Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Intention As A Physical Law or Force

arroba Email

At TSZ, Elizabeth Liddle asks IDists what the “energy source” is for a designer to move matter in some specific manner?  One wonders what EL is talking about – what is the energy source for any human designer to generate intentional outcomes, like picking up tools and building a house?  The energy used is the same energy kind that is used as any physical process that occurs.  The difference between intentional outcomes and unintentional outcomes is not that a different kind of energy is used, but rather that the energy was used intentionally. Instead of the process being guided by what would be predicted by natural law or a stochastic process (unintentional), intentional activity is not plausibly derivable from those models, although such outcomes are possible in light of those models.  Intention can be reasonably views as a teleological physical law or force.

Intention is categorically required to describe the nature of certain observed phenomena.  Materialists insist that intention is reducible, in some way, to lawful/stochastic processes, but there is no evidence for this. It is simply a demand made to satisfy their ideology. But why?  We know intention exists; we know it produces observably unique phenomena not expected to come into existence without it. We know it can move the material world because it moves our bodies and lets us create all sorts of otherwise unique physical artifacts. So, why do materialists insist that intention is caused by natural laws/stochastic processes? Why do they resist classifying intention as a sort of physical law or process?

Physical laws and forces – such as gravity, magnetism and entropy – are not explanations of physical behaviors; they are models that describe that behavior.  To say that “gravity”causes the behavior of matter is to reify the description of the behavior as the cause.  Try explaining what causes gravity or entropy without referring to a description or model of the phenomena.  That’s what natural laws/forces are: they are models/descriptions of the behavior of matter/energy. When one says that gravity moves matter, they are actually saying “matter moves in this manner in certain conditions”. They are not explaining that movement.

So, we have physical laws that describe and can be used to predict clockwork-type outcomes; we call these “natural” laws. Some physical laws (or combinations thereof) describe and predict stochastic outcomes, which means there are many potential outcomes but certain sets of outcomes are expected; others are unlikely, and others are possible but not scientifically plausible, meaning something else must be added as a contributing cause of the outcome in order to plausibly, sufficiently describe it.  Asserting a thing as possible under natural law/stochastic processes is avoiding the scientific requirement of providing a plausible accounting.  Relying on bare chance is the same as relying on magic.

Thus, intention can be readily and reasonably seen as another kind of physical law or force, which is to say that it is a description of a certain kind of phenomena.  To say intention caused it to occur would be the same as saying that gravity caused it to occur – IOW, a description of the pattern/behavior/outcome of material interactions reified as its cause.  The law or force of intention, however, doesn’t predict clockwork outcomes; nor does it predict stochastic outcomes; it predicts, to some degree, outcomes in terms of teleological purpose.

Some materialists have asked what the interface is between intention (ID) and matter/energy; what is the interface between whatever causes gravity and the matter being acted on? We don’t know. What is the interface between whatever is causing entropy and the matter being acted on? We don’t know.  We don’t know how whatever ultimately causes gravitational or entropic behaviors “interfaces” with matter or affects it the way it does, we simply use those terms to describe the behavior we observe.  A physical law of intention, or an intentional force doesn’t necessarily implicate dualism any more than gravity or entropy necessarily implicate dualism, and not knowing – ultimately – how the effect is achieved or what ultimately is causing the effect doesn’t negate the valid use of the term “intention” for what it is – a description of a class of effect that is not otherwise plausibly characterized by reference to natural laws & forces and stochastic processes, but is properly characterized as intentional arrangements of matter and intentional uses of energy towards a teleological purpose.

Mung: Those are good examples of unproven assertions that they offer. They're arguments that assume materialism and which offer no evidence that materialism is true. As with the example you gave: God supposedly had to create an interface to create the interface he used to create the universe. And an interface before that ... Oh yeah, and what are God's physical dimensions? In a dream I walked into a brightly lit room. Where did the light source come from to light the room? Can my brain power fluorescent lights? Wirelessly without lightbulbs? Mozart composed entire works in his head note for note and carried them around for a while before writing them down. What was the interface that created orchestral music in his head? What physical force broadcast the music to him? Can his brain power an amplifier? Silver Asiatic
I've always thought of QM as the interface between matter and spirit (though not necessarily in that order...!) Am I wrong in that? Axel
Silver Asiatic:
It’s an assumption that there has to be an interface – given the meaning of the term. The idea is that there is are two physical “touch-points” in any and every possible process.
eigenstate recently tried the "and if it touches STEM it is by definition itself material" here at UD. And Elizabeth is attempting the same ploy now at TZS. Can't interact with the material absent a force. If it's a force it's by definition a material force. QED *scratches head* And this demonstrates what, precisely? Mung
Mung, It's as if materialists lack the basic imaginative ability to generate meaningful speculative frameworks of reality, and how reality works, that are anything more than cartoonish kludges. Interface problem? If god is omnipresent, that means god is present in the physical universe everywhere down to each quark; how can this possibly represent an "interface" problem? As if non=matter is "the same kind of thing" as matter, so it requires an "interface"? Does whatever causes gravity or the strong or weak nuclear forces require an "interface"? Did whatever cause the big bang require an "interface"? Does whatever causes entropy need an "interface"? It's like the limit of materialist thought is, "Okay, if the transcendent/spiritual is matter 2.0, how would it interact with matter 1.0? William J Murray
As I explained over at TSZ, a typical theist position is that God created the universe (space, time, energy, matter) and continually sustains it in its existence. The question is like asking what material force did/does God use to do this? "The interface problem" is like saying that before God could create the universe He had to create the interface to allow Him to interact with the as yet uncreated universe. Mung
JimFit at #18 Further confirmation that the human person is the centre of his own reality, his own world. Metaphysically, 'looking', rather than 'measuring' is the preferable verb. It doesn't conflict, either with my own view, that we each exist in our own little world, coordinated by God with everyone else's, from the time we leave the womb to the time we die. Axel
'So, why do they insist that the intentional must be produced by the unintentional? Why can’t intentionality just “be”, much like entropy simply “is”, or gravity simply “is”. Must gravity be caused by non-gravity? Or entropy by non-entropy?' Wow! An axiomatic blow to another of the lines they spin. So many of their myths prove to be double-edged swords, when you get down to it; their simple corollaries being devastating. I've seen two or three strikingly incisive insights on here lately. Mapou's one about Many Worlds springs to mind, also. One day, it would be nice to compile them, as Cornelius did the other day, and BA77 does in a more piece-meal, sporadic way, while (I think) he is building up a grand overview. Their imaginative discursions are not subject to any kind of scientific underpinnng, totally undisciplined; built on pure fancy, since it only takes one massive dereliction in their excogitations on a subject to make their whole conjecture, too often masquerading as a theory, so much risible piffle. As Pauli pointed out re their failure to make any kind of statistical analysis. Axel
Bob O
I think this was part of EL’s point: there has to be some interface,
It's an assumption that there has to be an interface - given the meaning of the term. The idea is that there is are two physical "touch-points" in any and every possible process. But what is the physical interface between thought and molecule? What is the physical nature of an 'epiphenomenon'? Yes, we "don't know" but it's also possible that "there is none" because one or more aspects is 'non-material' (the OP is not arguing that, I am).
but what is it? Admitting you don’t know is fine, but the raises the question – how do you find out?
Everyone faces the same question and should admit that we (humanity in general) does not know. One can assume that matter is "all there is", but as you say "it raises the question - how do you find out of that is true"? You certainly can't use instruments that can only measure physical/material things.
Does Design (like Magic) leave traces
Of course - evidence of design. But as the OP points out, the same human brain construct showed a variety of intentions/productivities without any evidence of physical change. Silver Asiatic
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness
The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment was confirmed with helium atoms this year. One more nail in the coffin of materialism. As the article says, "The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527103110.htm
as to:
Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
What is the connection between sound and light? It turns out that sound can control light.
Engineers make sound (with high enough frequency) to bend light on a computer chip - Nov 26, 2014 Excerpt: "What's remarkable is that at this high frequency, the wavelength of the sound is even shorter than the wavelength of light. This is achieved for the first time on a chip,",, They are investigating the interaction between single photons (the fundamental quantum unit of light) and single phonons (the fundamental quantum unit of sound). The researcher plan to use sound waves as the information carriers for quantum computing. http://phys.org/news/2014-11-loud-chip.html Sound waves precisely position nanowires - June 19. 2013 Excerpt: The smaller components become, the more difficult it is to create patterns in an economical and reproducible way, according to an interdisciplinary team of Penn State researchers who, using sound waves, can place nanowires in repeatable patterns for potential use in a variety of sensors, optoelectronics and nanoscale circuits. http://phys.org/news/2013-06-precisely-position-nanowires.html Photons and Phonons Excerpt: You see, the primary Planck-Law (E=hf) is metaphysical and independent on the inertia distribution of the solid states.,,, Both, photon and phonon carry massequivalent energy m=E/c2=hf/c2. The matter-light interaction so is rendered electromagnetically noninertial for the photon and becomes acoustically inertial for the phonons; both however subject to Bose-Einstein stochastic wave mechanics incorporative the Planck-Law.,, Where, how and why does E=hf correctly and experimentally verifiably describe the quantum mechanics of energy propagation?,,, http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id135.html Phonon Excerpt: In physics, a phonon,, represents an excited state in the quantum mechanical quantization of the modes of vibrations,, The name phonon,, translates as sound or voice because long-wavelength phonons give rise to sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon Evan Grant: Making sound visible through cymatics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsjV1gjBMbQ Amazing Resonance Experiment! - video (varying geometric patterns correlate to changing frequencies) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w Music of the sun recorded by scientists - June 2010 Excerpt: The sun has been the inspiration for hundreds of songs, but now scientists have discovered that the star at the centre of our solar system produces its own music. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7840201/Music-of-the-sun-recorded-by-scientists.html Big Bang Sound Recording 'Remix' Created By Physicist - 04/04/2013 Excerpt: While you might think that because space is a vacuum the explosion of a singularity wouldn't make any sound at all, Cramer told QMI that "the Big Bang is the exception to this, because the medium that pervaded the universe in the first 100,000 years or so was far more dense than the atmosphere of the Earth." In other words, matter was so dense in the early Universe that it carried sounds waves in much the same way air does on Earth. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/04/big-bang-sound-recording-john-cramer_n_3007975.html
Of related interest:
Do Physical Laws Make Things Happen? - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: While there are many complex and diverse movements of mind as we speak, it is fair to say very generally that we first have an idea, inchoate though it may be, and then we seek to capture and clothe this idea in words. Each word gains its full meaning — becomes the word it now is — through the way it is conjoined with other words under the influence of the originating idea. The word simply didn't exist as this particular word before — as a word with these nuances of meaning. So an antecedent whole (an idea) becomes immanent in and thereby transforms and constitutes its parts (words), making them what they are. In terms of active agency, it is less that the parts constitute the whole than the other way around. http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/st/mqual/ch03.htm#fn3.0
Some materialists have asked what the interface is between intention (ID) and matter/energy; what is the interface between whatever causes gravity and the matter being acted on? We don’t know. What is the interface between whatever is causing entropy and the matter being acted on? We don’t know.
I think this was part of EL's point: there has to be some interface, but what is it? Admitting you don't know is fine, but the raises the question - how do you find out? Does Design (like Magic) leave traces? Bob O'H
Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many, many, brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity(QED), with Gravity (General Relativity),,,
A Capella Science – Bohemian Gravity! – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013 Excerpt: there’s a large contingent of physicists who believe that string theory is the heroin of theoretical physics. It has absorbed not just millions of dollars, but hundreds if not thousands of grad student lifetimes without delivering what it promised–a unified theory of the universe and life. It is hard, in fact, to find a single contribution from string theory despite 25 years of intense effort by thousands of the very brightest and best minds our society can find. http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/
Reflecting on that extreme difficulty, I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:
Two very different ‘eternities’ revealed by modern physics: Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit
Verses and Music:
John 8:23-24 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins. Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Brooke Fraser – Hillsong: “Lord Of Lords” – music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlqDIfS4O3s
Supplemental notes on the Shroud of Turin:
Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 Test Proven False - video https://vimeo.com/126080645 Shroud Of Turin - Photographic Negative - 3D Hologram - The Lamb - video https://vimeo.com/122495080
In fact, it can, and has, been forcefully argued that the success of modern science ‘is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism':
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Yet, although God was presupposed to be behind the laws of nature at the founding of modern science, somehow God is, without us ever being told, or shown, exactly why, now somehow considered to be unscientific as a causal explanation for the mathematical laws of the universe. And as shown previously, quantum mechanics now screams for agent causality to be let back into the mathematical descriptions of the universe:
Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the 'observer' in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer (even a wave function for the universe itself). And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
And if one rightly allows agent causality, i.e. God, back into science so as to ‘breathe fire into the equations’, then a solution to the most profound enigma in modern physics readily pops out for us.
The God of the Mathematicians - Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
Namely, the resurrection of Christ from death provides a empirically backed reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity, (Quantum Electrodynamics), and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’:
The Center Of The Universe Is Life (Jesus) – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video http://vimeo.com/34084462
And as would be expected if Gravity was truly unified with Quantum Mechanics in the resurrection of Christ from death, Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tGkwrdg6cu5mH-RmlKxHv5KPMOL49qEU8MLGL6ojHU/edit A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation
Moreover, as would also be expected if General Relativity (Gravity), and Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED), were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:
The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.” Kevin Moran – optical engineer Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity ... all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency ... no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness ... all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#
Moreover, the denial of agent causality leads to insanity in our personal lives as well as to the epistemological failure of our ability to rationally practice science in the first place. This is since such a denial of agent causality denies the fact that we are rational agents, instead of mindless automatons, with the ability to chose the most truthful, rational, of options:
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/ Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain. (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
The denial of agent causality is simply unwarranted in science
A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - 2012 talk University of Wyoming J. Budziszewski http://veritas.org/talks/professors-journey-out-nihilism-why-i-am-not-atheist/?view=presenters&speaker_id=2231
Moreover, the Christian founders of modern science believed in agent causality, or more properly, Agent causality with a capital A:
“About the time that the Reformation was proclaiming Christ rather than the pope as the head of the Church, science was announcing that the sun rather than the earth was the center of our planetary system. A leader in this changing scientific perspective was the German scientist Johann Kepler.,,, Throughout his scientific work, Kepler never sought any glory for himself, but always sought to bring glory to God. At the end of his life his prayer was: I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.” Diana Severance PhD, Rice University, historian
In fact, on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared these very ‘unscientific’ thoughts:
‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’ “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” [2,2a&2b] – Johannes Kepler
Kepler was hardly alone in his belief of God being behind the mathematical laws of the universe. Galileo stated:
Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei
Newton stated:
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God.”(Newton 1687,Principia) NEWTON’S REJECTION OF THE “NEWTONIAN WORLD VIEW”: THE ROLE OF DIVINE WILL IN NEWTON’S NATURAL PHILOSOPHY Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science, while his private writings evidence a lifelong interest in the relationship between God and the world. Yet the typical picture of Newton as a paragon of Enlightenment deism, endorsing the idea of a remote divine clockmaker and the separation of science from religion, is badly mistaken. In fact Newton rejected both the clockwork metaphor itself and the cold mechanical universe upon which it is based. His conception of the world reflects rather a deep commitment to the constant activity of the divine will, unencumbered by the “rational” restrictions that Descartes and Leibniz placed on God, the very sorts of restrictions that later appealed to the deists of the 18th century. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm
Both Faraday and Maxwell presupposed God as a causal agent in their scientific discoveries:
The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell – Ian H. Hutchinson – 2014 Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God.” Faraday, as cited in Seeger 1983, 101
"The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! Light is found in our experiments with special relativity to be ‘eternal’. As well, a photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly. Moreover, the photon can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus 'non-locally', to just a '1 or 0' state, out of an infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! As well, a photon can be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe! Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints (eternal), as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon?" Verse:
Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Of related interest, simulating accelerating to the speed of light on a supercomputer reveals a higher dimension above this dimension. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).
Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
The following video gives us a tiny hint as to what it would be like to exist in a higher dimension
Dr Quantum - Flatland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4 2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
As well, It is also interesting to note that 'higher dimensional' mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss and Riemann – video https://vimeo.com/98188985
As mentioned previously, the quantum wave state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Whereas, General Relativity is by nature higher-dimensional, i.e. a 4-D expanding hypersphere:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. Philip Gibbs Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity – video https://vimeo.com/98189061
And also as mentioned previously, quantum mechanics tells us that material reality does not exist until a measurement is made by a conscious observer:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even a central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU
I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe.
Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
The following site is also very interesting to the topic of ‘centrality in the universe’;
The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features) http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
The preceding interactive graph and video points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality. As far as the exponential graph itself is concerned, 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle. Morever, mathematical equations specific enough to have the counting numbers in them, even the higher dimensional mathematics of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, are found to be incomplete. Thus the truthfulness that is found within mathematical equations cannot be derived from within the equations themselves but the truthfulness of the equations must reside in a cause outside of the equations. A cause that 'breathes fire into the equations' to give them a universe to describe:
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem – video https://vimeo.com/92387853
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201
Moreover, this 'infinite dimensional' photon, which is defined as, and can be encoded with, infinite information, can be reduced to quantum information: By using the ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum information channel’ of entanglement, such as they use in quantum computation, physicists have reduced material, via quantum teleportation, to quantum information. (of note: energy is completely reduced to quantum information, whereas matter is semi-completely reduced, with the caveat being that matter can be reduced to energy via e=mc2).
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original,,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,” http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862
In fact, in quantum physics, as opposed to classical physics, it is quantum information that is conserved, not energy-matter that is conserved:
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
Moreover, energy is 'eternal', and thus the cause that brought energy into being, and sustains energy in its continued existence, must be eternal also:
"I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest - 2005 Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video https://vimeo.com/93101738
Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 (Leggett's Inequality) Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
The fact that energy is not a self sufficient entity, but is dependent on a transcendent cause to explain its existence, is perhaps best illustrated by the double slit: Anton Zeilinger, whose group is arguably the best group of experimentalists in quantum physics today, ‘tries’ to explain the double slit experiment to Morgan Freeman:
Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0
Prof. Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video,,,
"The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable." Anton Zeilinger
If that was not enough to get his point across, at the 4:12 minute mark in this following video,,,
Prof Anton Zeilinger on the Double-slit Experiment - video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgt69p_prof-anton-zeilinger-shows-the-double-slit-experiment_tech
,,,Professor Zeilinger states,,,
"We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between." Anton Zeilinger
It is also very interesting to point out how these recent findings for quantum non-locality for photons, (and even for material particles), and the double slit itself, dovetails perfectly into some of the oldest philosophical arguments for the existence of God and offers empirical confirmation for those ancient philosophical arguments. For instance, quantum non locality provides empirical confirmation for the ancient first mover argument of Aquinas:
Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As Aquinas’ First Way 1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act. 2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually. 3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act. 4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature. 5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency. 6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series. 7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God. http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/aquinas-first-way.html
Or to put the first mover argument much more simply:
"The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html
The following video is also very helpful in understanding the "First Mover" argument:
The Laws of Nature (Have Never ‘Caused’ Anything) by C.S. Lewis – doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk
In establishing the fact that energy is not a self sufficient entity, but is dependent on a transcendent cause for its existence, it is also interesting to point out that a ‘uncollapsed’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information:
Wave function Excerpt "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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space
as to:
"Elizabeth Liddle asks IDists what the “energy source” is for a designer to move matter in some specific manner?"
And exactly where did the energy get its energy? Energy is not a self sufficient entity, but all energy-matter, space-time in the universe was brought into being at the big bang by a cause that is transcendent of energy-matter, space-time:
Evidence For The Big Bang - Michael Strauss - video https://vimeo.com/91775973 Evidence Supporting the Big Bang http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - closing statement of the following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=901f7oC_Pik&feature=player_detailpage#t=360s What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? (The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being) - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI
Moreover, all energy-matter, space-time in the universe, besides being brought into existence by a transcendent cause at the big bang, is still dependent on a transcendent, beyond energy-matter space-time, cause to explain its continued existence:
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with¬out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf 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 (beyond space and time) collapse of a (single) particle's wave function.,, http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, quantum experiment confirms Mind = blown. - FIONA MACDONALD - 1 JUN 2015 (Wheeler's Delayed Choice) Excerpt: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Isn't the difference between intention and physical forces is that the physical are measurable and predictable? Who can predict what a volitional or intentional force might do, or predict its effect with regularity? leodp
Axel, Acceptance of intentionality as a primary, or fundamental, force that arranges matter and utilizes energy in otherwise implausible configurations relieves us of having to explain the intentional in terms of the unintentional. One doesn't have to accept dualism, god or the supernatural to accept intentionality as an irreducible physical force. So, why do they insist that the intentional must be produced by the unintentional? Why can't intentionality just "be", much like entropy simply "is", or gravity simply "is". Must gravity be caused by non-gravity? Or entropy by non-entropy? Well, logically, yes, they must ... a thing cannot cause itself, but science doesn't concern itself with ultimate explanations. Why should materialists be concerned with what explains the existence of intention? They don't have to explain it - they can just use it as a model of certain material behaviors. Then, when they find what appears to be an intentional arrangement of matter, they can proceed as if the matter was intentionally arranged and investigate it as such instead of insisting only non-intentional models can be considered. But note, they do not insist on this in some cases - such as SETI. When SETI looks for an intentional signal, the materialists accept that endeavor as scientific. One wonders, why ridicule ID and defend SETI in their pursuit of looking for evidence of ID as if some configurations of matter/energy can indicate non-human, intelligent design? There is a line our objectors defend, but it has nothing to do with science or materialism per se. William J Murray
'So, why do materialists insist that intention is caused by natural laws/stochastic processes? Why do they resist classifying intention as a sort of physical law or process?' Alas, we know the answer to that all too well, don't we, WJM? But it's a fascinating point, when you frame it so neatly. Until these significant lacunae in their metaphysical understanding, upon which, nevertheless, they build so much of their phantasmagorical world-view, are formally identified and described, they remain rather inchoate in our minds, and as such remain a loss to the deist's and theist's apologetic armoury. Intentionality also bridges the time dimension, which they inevitably find awkward. Well, they would, if they could address the topic of creation and its continuous sustenance. Axel
kf, Agreed, energy is that which is capable of doing work, but how that capacity specifically proceeds and is utilized can be described according to various models. Lawful and chance models do not plausibly describe how that capacity to do work is actualized towards a designed goal; only a model of intentional behaviors can describe that pattern of work. It is not reducible to lawful/chance processes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that what causes intentional outcomes isn't material (whatever "material" means these days), it just means that EL's question about "where does the energy come from" is trivial. The energy comes from the same place it comes from in any other instance of energy use/deployment - it's embedded in the system. The material trajectories the intentional energy use produces, so to speak, are just different than natural law and stochastic models by themselves can plausibly accommodate. William J Murray
Mr Arrington, What you wrote goes to where I'm leading with this. There's no substantive reason, even under the auspice of defending materialism or naturalism, to deny framing intention as a physical force that describes certain behaviors of matter. We know it exists in some manner; we know it produces that which is entirely implausible otherwise. Why the fevered, self-contradictory need to subsume it under natural law and chance? Given that "materialism" and "naturalism" are such vague concepts now that can embrace practically anything, including quantum superpositions and the instantaneous transferrance of information via entanglement and an infinite multiverse - why hold the line at intentionality as a primary, fundamental force? IMO, there's something else going on here. I'll be getting to it soon enough. William J Murray
WJM, I beg us to confine energy to that which is capable of doing work, causing the forceful orderly motion of physical objects -- as that is relevant to functionally specific complex organisation. Then, we can properly distinguish motive, intent, purpose, goal etc. KF kairosfocus
When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o’clock. We must answer that it is MAGIC. It is not a ‘law,’ for we do not understand its general formula. It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen. It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet. We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception. All the terms used in the science books, ‘law,’ ‘necessity,’ ‘order,’ ‘tendency,’ and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, ‘charm,’ ‘spell,’ ‘enchantment.’ They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched.
Chesterton, Orthodoxy. Barry Arrington
We know intention exists
Eliminative materialists such as frequent commenter eigenstate say they know no such thing. Indeed, they affirmatively deny it. That eliminative materialists must affirm such obviously insane propositions is the best evidence against eliminative materialism. Barry Arrington

Leave a Reply