Intelligent Design Multiverse

Is the multiverse “increasingly popular” among physicists?

Spread the love

Or is a legacy medium just promoting it uncritically because no one who thinks pays attention to it anymore?

“It’s absolutely possible that there are multiple worlds where you made different decisions. We’re just obeying the laws of physics,” says Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology and the author of a new book on many worlds titled “Something Deeply Hidden.” Just how many versions of you might there be? “We don’t know whether the number of worlds is finite or infinite, but it’s certainly a very large number,” Carroll says. “There’s no way it’s, like, five.”

Carroll is aware that the many worlds interpretation sounds like something plucked from a science fiction movie. (It doesn’t help that he was an adviser on “Avengers: Endgame.”) And like a Hollywood blockbuster, the many worlds interpretation attracts both passionate fans and scathing critics.

Corey S. Powell, “The weirdest idea in quantum physics is catching on: There may be endless worlds with countless versions of you.” at NBC News

The multiverse makes physics so cool that it is indistinguishable from self-indulgence.

See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

33 Replies to “Is the multiverse “increasingly popular” among physicists?

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    Much like Darwin’s Theory, there’s no evidence to support the existence of a multiverse. It should be left to the philosophers and writers of science fiction. Science is about what is observed, not what is believed to exist without any supporting evidence. The Darwinists have a hard time understanding what science is.

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    ‘The multiverse makes physics so cool that it is indistinguishable from self-indulgence.’

    I’ve never before come across such a telling insight, News, that manages to verge on the picaresque at the same time. I don’t want to overdo the ‘soft soap’, but you have a wonderfully light touch with your irony at times. At others.. watch out.

  3. 3
    Fasteddious says:

    “We don’t know whether the number of worlds is finite or infinite, but it’s certainly a very large number.”
    Now there’s a statement of faith for you!

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    As to,,,

    Is The Multiverse “Increasingly Popular” Among Physicists?

    ,,, Wertheim notes, “when I was a physics student the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) was widely seen as a fringe concept. Today, it is becoming mainstream, in large part because the pesky problem of consciousness simply hasn’t gone away.,,,”

    How exactly did consciousness become a problem? by Margaret Wertheim – Dec. 1, 2015
    Excerpt: Heaven and Earth were two separate yet intertwined domains of human action. Medieval cosmology was thus inherently dualistic: the physical domain of the body had a parallel in the spiritual domain of the soul; and for medieval thinkers, the latter was the primary domain of the Real.,,,
    But perhaps most surprisingly, just when the ‘stream of consciousness’ was entering our lexicon, physicists began to realise that consciousness might after all be critical to their own descriptions of the world. With the advent of quantum mechanics they found that, in order to make sense of what their theories were saying about the subatomic world, they had to posit that the scientist-observer was actively involved in constructing reality.,,,
    Such a view appalled many physicists,,,
    Just this April, Nature Physics reported on a set of experiments showing a similar effect using helium atoms. Andrew Truscott, the Australian scientist who spearheaded the helium work, noted in Physics Today that ‘99.999 per cent of physicists would say that the measurement… brings the observable into reality’. In other words, human subjectivity is drawing forth the world.,,,
    Not all physicists are willing to go down this path, however, and there is indeed now a growing backlash against subjectivity.,,,
    when I was a physics student the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) was widely seen as a fringe concept. Today, it is becoming mainstream, in large part because the pesky problem of consciousness simply hasn’t gone away.,,,
    https://aeon.co/essays/how-and-why-exactly-did-consciousness-become-a-problem

    And consciousness being integral to quantum mechanics certainly has far more evidence going for it than many worlds does:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

    Moreover, besides the fact that “People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less” than believing in the insanity that is inherent in many worlds,

    Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God – Michael Egnor – August 2, 2017
    Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic.
    The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less.
    Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,,
    What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start.
    – per evolution news

    ,,, and besides the fact that consciousness has far more evidence going for it in quantum mechanics than many worlds does, there is also scientific evidence that can be brought against many worlds.

    For instance, in the many world’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, the reality of wave function collapse is denied:

    Quantum mechanics
    Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet:
    – per wikipedia

    The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse.
    per wikipedia

    Yet, wave function collapse has now been experimentally shown to be a real effect.

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

    Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements – 24 March 2015
    Abstract: A single quantum particle can be described by a wavefunction that spreads over arbitrarily large distances; however, it is never detected in two (or more) places. This strange phenomenon is explained in the quantum theory by what Einstein repudiated as ‘spooky action at a distance’: the instantaneous nonlocal collapse of the wavefunction to wherever the particle is detected. Here we demonstrate this single-particle spooky action, with no efficiency loophole, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories and experimentally testing whether the choice of measurement in one laboratory really causes a change in the local quantum state in the other laboratory. To this end, we use homodyne measurements with six different measurement settings and quantitatively verify Einstein’s spooky action by violating an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen-steering inequality by 0.042±0.006. Our experiment also verifies the entanglement of the split single photon even when one side is untrusted.
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2.....s7665.html

    Moreover, as is shown in the following video, although atheists have no scientific evidence for all the various extra dimensions, parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth to try to ‘explain away’ the beginning, fine-tuning, and quantum nature of the universe,,

    Multiverse Mania vs Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo

    Whereas atheists have no evidence for any of that, Christians, on the other hand, (as is shown in the following video), can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity, (which are, by far, our strongest theories in science), to support, number one, their belief that God upholds the universe in its continual existence, as well as to support, number 2, their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    And whereas Carroll denies that it is even possible to “cross over and visit one of the other realities ” so that we might know for certain that many worlds is not purely a figment of his imagination,,,

    Carroll also has a disappointing response for one of the most compelling questions of all: Could you cross over and visit one of the other realities and compare notes with an alternate-world version of yourself? “Once the other worlds come into existence, they go their own way,” Carroll says. “They don’t interact, they don’t influence each other in any form. Crossing over is like traveling faster than the speed of light. It’s not something that you can do.”
    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/weirdest-idea-quantum-physics-catching-there-may-be-endless-worlds-ncna1068706

    Whereas atheists ‘conveniently’ deny that it is ever possible to “cross over and visit one of the other realities ” so as know that they are not purely imaginary, on the other hand Christians can reference millions of Near Death Experiences where people have actually ‘crossed over’ to heaven. As Michael Egnor states, “Tens of millions of people have had such experiences.”

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test – Dr. Michael Egnor – October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
    The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,
    The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65301.html

    Moreover, far from Carroll’s imaginary many worlds for which he can provide no evidence, and which he ‘conveniently’ denies that it is even possible to ever ‘cross over’, Near Death Experiences, far from being imaginary, are found to be ‘even more real than real’:

    In the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were merely ‘false memories’ by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary.
    Simply put, they did not expect the results they got. To quote the headline of the article ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real”

    ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real,’ researcher says – Wed April 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “If you use this questionnaire … if the memory is real, it’s richer, and if the memory is recent, it’s richer,” he said.
    The coma scientists weren’t expecting what the tests revealed.
    “To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors,” Laureys reported.
    The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. “The difference was so vast,” he said with a sense of astonishment.
    Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich “as though it was yesterday,” Laureys said.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/.....periences/

    Thus heaven, far from being based on pure imagination as Carroll’s many worlds are, is found to be ‘even more real than real’ according to millions of people who have ‘crossed over’ in Near Death Experiences..

    And the fact that heaven is ‘even more real than real’, (given the fact that each of us are destined to die in and to this world), is certainly a VERY GOOD thing for each of us to personally know to be true.

    2 Corinthians 12
    I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to Paradise. The things he heard were too sacred for words, things that man is not permitted to tell.

  5. 5
    massam says:

    BA77,
    I strongly suggest that you should start commenting at TSZ. It would be interesting to see what happens over there.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Massam, and exactly why do you think TSZ is interesting? A large percentage of TSZ regulars are atheistic trolls that have been banned from UD in the past for trollish behavior.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    massam, TSZ is nothing but an evo echo chamber. They couldn’t support the claims of evolutionism if their lives depended on it. Most of the TSZ ilk were able to post here until they proved to be insipid trolls and losers.

  8. 8
    massam says:

    BA77,

    I didn’t say the TSZ itself was interesting. I said it would be interesting to see how people over there would respond to your objections. You raise really good points with your comments, and I would especially like to see what some users such as Rumraket, Omallegan, and Newton would say when presented with your Quantum arguments. (If my memory is correct, I’m pretty sure both RR and OM doubt anything Quantum).

  9. 9
    massam says:

    ET,

    If that is the case, can you or someone here familiar TSZ provide me some links to where IDists successfully defend their positions? I have found a few but I would appreciate some more.

    Also, regarding banning, they claim that they were banned because of their position, not trollish behavior. I do find it suspicious that some 20 people were banned in a day in 2012 (according to Pandas Thumb).

  10. 10
    massam says:

    ET,

    To be more precise, I mean any articles on UD where TSZ members cannot defend their arguments, or any links at TSZ that IDists successfully defend

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Massam as to, “I do find it suspicious that some 20 people were banned in a day in 2012 (according to Pandas Thumb).”

    Yes I remember, it had to do with the Atheistic trolls denying the validity of the Law of Noncontradiction (LNC).

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-is-barry-arringtonstifling-dissent-at-ud/

    To deny the validity of the Law of Noncontradiction is to undermine the ability to have a rational debate in the first place.

    If you think it is rational to deny the validity of the LNC, and still have a rational debate regarding facts, then TSZ is the place for you.

    I have much better things to do than debate people who have basically given up sanity itself.

    Bottom line, Mr. Arrington was very much in his rights to ban anyone who would sink so low as to deny the validity of the LNC.

    Of related note. It is easy to see why atheistic materialists would try to undermine logic and/or sanity itself. Logic (and mathematics) are immaterial and can not be grounded within the atheist’s materialistic worldview in the first place, i.e. logic can only be reasonably grounded within a Theistic worldview:

    Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018
    Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”? It seems a stretch. What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,
    For Clark, thoughts merely appear out of matter, which has no properties, by the laws of physics, for generating thought.,,,
    Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.
    The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

    Dr. Ed Feser – The Immateriality of the Intellect – video
    Excerpt:
    1: Formal thought processes can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content.
    However,
    2: Nothing material can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content.
    So,
    3: Formal thought processes are not material.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNi0j19ZSpo

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
    As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents.
    In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic
    J. Warner January 9, 2019
    Excerpt: All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. You’d have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic weren’t available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries. Here are three of the most important Laws of Logic you and I use every day:,,,
    As an atheist, I would have been the first to describe myself as rational. In fact, I saw myself as far more reasonable than many of the Christians I knew. But, I was basing my rationality on my ability to understand and employ the Laws of Logic. How could I account for these transcendent laws without the existence of a transcendent Law Giver?
    (1) The Objective Laws of Logic Exist
    We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place.
    The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws
    These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding logical, immaterial thought processes.
    The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent
    The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location.
    The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind
    The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans.
    (2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver
    All laws require law givers, including conceptual laws. We know this from our common experience in the world in which we live. The laws governing our society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of minds. But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern rational thought processes, and for this reason, they require the existence of a mind.
    (3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual Laws of Logic is God
    The lawgiver capable of producing the immaterial, transcendent laws preceding our existence must also be an immaterial, transcendent and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we commonly think of when we think of a Creator God.
    The Christian Worldview accounts for the existence of the transcendent Laws of Logic. If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth. The Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of the nature of God. God did not create these laws. They are a reflection of His rational thinking, and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself. You and I, as humans, have the ability to discover these laws because we have been created in the image of God, but we don’t create or invent the laws.
    https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/

    Verse and quotes:

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

    of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is the root word from which we derive our modern word logic
    http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

    What is the Logos?
    Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,,
    In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.”
    https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

    “Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.”
    Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White
    Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn’t Dead

  12. 12
    massam says:

    Ba77,
    Thank you for that insightful post. I’m currently reading on the thread now.

    As for my question, I am politely asking for someone to please show me some OPs here and at TSZ where IDists defend their claims. I would appreciate it greatly.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Of interesting sidenote: Since atheists often try to say that the law of noncontradiction is refuted by quantum mechanics, here is a recent article where Dr. Egnor straightens out the atheist’s confusion in regards to how the law of noncontradiction is applied to quantum mechanics:

    Introducing Aquinas’ Five Ways – Michael Egnor – October 3, 2019
    Excerpt: Introducing Aquinas’ Five Ways – Michael Egnor – October 3, 2019
    Excerpt: The cosmological arguments have two cornerstones: the law of non-contradiction, and the metaphysics of potency and act. Both principles are Aristotelian, developed in fullest form by St. Thomas Aquinas.
    Simple but Profound
    The law of non-contradiction is simple but profound. It is the principle that it is not possible for a thing to be and not be at the same time in the same respect. If my coffee cup is full, it cannot also be empty at the same time. If I am alive, I cannot be dead at the same time (for readers thinking “What about Schrödinger’s cat?”, I’ll address that later).
    Succinctly, A is not not-A, and not-A is not A.,,,
    Without the law of non-contradiction, nature is Alice-in-Wonderland,,,, Reality must make sense first, before I can draw conclusions from it.,,,
    ,,, If reality makes no sense (if A and not-A are compatible), we can apprehend nothing. Expressed another way, sense is the precondition of truth. We can’t know any truth unless the world makes sense.
    The second cornerstone of the cosmological arguments is Aristotle’s principle of potency and act.
    Aristotle observed that in contrast to non-being, there were two manifestations of being — potentiality and actuality.
    Potentiality (or potency) is an intermediate state between non-being and being. It is the capacity to receive form — the capacity to become a defined existing thing. It is not the thing itself, however, it is only capacity. Potency is not actual.
    Actuality (or act) is the state of actually being in a defined way — full reality.,,,
    Aquinas (following Aristotle) pointed out that the law of non-contradiction applies to the principle of potency and act in a fundamentally important way. A thing may not be in potency and in act in the same respect at the same time. Potency and act for the same thing are mutually exclusive at any moment in time. If something is possible, it is not yet actual, and if something is actual, it is no longer just possible. There is no middle state between potency and act and there is no state of simultaneous potency and act for the same thing.,,,
    And Now for Schrödinger’s Cat
    3) There is a common atheist objection to the Aristotelian principle of non-contradiction, using a famous paradox in quantum indeterminacy. The argument is that the principle of non-contradiction is disproven by the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, in which a cat in a box with poison that can be released by a radioactive emission can be simultaneously alive and dead — in a suspended state between life and death — until the box is opened and it is observed. This would seem to be a situation in which A is not-A simultaneously. Before observation, the cat is both dead and alive. This, however, is a misunderstanding of the metaphysics. In fact the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat is better understood in an Aristotelian framework. There is obviously no materialist mechanistic framework in which it is comprehensible. In the Aristotelian framework,, the cat is in potency for life and death, not in actuality for either. It is only on observation that the cat is alive or dead. That is, it is only with observation that potency is raised to act and the law of non-contradiction apples. Only the Aristotelian principle that potency is not actuality makes sense of the cat’s indeterminate state.,, Of all of the metaphysical perspectives on tap, the least acceptable is the materialist mechanical perspective — i.e. “nature is atoms in the void, and nothing more.” The most acceptable, in light of the indeterminacy inherent to the quantum state, is Aristotelian potency and act.,,,
    Quantum indeterminacy (exemplified by Schrödinger’s cat) is a striking example of Aristotelian potency, and collapse of the quantum waveform is an example of reduction of potency to act, and the law of non-contradiction is necessary to even talk about metaphysics or science meaningfully. It is materialist mechanical philosophy, not Aristotelian metaphysics, that is incompatible with quantum mechanics.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/introducing-aquinas-five-ways/

    That Aquinas would, via the power of his own reasoning, get the basics of quantum wave collapse correct centuries before quantum mechanics was even known about, is nothing short of stunning.

    And here is Dr. Egnor’s series on Aquinas:

    Aquinas’ First Way and a Stack of Books
    Michael Egnor – October 4, 2019
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/aquinas-first-way-and-a-stack-of-books/

    Irrefutable, Impeccable, Inescapable: Aquinas’ Second Way
    Michael Egnor – October 14, 2019
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/irrefutable-impeccable-inescapable-aquinas-second-way/

    Aquinas’ Third Way: An Analogy to Moonlight
    Michael Egnor – October 15, 2019
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/aquinas-third-way-and-the-moonlight/

    Aquinas’ Fourth Way: Light in a Mirror
    Michael Egnor – October 17, 2019
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/aquinas-fourth-way-light-in-a-mirror/

    Aquinas’ Fifth Way: The Proof from Specification
    Michael Egnor – October 22, 2019
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/aquinas-fifth-way-the-proof-from-specification/

  14. 14
    Ed George says:

    ET

    massam, TSZ is nothing but an evo echo chamber.

    Blogs that are echo chambers are characterized by a high level of banninations. To my knowledge, there has only ever been one person banned from TSZ. And that guy had a serious narcissistic personality disorder.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George, since you are so concerned that the ‘other side’ is not getting a fair hearing here on UD, perhaps you can also apply your sense of fairness to American universities in general which ruthlessly suppress the ‘other side’ of the debate from ever getting a fair hearing? Or does fairness only apply when you falsely imagine that your side is not getting a fair hearing on UD?

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,,
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405

    Slaughter of the Dissidents – Dr. Jerry Bergman – June 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0

    The Human Element in Science: Douglas Axe on The Eric Metaxas Show
    https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2017-07-17T16_56_35-07_00
    Eric Metaxas interviews Douglas Axe on The Eric Metaxas show. Axe,,, shares how he lost his research position in Cambridge over the evolution controversy.

    Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality.
    Scott Minnich
    Richard Sternberg
    Günter Bechly
    Eric Hedin
    Don McDonald
    David Coppedge
    Caroline Crocker
    Bryan Leonard
    Martin Gaskell
    Dean Kenyon
    Roger DeHart
    Granville Sewell
    https://freescience.today/stories/
    Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/

    At the beginning of the following video Dr. Behe tells of how the president of the National Academy of Sciences sought to ostracize him for supporting Intelligent Design:

    TEDxLehighU – Michael Behe – Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCP9UDFNHlo

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    These are not isolated cases of intimidation, but is a general trend in Academia:

    “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
    Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian:

    Anti-ID Philosopher: “Ad hominem” Arguments “Justified” When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents – Casey Luskin – June 4, 2012
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....60381.html

    While Ranting about “Quote Mining” in “Creationists Texts,” Paper in Scientific Journal Misquotes and Misrepresents Pro-ID Article – Casey Luskin – March 31, 2015
    Excerpt: These following two articles, (published by people with backgrounds in the field of rhetoric, writing in journals dedicated to studying science communication), discuss how evolutionists seek to marginalize dissenters with ridicule and incendiary rhetoric, rather than meeting us head-on with arguments and evidence.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94851.html

    Darwinists protesting too much (Over “Darwin’s Doubt) – Telling signs of a worldview in trouble – By Subby Szterszky | July 23, 2013
    Excerpt: “Their online followers echo the disrespect in even harsher tones; any rare voice of dissent in support of Meyer is promptly browbeaten into silence. The attitude is not unlike a bunch of insecure schoolyard bullies, closing ranks and reassuring each other by trading insults aimed at the uncool kid across the yard.”
    http://www.focusinsights.org/a.....g-too-much

    Moreover if intimidation and bullying does not work, Darwinists many times will resort to outright censorship:

    How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained – Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – El Paso) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRLSwVRdNes

    Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives
    Casey Luskin – August 20, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75541.html

    ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe – September 22, 2013
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-microbe/

    The Letter that Science Refused to Publish – November 8, 2013
    Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin’s Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest.
    See more at:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....78871.html

    “Evolution is the only ‘scientific theory’ that needs laws to protect it!”
    Author Unknown

    EG, since you are so concerned with fairness, I look forward to you becoming a champion of free speech for ID on university campuses.

    But then again, you really are not too concerned about fairness in these debates in the first place are you? If you were, you certainly would not be a Darwinist.

  17. 17
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    Ed George, since you are so concerned that the ‘other side’ is not getting a fair hearing here on UD,

    I’m not concerned at all. In the grand scheme of things, blogs are irrelevant. For me, they are simply an amusement that entertains me when I have free time.

  18. 18
    massam says:

    BA77,
    I saw this floating around and I would like to see your reply (or anyone else’s):
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430124107.htm
    I have read the NDE thread here and it is defended well, however this paper might be of concern to you. Thanks

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    “I’m not concerned (with fairness) at all.”

    Save of course when, in kairosfocus’s recent blog, so called progressive values were at stake. Then the objective moral values of equality and fairness suddenly became very important for you and your atheistic cohorts 🙂

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Ed George.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Massam and exactly what do you think that proves?

  21. 21
    massam says:

    BA77,

    “The sense of owning one’s body and being located somewhere in space is so fundamental that we usually take it for granted. To the brain, however, this is an enormously complex task that requires continuous integration of information from our different senses in order to maintain an accurate sense of where the body is located with respect to the external world. Studies in rats have shown that specific regions of the brain contain GPS-like ‘place cells’ that signal the rat’s position in the room — a discovery that was awarded the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. To date, however, it remains unknown how the human brain shapes our perceptual experience of being a body somewhere in space, and whether the regions that have been identified in rats are involved in this process.

    In a new study, published in the scientific journal Current Biology, the scientists created an out-of-body illusion in fifteen healthy participants placed inside a brain scanner. In the experiment, the participants wore head-mounted displays and viewed themselves and the brain scanner from another part of the room. From the new visual perspective, the participant observes the body of a stranger in the foreground while their physical body is visible in the background, protruding from the bore of the brain scanner. To elicit the illusion, the scientist touches the participant’s body with an object in synchrony with identical touches being delivered to the stranger’s body, in full view of the participant.

    “In a matter of seconds, the brain merges the sensation of touch and visual input from the new perspective, resulting in the illusion of owning the stranger’s body and being located in that body’s position in the room, outside the participant’s physical body,” says Arvid Guterstam, lead author of the present study.

    In the most important part of the study, the scientists used the out-of-body illusion to perceptually ‘teleport’ the participants between different places in the scanner room. They then employed pattern recognition techniques to analyze the brain activity and show that the perceived self-location can be decoded from activity patterns in specific areas in the temporal and parietal lobes. Furthermore, the scientists could demonstrate a systematic relationship between the information content in these patterns and the participants’ perceived vividness of the illusion of being located in a specific out-of-body position.

    “The sense of being a body located somewhere in space is essential for our interactions with the outside world and constitutes a fundamental aspect of human self-consciousness,” says Arvid Guterstam. “Our results are important because they represent the first characterization of the brain areas that are involved in shaping the perceptual experience of the bodily self in space.”

    One of the brain regions from which the participants’ perceived self-location could be decoded was the hippocampus — the structure in which the Nobel Prize awarded ‘place cells’ have been identified.

    “This finding is particularly interesting because it indicates that place cells are not only involved in navigation and memory encoding, but are also important for generating the conscious experience of one’s body in space,” says principal investigator Henrik Ehrsson, professor at the Department of Neuroscience.”

    So then the study shows that OBEs can be simulated in a lab, as the brain still functions and is conscious of what is happening. This goes against the notion that the soul is required for consciousness during an NDE/OBE.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Massam,

    This goes against the notion that the soul is required for consciousness during an NDE/OBE.

    give me a break.

    Massam, I could just as easily, and more rightly so I might add, cite that study as empirical proof for Plantinga’s philosophical argument, via the law of identity, that the mind and body are two separate things.

    Alvin Plantinga humorously uses a clever thought experiment where we have a ‘beetle body’, to highlight the fact, via the ‘law of identity’, that the mind cannot possibly be the same thing as the brain.

    Alvin Plantinga and the Modal Argument (for the existence of the mind/soul) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0

  23. 23
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    Save of course when, in kairosfocus’s recent blog, so called progressive values were at stake. Then the objective moral values of equality and fairness suddenly became very important for you and your atheistic cohorts

    Really? Would you like to compare the word count between KF and myself, or Hazel, or Seversky?

  24. 24
    massam says:

    BA77,
    Thank you for the response. I’m watching the vid right now. On the topic of the paper, however, can you give me a scientific response? I appreciate philosophy, but I would like to see some hard data against this study.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    ” I would like to see some hard data against this study.”

    You’re kidding right. They tricked a mind into believing it was another body,,,

    “In a matter of seconds, the brain merges the sensation of touch and visual input from the new perspective, resulting in the illusion of owning the stranger’s body and being located in that body’s position in the room, outside the participant’s physical body,”

    ,, and somehow, in your twisted philosophical interpretation of the experiment, you think that is somehow hard proof that the mind and the body are the same thing???? Well actually you were a bit more measured in your claim in that you only claimed that it ‘goes against the notion’.

    “This goes against the notion that the soul is required for consciousness during an NDE/OBE.”

    Hardly hard nose science to put it mildly.

    That experiment is nowhere close to proving what you falsely imagine that it does,

    As to actual ‘hard data’ for the soul, that would be the cutting edge of quantum biology,,, whence your reductive materialism is a complete loss to explain anything:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

  26. 26
    massam says:

    BA77,
    Two things for you:
    “This finding is particularly interesting because it indicates that place cells are not only involved in navigation and memory encoding, but are also important for generating the conscious experience of one’s body in space,” says principal investigator Henrik Ehrsson, professor at the Department of Neuroscience.”
    This study is showing that an OBE can show that consciousness is a material product. As it says right there, place cells are important for generating the conscious experience.
    #2: “In the most important part of the study, the scientists used the out-of-body illusion to perceptually ‘teleport’ the participants between different places in the scanner room. They then employed pattern recognition techniques to analyze the brain activity and show that the perceived self-location can be decoded from activity patterns in specific areas in the temporal and parietal lobes. Furthermore, the scientists could demonstrate a systematic relationship between the information content in these patterns and the participants’ perceived vividness of the illusion of being located in a specific out-of-body position.”

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    LOL, you (and the researchers) are on drugs

    place cells are important for generating the conscious experience.

    Golly gee whiz, the hard problem of consciousness is basically all but solved in this smoke and mirrors experiment. Yes folks you heard it right here on UD first. The hardest problem in science is solved. Sure they probably have a few loose ends to tidy up but basically it is time to wrap up shop and go home. 🙂

    The Hardest Problem in Science? October 28, 2011
    Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
    – David Barash – Professor of Psychology emeritus at the University of Washington.
    https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845

    Either that, or Massam and the researchers have no clue what they are actually dealing with when it comes to the hardest problem in science. i.e conscious experience. My bet, as in all the money I have bet, is on the later.

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

    As to brain imaging in particular:

    Kept in Mind – Juan Uriagereka – March 2019
    Review of: Language in Our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity
    by Angela Friederici
    Excerpt: Which part of our brain carries information forward in time? No one knows. For that matter, no one knows what a symbol is, or where symbolic interactions take place. The formal structures of linguistics and neurophysiology are disjoint, a point emphasized by Poeppel and David Embick in a widely cited study.2,,,
    No one has distinguished one thought from another by dissecting brains. Neuroimaging tells us only when some areas of the brain light up selectively. Brain wave frequencies may suggest that different kinds of thinking are occurring, but a suggestion is not an inference—even if there is a connection between certain areas of the brain and seeing, hearing, or processing words. Connections of this sort are not nothing, of course, but neither are they very much.,,,
    Some considerable distance remains between the observation that the brain is doing something and the claim that it is manipulating various linguistic representations. Friederici notes the lapse. “How information content is encoded and decoded,” she remarks, “in the sending and receiving brain areas is still an open issue—not only with respect to language, but also with respect to the neurophysiology of information processing in general.”5,,,
    Cognitive scientists cannot say how the mass or energy of the brain is related to the information it carries. Everyone expects that more activity in a given area means more information processing. No one has a clue whether it is more information or more articulated information, or more interconnected information, or whether, for that matter, the increased neuro-connectivity signifies something else entirely.,,,
    ,,, present-day observational technology does not seem capable of teasing apart these different components of syntax at work,,,,
    https://inference-review.com/article/kept-in-mind
    Juan Uriagereka is a linguist at the University of Maryland.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    If atheists really want to try to scientifically prove that consciousness can possibly be produced by the material brain, it might behoove them to first try to explain where the material brain came from in the first place. Or perhaps at least try to explain where a single protein of a single neuron of our ‘beyond belief’ brain came from. Atheistic materialists, i.e. Darwinists, simply have no clue where a single protein of a single neuron came from much less do they have any real clue where our ‘beyond belief’ material brain came from:

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules
    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 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

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: David Gelernter observed that amino acid sequences that correspond to functional proteins are remarkably rare among the “space” of all possible combinations of amino acid sequences of a given length. Protein scientists call this set of all possible amino acid sequences or combinations “amino acid sequence space” or “combinatorial sequence space.” Gelernter made reference to this concept in his review of Meyer and Berlinski’s books. He also referenced the careful experimental work by Douglas Axe who used a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis to assess the rarity of protein folds in sequence space while he was working at Cambridge University from 1990-2003. Axe showed that the ratio of sequences in sequence space that will produce protein folds to sequences that won’t is prohibitively and vanishingly small. Indeed, in an authoritative paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Axe estimated that ratio at 1 in 10^74. From that information about the rarity of protein folds in sequence space, Gelernter—like Axe, Meyer and Berlinski—has drawn the rational conclusion: finding a novel protein fold by a random search is implausible in the extreme.
    Not so, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start.
    This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic.
    Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space.
    Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream.
    https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    Human Brains Have Always Been Unique – June 22, 2017
    Excerpt: ‘To truly understand how the brain maintains our human intellect, we would need to know about the state of all 86 billion neurons and their 100 trillion interconnections, as well as the varying strengths with which they are connected, and the state of more than 1,000 proteins that exist at each connection point.’
    – Mark Maslin
    https://crev.info/2017/06/human-brains-always-unique/

    Imagine you would be the most genius inventor of all time – 2017
    Excerpt: – The human brain (86 billion neurons) at 10^8,342 bits exceeding the bit capacity of the entire universe at 10^120 bits upon which a maximum of 10^90 bits could have been operated on in the last 14 billion years. In order to put such numbers into perspective, realize that the number of elementary particles (protons, neutron, electrons) in the physical universe is only 10^80. I have serious doubts—based on these numbers—that any input fails to be encoded in some way; but with what computer would we track all of that? position this more simply in terms of the fact that the storage capacity on just one human brain is equivalent to 10^8,419 modern computers. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1-liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power
    It houses 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.
    http://reasonandscience.heaven.....f-all-time

    “The brain is not a supercomputer in which the neurons are transistors; rather it is as if each individual neuron is itself a computer, and the brain a vast community of microscopic computers. But even this model is probably too simplistic since the neuron processes data flexibly and on disparate levels, and is therefore far superior to any digital system. If I am right, the human brain may be a trillion times more capable than we imagine, and “artificial intelligence” a grandiose misnomer.”
    Brian Ford research biologist – 2009 – The Secret Power of a Single Cell

    NIH Director: Each Neuron is Different – July 11, 2015
    Excerpt: Things are astronomically more complicated in the brain, as its “wires” are not merely a conduit of electrical charge but an incredibly complex cell called a neuron. And each neuron does not merely attach to two distant connectors, but rather to hundreds or thousands of connectors. And each connection is nothing like a simple soldering attachment. In the brain they are called synapses and with thousands of molecular-scale switches researchers compare them to microprocessors.
    But on top of all that, each neuron is different. A hundred billion different, unique neurons, each having a different, unique function. Each forming a different, unique set of synapses. We have not even begun to understand all of this neural circuitry, let alone how to design or build anything like it. And yet (Darwinists) insist it all must have arisen spontaneously, as a result of random mutations. That is not science, that is absurdity.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....erent.html

    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

    If the preceding does not at least give you a hint that God designed your ‘beyond belief’ brain then nothing ever will.

    Psalms 139:13-16
    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    Blogs that are echo chambers are characterized by a high level of banninations.

    That doesn’t follow. And you could never make that case.

    To my knowledge, there has only ever been one person banned from TSZ.

    Your “knowledge” is very limited. But your serious and severe narcissistic personality disorder is on full display.

    In the grand scheme of things, blogs are irrelevant.

    Actually, in the grand scheme of things, YOU are irrelevant

    For me, they are simply an amusement that entertains me when I have free time.

    And for us, YOU are the amusement that entertains.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Why is the TSZ an evo echo chamber? Because the TSZ ilk just spew the party lines and NEVER even try to support the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. They just repeat, ie echo, evo talking points. They don’t even appear to understand what science entails.

  31. 31
    massam says:

    BA77,
    Thank you for that. I take back what I said. Is there a way I can contact you? I have a lot of questions that I feel you can answer.

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Ed:

    Would you like to compare the word count between KF and myself, or Hazel, or Seversky?

    I would love to compare the substance of the comments made by those 4.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, this caught my attention. Kindly compare “word count” vs substance as criteria for evaluating cogency here on http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....u2_bld_wvu Let us know your conclusions and substantial reasons. While we are at it the UD pro Darwin Essay challenge is still open, provide actual summary warrant for the evolutionary materialistic scheme from hydrogen to humans or at least from OOL to humans. Needless to say, that challenge has sat without adequate answer for these many years, and TSZ (a somewhat more respectable front for several anti-UD, anti-ID troll hangouts) is a capital illustration of why. And of course, it is obvious that your handle comes from a troll circle emanating from precisely these sites; where most recently you popped up again once stable-mate BB found himself to be promoting grooming in the case of abusive library reading times for children . . . I again challenge you to read Moira Greyland’s The Last Closet and give us an honest (oops, first duties of reason again) response. If we were to disregard inescapable first duties of reason, for final illustration, there would be nothing whatsoever to criticise about banning trolls for disruptive behaviour or for running what you disdain as echo chambers; save, to try to manipulate emotionally to attempt to get away with trollishness. See the absurdities in your attempt to dismiss first duties of right reason? Including, BTW, Cicero’s observations from the classical, pre-Christian consensus, that conscience is a law and prudence is a law. Where, I suspect that the likes of Plato and Cicero or Aquinas or even Jesus and Paul are a tad harder to trash rhetorically than the undersigned. KF

Leave a Reply