctuated into existence from nothing. Their argument rests on the assumption that there was a pre-existent zero-point field or ZPF. The only trouble is that the physics of a ZPF requires a space-time to exist in. No space-time means no zero-point field, and without a zero-point field, the universe can not spontaneously fluctuate into existence. http://blog.proof.directory/2014/03/01/universe-not-eternal/
bornagain77_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

CD Not looking for a fight here just wondering what your thoughts are on Sartre’s death bed conversion? “Turning to Sartre, Metaxas tells us that the French atheist came into the Church on his deathbed after confessing his sins to a priest. Now let’s be perfectly candid about something. Atheists hate these conversion stories. They really hate the deathbed variety. According to Metaxas, Simone de Beauvoir called her famous lover’s conversion “an act of senility.” Others see “last-breath” conversions as an act of cowardice.” Vividvividbleau_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply