If imaginary numbers are needed to describe reality, then isn’t materialism dead already?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 22, 2021

Intelligent Design, Mathematics

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Mathematics}

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

The researchers stressed, however, that their experiment only rules out theories that forgo imaginary numbers if the reigning conventions of quantum mechanics are correct. Most scientists are very confident that this is the case, but this is an important caveat nonetheless.
The result suggests that the possible ways we can describe the universe with math are actually much more constrained than we might have thought, Renou said.
Ben Turner, “Imaginary numbers could be needed to describe reality, new studies find” at Live Science (December 21, 2021)

Comments

Jerry: But mathematics is applied to a lot of contrived situations such as geometric figures which don’t exist in the real world. What about electronic circuits? Or population growth? Or quantum effects?JVL_{December 27, 2021
December
12
Dec
27
27
2021
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

it doesn’t make any difference
No it doesn’t. I said mathematics was a form of logic. Is logic invented? But mathematics is applied to a lot of contrived situations such as geometric figures which don’t exist in the real world. So people confuse the process with what the process is applied to. (The geometric figures approximate real entities but the actual figures are only in our imagination). Then there is really contrived situations that don’t exist such as frictionless surfaces and weightless elephants. And greater than 3 dimensional spaces. So it is a mixture of logic with processes on invented Imaginary situations that are very close to real situations. Infinite situations don’t exist, geometric figures don’t exist except in our minds. Thus, integrals and differentials don’t really exist but are extremely useful processes on imaginary objects. So yes, the distinction doesn’t make any difference. Aside: The Great Courses has all their courses on sale this week. Some very interesting courses on math are available for very low prices. My favorite
Great Thinkers, Great Theorems
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-thinkers-great-theorems The link I have is https://www.thegreatcourses.com/ There is a link to all their sale coursesjerry_{December 27, 2021
December
12
Dec
27
27
2021
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

So says a sideline smirker who thinks they know stuff they don’t.
Someone with a poor memory who likes to use ad hominems.jerry_{December 26, 2021
December
12
Dec
26
26
2021
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Jerry: Late entry into ironic comment of year!!!! Could be a winner. So says a sideline smirker who thinks they know stuff they don't. If you did study mathematics at university level then you should be able to tell us which university and who was your advisor. I seem to remember you bailed on this before. Not very convincing is it?JVL_{December 26, 2021
December
12
Dec
26
26
2021
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

since you don’t actually understand the real work.
Late entry into ironic comment of year!!!! Could be a winner.jerry_{December 26, 2021
December
12
Dec
26
26
2021
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Says the man who very foolishly, (and self-refutingly), believes his ‘beyond belief’ brain, and all his beliefs, are the result of an endless series of unguided Darwinian accidents. Typical that you should start off by misrepresenting the actual scientific notions. I guess you have to OR you simply can't remember what the responses to your statements like this have been. OR, even worse, you just continually stick your fingers in your ears and do your best to not consider anything that speaks against your beliefs. Which is it I wonder . .. Meanwhile, you have conveniently abandoned the mathematics. Probably a good move since you don't actually understand the real work.JVL_{December 26, 2021
December
12
Dec
26
26
2021
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

JVL to me: "If you don’t understand the math then you don’t know what is actual evidence and what isn’t." JVL to Jerry: "Afraid of looking foolish?" Says the man who very foolishly, (and self-refutingly), believes his 'beyond belief' brain, and all his beliefs, are the result of an endless series of unguided Darwinian accidents.
It’s Really Not Rocket Science - Granville Sewell - November 16, 2015 Excerpt: In a 2005 American Spectator article, Jay Homnick wrote: "It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.” It has never required a PhD in science to understand the key issue in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design. It is blindingly obvious to non-scientists like Jay Homnick that unintelligent forces alone cannot design hearts, eyes, ears, and brains. Darwinists dismiss the layman’s intuition that there is something terribly “unnatural” about evolution, and claim that while it may seem implausible to the uneducated, there is no scientific principle that prevents the basic, unintelligent, forces of physics alone from reorganizing the basic particles of physics into computers and science texts and jet airplanes. But there is such a principle, and the layman understands it perfectly well: unintelligent forces cannot do intelligent things.,,, - Granville Sewell is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso. He has written four books on numerical analysis,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/ “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” - J.B.S. Haldane [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (per wikipedia, With innovative use of statistics in biology, he (Haldane) was one of the founders of neo-Darwinism.)
bornagain77_{December 26, 2021
December
12
Dec
26
26
2021
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

Jerry: They don’t exist in the real world. Angles don’t exist. Neither do straight lines or any geometric figure such as circles, squares, or triangles. They are extremely useful for making approximations to solve real world problems. Thanks for showing your ignorance by avoiding answering the questions! Afraid of looking foolish?JVL_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Whatever JVL, via your stubborn refusal to even be semi-reasonable towards the evidence, or the math I'm not the one pontificating on a topic I don't actually understand!! Too funny. If you don't understand the math then you don't know what is actual evidence and what isn't. If I tried telling you that you're wrong about theology you'd tell me off quickly because you know a lot more about that than I do. But when it comes to something you actually don't grasp you're happy to tell everyone else they're wrong.JVL_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

I see, Jerry. You don't have a view about the question I asked because it doesn't make any difference.Viola Lee_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Many people here have some type of Platonic view of math as existing immaterially in some way
Math and people are both created by a Mind(I would guess that math was created first because probably was used to create the human body ) . People discover math like a CD player "discovers" a CD that is inserted except humans would have the choice to run it part/ full / or eject it .Both are created to fit together .Lieutenant Commander Data_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

What is your view?
What difference does it make? The answer to that is none. Math is a form of logic. But then again logic is a discipline of math. Math is extremely useful. No one is arguing that is not true. But concepts such as shapes, and non integers don't exist in the real world. The real world is finite. You were part of the discussion earlier this year on math.jerry_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Jerry writes, "Is there such a world? [An abstract world of immaterial pure mathematics] Is it just in one’s imagination? If that is what you mean?" Many people here have some type of Platonic view of math as existing immaterially in some way, independent of the physical world and of our mental understanding of it. Therefore, they believe math is discovered, not invented. When you ask "is it just in one's imagination" that seems to imply that math just exists in the minds of people, as something we have invented. What is your view?Viola Lee_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

It’s not irrelevant. It points out that your reasoning ability is limited.
So there is a limit in reasoning ability ? Bad news for atheists.Lieutenant Commander Data_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Jerry, does infinity exist in the abstract world of immaterial pure mathematics?
Is there such a world? Is it just in one's imagination? If that is what you mean? And very, very useful.
What is the tangent of 89 degrees? Of 89.5 degrees? Of 89.7 degrees? Of 89.9 degrees? Of 89.99 degrees? Of 89.999 degrees? Of 89.9999 degrees? Of 89.99999 degrees? Of 89.999999 degrees? Of 89.9999999 degrees? Of 89. 99999999 degrees? What does that tell you about the value of the tangent of 90 degrees?
They don't exist in the real world. Angles don't exist. Neither do straight lines or any geometric figure such as circles, squares, or triangles. They are extremely useful for making approximations to solve real world problems.jerry_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Whatever JVL, via your stubborn refusal to even be semi-reasonable towards the evidence, or the math, I am quite satisfied to let my comment stand as stated.bornagain77_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Jerry: Are we back to arguing what mathematics is and what actually exists. For one thing, infinity does not exist in the real world. No one can point to an example of it. What is the tangent of 89 degrees? Of 89.5 degrees? Of 89.7 degrees? Of 89.9 degrees? Of 89.99 degrees? Of 89.999 degrees? Of 89.9999 degrees? Of 89.99999 degrees? Of 89.999999 degrees? Of 89.9999999 degrees? Of 89. 99999999 degrees? What does that tell you about the value of the tangent of 90 degrees? What about the tangent of 91 degrees? Of 90.5 degrees? Of 90.2 degrees? Of 90.1 degrees? Of 90.01 degrees? Of 90.001 degrees? Of 90.0001 degrees? Of 90.00001 degrees? Of 90.000001 degrees? Of 90.0000001 degrees? What does all that tell you about the tangent of 90 degrees? This is all old stuff that mathematicians had to learn how to deal with centuries ago. Can you deal with it?JVL_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Jerry, does infinity exist in the abstract world of immaterial pure mathematics?Viola Lee_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Yet, the empirical evidence itself disagrees with JVL’s ‘non-belief’ that human brain is ‘beyond belief’ No, some people's interpretation of the empirical evidence disagrees with me. What do the laws of mathematics and physics actually say? I am very much aware of Euler and his beliefs, he was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, no question. Please indicate which laws of mathematics or physics Euler used in support of his theology. His famous equation linking some basic constants does not imply theology. That is an interpretation not a direct implication of the mathematics. Here's some homework for you: what area of mathematics did Euler discover/create with the Konigsberg Bridge problem? If you have to look it up you are not a mathematician. You will have to look it up so . . . guess what? Here's a follow up: what famous problem in that area of mathematics is named after an Irish mathematician? You will have to do some searching to figure that out as well which, guess what, tells me your background in mathematics. I'll give you a hint: this is the guy who worked with quaternions.JVL_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Are we back to arguing what mathematics is and what actually exists. For one thing, infinity does not exist in the real world. No one can point to an example of it. It’s a very useful concept but it exists only in one’s imagination. Without it much of modern technology would not exist but in reality there is no example of it. We had this discussion before.jerry_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Hmm, JVL clarifies that he does not believe the human brain to be 'beyond belief'. Yet, the empirical evidence itself disagrees with JVL's 'non-belief' that human brain is 'beyond belief'
The Human Brain Is 'Beyond Belief' by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * - 2017 Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,, Perfect Optimization The scientists found that at multiple hierarchical levels in the whole brain, nerve cell clusters (ganglion), and even at the individual cell level, the positioning of neural units achieved a goal that human engineers strive for but find difficult to achieve—the perfect minimizing of connection costs among all the system’s components.,,, Vast Computational Power Researchers discovered that a single synapse is like a computer’s microprocessor containing both memory-storage and information-processing features.,,, Just one synapse alone can contain about 1,000 molecular-scale microprocessor units acting in a quantum computing environment. An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. To put this in perspective, one of the researchers revealed that the study’s results showed a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.1,,, Phenomenal Processing Speed the processing speed of the brain had been greatly underrated. In a new research study, scientists found the brain is 10 times more active than previously believed.6,7,,, The large number of dendritic spikes also means the brain has more than 100 times the computational capabilities than was previously believed.,,, Petabyte-Level Memory Capacity Our new measurements of the brain’s memory capacity increase conservative estimates by a factor of 10 to at least a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the World Wide Web.9,,, Optimal Energy Efficiency Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.11 ,,, Multidimensional Processing It is as if the brain reacts to a stimulus by building then razing a tower of multi-dimensional blocks, starting with rods (1D), then planks (2D), then cubes (3D), and then more complex geometries with 4D, 5D, etc. The progression of activity through the brain resembles a multi-dimensional sandcastle that materializes out of the sand and then disintegrates.13 He also said: We found a world that we had never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.13,,, Biophoton Brain Communication Neurons contain many light-sensitive molecules such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores, and aromatic amino acids. Even the mitochondria machines that produce energy inside cells contain several different light-responsive molecules called chromophores. This research suggests that light channeled by filamentous cellular structures called microtubules plays an important role in helping to coordinate activities in different regions of the brain.,,, https://www.icr.org/article/10186
JVL also clarified that he did not think he was smarter than all ID advocates in math and science, just smarter than me. Well OK then, I never claimed to be particularly gifted in science or math. I just claim to be a Christian, i.e. a 'child' of the one who created, besides the universe, all of math and therefore all of 'science'.
KEEP IT SIMPLE - by Edward Feser - April 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
Moreover, I don't really blame JVL for ignoring anything I might personally say, but why does he ignore all the 'smarter in math' ID advocates that I cite. Like, for instance, Robert Marks and company?
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
I also wonder if JVL also thinks he is smarter In math than Leonhard Euler was?
(Leonhard) Euler is held to be one of the greatest mathematicians in history and the greatest of the 18th century. A statement attributed to Pierre-Simon Laplace expresses Euler's influence on mathematics: "Read Euler, read Euler, he is the master of us all."[4][5] Carl Friedrich Gauss remarked: "The study of Euler's works will remain the best school for the different fields of mathematics, and nothing else can replace it."[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler
And here is what Leonhard Euler had to say about atheists in his day:
A Defense of the (Divine) revelation against the objections of freethinkers (atheists), by Mr. (Leonhard) Euler Excerpt: "The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible." http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/docs/translations/E092trans.pdf
As JVL own actions on this thread make clear, "their (atheists) tendency towards stubbornness makes this (i.e. steering them away from their errors) completely impossible" is just as true today as it was when Euler first wrote those words more than two centuries ago. Of supplemental note:
God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e^pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e^pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e^pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician.",,, The discovery of this number gave mathematicians the same sense of delight and wonder that would come from the discovery that three broken pieces of pottery, each made in different countries, could be fitted together to make a perfect sphere. It seemed to argue that there was a plan where no plan should be.,,, Today, numbers from astronomy, biology, and theoretical mathematics point to a rational mind behind the universe.,,, The apostle John prepared the way for this conclusion when he used the word for logic, reason, and rationality—logos—to describe Christ at the beginning of his Gospel: "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God." When we think logically, which is the goal of mathematics, we are led to think of God. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3
bornagain77_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

As I recall ET thinks that there are fewer even integers than there are integers as a whole. I believe that disqualifies him from making judgments about who does and doesn't understand math. And JVL is right: math is math no matter what one's metaphysical beliefs are about where it comes from, how we as creatures came to be able to understand it, and why it fits the world so well in many circumstances. Those are additional points that go beyond the math itself: the devout theist and the confirmed materialistic atheist use exactly the same math.Viola Lee_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: In this thread JVL has repeatedly claimed to be much wiser in science and math than Intelligent Design advocates are, yet he holds, (against what mathematics and empirical evidence indicate I might add), that his ‘beyond belief’ brain is the result of the unguided materialistic processes of Darwinian evolution. I don't think it is beyond belief. You do. That's your view projected onto me and my views. And I didn't say I was wiser than all ID advocates. But I think I do understand mathematics better than you do. And I think that is obvious. The way you attempt to argue about mathematics and physics indicates to me that you don't practice either of those two disciplines; you observe them and pick out bits and pieces you think support your views. It doesn't work that way. Mathematics and physics are true not based on any philosophy, they can be proved (in the case of mathematics) or strongly demonstrated (in the case of physics) independent of any particular belief system. Instead of starting with a preconceived notion of reality you should start with what is clearly true: the mathematics and the established physics. If you begin there where do you get? You can quote mine all you like but you cannot disprove the mathematics or overthrow the core principles of physics. And if you start with those core principles what do you get? I think you don't get theology. You would disagree. But let's start our discussion accepting that which is known to be true. The core principles of physics do not imply a designer; that's your interpretation of the situation. But you cannot show how any of the basic physics law force design. Stick with the known stuff.JVL_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

ET: Nice projection. You don’t even understand infinity. And you can’t even formulate a coherent argument. Too funny. You think that you understand infinity better than decades, generations of mathematicians that have spent years thinking about it, arguing with their peers about it, working out the details. You got it right and all those people got it wrong. Even Kairosfocus disagrees with you. And I'm certain Dr Dembski does as well. And it is irrelevant that some people understand mathematics better than I do. It's not irrelevant. It points out that your reasoning ability is limited. You can't get your head around advanced mathematics. Millions of people can but you can't. What does that say about you? The point is that materialism cannot account for mathematics. And it has to because mathematics exists. If materialism cannot account for what exists then it is useless- or less than useless. But you are too stupid to even grasp that simple point. Materialism is a view separate from mathematics. That is clear. I don't give a toss if materialism or theology can explain mathematics. It doesn't matter to mathematics. The math is what it is. AND it's constant for those of faith and those without. It's true beyond and regardless of any kind of philosophy. Start with the mathematics and see what that tells you about reality. That's the place to start. With something unarguably true.JVL_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

In this thread JVL has repeatedly claimed to be much wiser in science and math than Intelligent Design advocates are, yet he holds, (against what mathematics and empirical evidence indicate I might add), that his 'beyond belief' brain is the result of the unguided materialistic processes of Darwinian evolution.
The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution - DONALD DeMARCO - 02/06/2015 Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates. Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies! A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another. Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers. The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution/
To illustrate just how grossly inadequate Darwinian processes are in explaining the brain, (or anything else in biology for that matter), I refer to 'quantum criticality' in biological molecules.,,, “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
To drive this point home, this follow up 2018 article stated that “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)
Moreover, the irony in JVL claiming, on the one hand, that he so much smarter in science and math than ID advocates are, and yet, on the other hand, claiming that his own 'beyond belief' brain is the result of an endless series of serendipitous Darwinian accidents, is that it pretty much undermines any claim that he is making for his own superior intelligence, in that it undermines any claim that his own reasoning can be reliable, much less that his reasoning can possibly be true.
“For example, if you knew your computer was the result of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t use it or trust it for a moment!” - John Lennox “If Dawkins is right that we are the product of mindless unguided natural processes, then he has given us strong reason to doubt the reliability of human cognitive faculties and therefore inevitably to doubt the validity of any belief that they produce—including Dawkins’s own atheism.” - Plantinga https://melwild.wordpress.com/2017/11/02/what-atheism-cannot-explain/ Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/
Verse:
Romans 1:22-23 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
bornagain77_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

JVL:
You betray your mathematical ignorance all the time.
Nice projection. You don't even understand infinity. And you can't even formulate a coherent argument. Your ignorance of science is legendary. And it is irrelevant that some people understand mathematics better than I do. The point is that materialism cannot account for mathematics. And it has to because mathematics exists. If materialism cannot account for what exists then it is useless- or less than useless. But you are too stupid to even grasp that simple point.ET_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

ET: Can YOU? You NEVER support what you spew. Hypocrite. You betray your mathematical ignorance all the time. Your education and experience are greater than some but no where near what someone with a bachelor's degree has let alone a masters or Doctorate. Instead of being rude and insulting you should just acknowledge your inexperience. A few classes is only the beginning, the first few steps. And there's millions of people ahead of you on the path. To deny that is to blind yourself to the truth. Accept the truth. Or stay lost. It's your call.JVL_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

JVL:
People who don’t understand or use mathematics should not make up stuff about mathematics. Or, more charitably: can you prove that?
Can YOU? You NEVER support what you spew. Hypocrite.
No, because you cannot demonstrate or prove that it does.
Materialism cannot account for mathematics
No, it does not.
Of course it does. See, you don't know anything about science. Yes, I have worked on all of that during my school years. I never needed any of it in my professional life. But YOU are totally ignorant of science. You can't even think beyond your own arse.ET_{December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it That's it? That's your entire rebuttal? Too funny. And typical of people who don't understand quantum mechanics: you think 'observed' implies consciousness. It doesn't. Observation means any kind of measurement or recording. It's obvious since human beings do not have the physical ability to 'observe' quantum effects without the aid of machines. It's the machines that are doing the observing. What the paper means is that when we 'observe' some situation or effect the way we observe it dictates what we can and can not 'see'. And, you choose NOT to quote the last paragraph:
However, Alain Aspect, a physicist who performed the first Bell-type experiment in the 1980s, thinks the team’s philosophical conclusions are subjective. “There are other types of non-local models that are not addressed by either Leggett’s inequalities or the experiment,” he said. “But I rather share the view that such debates, and accompanying experiments such as those by [the Austrian team], allow us to look deeper into the mysteries of quantum mechanics.”
Stop quote mining. You are going to get caught out over and over again. It just makes you look foolish and manipulative. Faulkner wasn’t remotely claiming for “all of physics and mathematics”, he was claiming for quantum mechanics in particular. Gee, I think I said the same thing. Of course this is going nowhere since you don't actually understand the math or physics involved. How can it go anywhere given that truth?JVL_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply