Mind Over Matter

_{Barry Arrington
January 1, 2013

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.

William J Murray

Comments

It is amazing that Schroedinger's Equation and Einstein's General Relativity equation are tied together, however loosely, in Euler's Identity, because General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been notoriously difficult for mathematicians (and physicists) to unify into a mathematical 'theory of everything'. The primary problem that is encountered in unifying the Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's General Relativity equation into a mathematical 'theory of everything' is what is termed the zero/infinity problem:
THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm
In the following video, the physicists voice their utter exasperation that infinity presents to ever coherently reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a 'theory of everything',,,
Science vs God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY
At about the 5:40 minute mark of the preceding video the physicist stated:
"To me what is so embarrassing about singularities is that we can't predict anything about what is going to come out of it"
Yet, apparently unbeknownst to the physicist in the preceding video, their is another singularity to be found in the universe besides the singularities and Blackholes and the singularity at the creation event of the Big Bang
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 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. http://www.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf
Of note: The following scientist offers a very interesting insight into this issue of 'reconciling' the 'conscious' universe of Quantum Mechanics with the space-time of General Relativity:
How the Power of Intention Alters Matter - Dr. William A. Tiller Excerpt: "Most people think that the matter is empty, but for internal self consistency of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, there is required to be the equivalent of 10 to 94 grams of mass energy, each gram being E=MC2 kind of energy. Now, that's a huge number, but what does it mean practically? Practically, if I can assume that the universe is flat, and more and more astronomical data is showing that it's pretty darn flat, if I can assume that, then if I take the volume or take the vacuum within a single hydrogen atom, that's about 10 to the minus 23 cubic centimeters. If I take that amount of vacuum and I take the latent energy in that, there is a trillion times more energy there than in all of the mass of all of the stars and all of the planets out to 20 billion light-years. That's big, that's big. And if consciousness allows you to control even a small fraction of that, creating a big bang is no problem." - Dr. William Tiller - has been a professor at Stanford U. in the Department of materials science & Engineering http://www.beyondtheordinary.net/williamtiller.shtml
Thus, if one allows God into math, as Godel indicated must ultimately be done to keep math from being 'incomplete', then there actually exists a very credible, even a empirically backed, reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a 'Theory of Everything'! notes:
The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462
As a footnote; Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the 'Theory of Everything', also had this to say:
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 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. Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Music:
Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection music video) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX
bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Quote:
"Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence." Stanford University mathematics professor - Dr. Keith Devlin
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 http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/ 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
The Fibonacci Number also shows God’s fingerprint on nature in a fairly beautiful fashion:
Nature by Numbers – The Fingerprint of God – video https://vimeo.com/9953368
bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

As well, Godel's incompleteness theorem, since it does indeed apply to ANY material system in the universe, and the material universe itself, is excellent logical proof for Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument, as well I hold it as excellent logical proof for Aquinas's First, Second, and Third way of his 'the five ways': notes:
Thomas Aquinas, “The Five Ways” Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.) Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.) Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.) http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml "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
And To comment on KF's observation for Euler's Identity. The following is the very 'different' equation that is found to govern the 'macro' structure of the universe:
0 = 1 + e ^(i*pi) — Euler's Identity
Believe it or not, the five most important numbers in mathematics are tied together, through the complex domain in Euler's number, And that points, ever so subtly but strongly, to a world of reality beyond the immediately physical.
God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e^pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e^pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e^pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician.",,, The discovery of this number gave mathematicians the same sense of delight and wonder that would come from the discovery that three broken pieces of pottery, each made in different countries, could be fitted together to make a perfect sphere. It seemed to argue that there was a plan where no plan should be.,,, Today, numbers from astronomy, biology, and theoretical mathematics point to a rational mind behind the universe.,,, The apostle John prepared the way for this conclusion when he used the word for logic, reason, and rationality—logos—to describe Christ at the beginning of his Gospel: "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God." When we think logically, which is the goal of mathematics, we are led to think of God. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3 (of note; Euler's Number is more properly called Euler's Identity in math circles.)
I find it extremely strange that the enigmatic Euler's identity, which was deduced centuries ago, would also finds striking correlation to how reality is actually found to be structured by modern science. In pi we have correlation to the 'sphere of the universe' as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned 'geometric flatness' within the 'sphere of the universe' that has now been found by modern science. In 'e' we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining growth that strongly correlates to the fact that 4-D space-time is 'expanding/growing equally' in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a 'imaginary number', which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler's identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates, points overwhelmingly to a transcendent Intelligence, with a capital I, which created this universe! It should also be noted that these mathematical constants, pi,e, and square root -1, were at first thought by many to be completely transcendent of any material basis, to find that these transcendent constants of Euler's identity in fact correspond to material reality in such a foundational way should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine.,, Further discussion in the equation e^pi*i + 1 = 0 ,,,we find that pi is required in;
General Relativity (Einstein’s Equation) https://docs.google.com/File?id=dc8z67wz_52c9nxpz2h_b
,,,and we also find that the square root of negative 1 is required in;
Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger’s Equations) https://docs.google.com/File?id=dc8z67wz_51ck47zff3_b
,,and we also find that e is required for;
e is required here in wave equations, in finding the distribution of prime numbers, in electrical theory, and is also found to be foundational to trigonometry.,,,this number, e, also appears in banking, because it is the maximum limit for growth of compound interest.
Some of the various uses and equations of 'e' are listed at the bottom of the following page:
Bible math http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/img0.gif
I don’t how much this will adversly effect the mathematical ‘tastes’ of some people of atheistic persuasion, but Dr. William Dembski has even found 1 and 0, which are also found in Euler’s identity, to be interesting:
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
Of note: I hold ‘growing large without measure’ to be a lesser quality infinity than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The reason why I hold it to be a ‘lesser quality infinity’ is stated in the following videos:
Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335 Can A “Beginning-less Universe” Exist? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8YN0fwo5J4
bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Graham2: Try out the well known result: 0 = 1 + e^i*pi Not the more or less simple derivation, the astonishing unity of mathematics -- the structural, logical features of reality and potential reality -- that is thereby revealed. Remember, we are looking at entire provinces of learning in mathematics, and in related fields brought together in one here. Where, e^jwt is the core of Fourier frequency domain analysis, and if we bring in the transient factor sigma, we are looking at the whole province of Laplace and Z transform dynamic systems behaviour. Where pi is rooted in the structural ratios of a circle, and leads out to the natural unit of angle measure. Where e is the result of using calculus to evaluate the area under 1/x from 1 to a point where the resulting area is 1, thus grounding a natural logarithm base. Thus also bringing in the whole province of things like the Weber Fechner law of log compressions in our sensing of reality. But also, the whole world of exponential growth. And, we must not forget what 0 and 1 signify, how we can start with the empty set {} and then construct a set containing it, then a set containing the two sets so far, then the three so far, and thus the natural numbers, then we can define operations on manipulations and from that we get equality, functions, extensions to the rationals, the reals and the complex numbers by defining a planar rotation vector that on double application gets us to the negation, i.e. we have a square root of negative unity. And in all of this astonishing complexity, as we work along, BANG, we drop out to an expression that brings it all together in one. The Euler expression above. I call that equation the personal signature of the unifying architect of the cosmos. (I would have inscribed it on the Scutum Fidei, viewed as God's coat of arms as his seal and signet, I think that much of this equation and what it is telling us.) Now, kindly climb down from the high horse of Alinskyite ridicule and mockery by insinuation and tell us just why you think that Mathematics does not point strongly to a unifying mind behind reality and reason, a mind who is Reason Himself and who invites us to contemplate the beauty of sheer reason through mathematics and then has the grace to bless us with making that mathematics into the magic chalice that unlocks the potentialities of the world for our benefit. KFkairosfocus_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

KN: Kauffman's speculations notwithstanding, the actual on the ground observation is that while there are ordering forces in the world (such as form crystals), there are also disordering and chance forces (thus 2nd law of thermo-d), leading to a situation where the net global trend is downhill. And, the other issue is that we are not here looking for order, but organisation and even contrivance. DNA, RNA and proteins, at the heart of cell based life, are not cases of spontaneous order, indeed the thermodynamics of the reactions are very hostile to forming such complex and endothermic molecules. Nope, these are information-rich, contrived molecules that are shaped by the need to form something specific to carry out a function in the cell. In the case of DNA and messenger RNA manufactured from it through an astonishing duplication procedure involving dozens of supporting molecules and an algorithmic process, then used in ribosomes to assemble proteins per a further algorithmic procedure, we are looking at algorithms, data structures, codes and final causes [purposes] far removed form the first steps to build the components required. Not to mention some serious chicken and egg loops. The protein synthesis process, to name just one key cell based feature, is irreducibly complex and coded information based, using molecular nano machines that are formed in the usual course through earlier cycles. There simply is no passive law or force pattern in nature that can credibly account for that on blind chance and mechanical necessity in some warm little pond or the like. There is only one thing that is empirically observed that can account for it, and that is intelligence acting by skill and knowledge to achieve purpose, through ART. Metrics like the Chi_500 CSI metric are only helping us see at what sort of threshold it becomes clear that blind forces and circumstances lose all credibility: about 500 - 1,000 bits. But that is easily surpassed by many more or less average sized proteins, not to mention by the assemblage required to get to the proteins. We have not even got to the whole living cell yet. In short, we are back at Plato's remarks on the self-moving soul that manifests life by that purposeful activity that can act as a first cause that triggers a cascade of material effects, second or second thousandth. Don't forget the point where Plato has his characters speak that soul (here embracing mind) in action is recognised as life. Plato's contention is of course that soul comes first and the material world is a product of soul, with its well ordered character pointing to the goodness of the soul behind it. While we may debate the ins and outs of his wider philosophy all day, that will not be pivotal, what is, is the issue that organisation towards purpose through art is empirically detectable and points to the action of the knowledgeable, skilled and purposeful mind as chief initiating cause behind the resulting contrivance. Even where a contrivance has the further feature Paley identified, of being able to replicate itself, and which von Neumann elaborated on the idea of a coded blueprint, reader and constructor under control of that blueprint. And all this also brings us back to the final turtle issue you have said you would get back to some weeks back now. KFkairosfocus_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

Of note: Qubits that never interact could exhibit past-future entanglement - July 30, 2012 Excerpt: Typically, for two particles to become entangled, they must first physically interact. Then when the particles are physically separated and still share the same quantum state, they are considered to be entangled. But in a new study, physicists have investigated a new twist on entanglement in which two qubits become entangled with each other even though they never physically interact.,, In the current study, the physicists have proposed an experiment based on circuit quantum electrodynamics (QED) that is fully within reach of current technologies. They describe a set-up that involves a pair of superconducting qubits, P and F, with qubit P connected to a quantum field vacuum by a transmission line. During the first time interval, which the scientists call the past, P interacts with the field. Then P is quickly decoupled from the field for the second time interval. Finally, F is coupled to the field for a time interval called the future. Even though P and F never interact with the field at the same time or with each other at all, F’s interactions with the field cause it to become entangled with P. The physicists call this correlation “past-future entanglement.” http://phys.org/news/2012-07-qubits-interact-past-future-entanglement.htmlbornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Graham2
I may be wrong, but I believe you once claimed that mathematical equations come from God. Is this correct ?
That is what I believe the evidence we now have overwhelmingly indicates. The technical term is to say that mathematics are shown to be 'incomplete', and I find that this 'incompleteness' of mathematics matches up extremely well with 'quantum non-locality' (beyond space and time causation): notes:
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821 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 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#
Please note this quote from the preceding article:
“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.”
and please note this:
Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the 'circle' of the universe in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U Planck satellite unveils the Universe -- now and then (w/ Video showing the mapping of the 'sphere' of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with the satellite) - 2010 http://phys.org/news197534140.html#nRlv
also of note
Is it possible to find the radius of an electron? The honest answer would be, nobody knows yet. The current knowledge is that the electron seems to be a 'point particle' and has refused to show any signs of internal structure in all measurements. We have an upper limit on the radius of the electron, set by experiment, but that's about it. By our current knowledge, it is an elementary particle with no internal structure, and thus no 'size'. http://www4.hcmut.edu.vn/~huynhqlinh/olympicvl/tailieu/physlink_askexpert/ae114.cfm.htm
Moreover:
"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 The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston (paper delivered at Hawking's 70th birthday party) Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning - April 2012 Excerpt: They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. "A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse," they say. The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal," say Mithani and Vilenkin. Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place). http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/
As well, Turing extended Godel's incompleteness theorem to the material world here:
Alan Turing & Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8516356
Whereas Gödel’s theorem says:
“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
and The Church-Turing thesis says:
a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness. *Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (This extends Godel's incompleteness theorem to elementary particles of the universe) (Of note: both quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation are, in reality, instantaneous operations of mathematical logic *Therefore the material universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
i.e. Any material particle you can draw a circle around cannot explain its own continued existence within space-time. Moreover, this incompleteness principle for material particles has now been born out on the empirical level: of interest: ,,,Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm Particle and Wave-Like Behavior of Light Measured Simultaneously (Nov. 1, 2012) Excerpt: Dr Peruzzo, Research Fellow at the Centre for Quantum Photonics, said: "The measurement apparatus detected strong nonlocality, which certified that the photon behaved simultaneously as a wave and a particle in our experiment. This represents a strong refutation of models in which the photon is either a wave or a particle."
i.e. Material particles cannot explain their own continued existence within space-time without referring to a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain their continued existence within space-time.bornagain77_{January 4, 2013
January
01
Jan
4
04
2013
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

Mung:
Matter lacks the potential to be the cause of mind?
That is a fabulous question and it deserves a straightforward response. I would say that, yes, matter lacks the potential to be the cause of mind. My reasoning would be as follows: Mind (like will) is an immaterial faculty of an immortal soul. I submit that temporal, corruptible matter cannot be transformed into an eternal, incorruptible soul. Put another way, matter cannot morph into spirit.StephenB_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 40: Mathematical equations can’t care about anything! Only infinite almighty God can care ... I may be wrong, but I believe you once claimed that mathematical equations come from God. Is this correct ?Graham2_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

In re: Stephen B @ 69:
On the other hand, nothing exists in the raw materials of matter that could possibly bring about the finished product of a human mind. One could perhaps argue that a material brain can emerge from a material cosmic base, but that would not suffice to explain human activity. Among other things, humans composed solely of matter cannot arrange or re-arrange other material elements. Only an immaterial, spiritual mind can lead matter’s path. A human brain, absent the spiritual component, would simply act as matter acts; it would follow the laws of matter. Spirit leads; matter follows.
If one insisted upon an Epicurean or Stoic conception of "matter", as little billiard-ball items bouncing around hither and yon, governed only by strict laws, then I would of course agree entirely. But that is no part of my conception of nature, as I would like to think I've made quite clear on numerous occasions since I began posting here. The same point applies to Box's quote from Haldane; if the Epicurean conception of matter were the only option for the committed naturalist, then Haldane's worries would be quite apt, and his retreat into Platonism about thought would be well-motivated. But since that conception is not only one available, I find Haldane's worries to be primarily a historical curiosity, and a warning against Epicureanism. But it is not something I'm particularly concerned about. I feel as though I'm repeating myself, and perhaps becoming quite boring in the process, but I shall say this one last time: it is perfectly clear to me that Epicurean metaphysics is fatally flawed. (Though I should also say at once that the anti-clerical motive which made that metaphysics so popular in the 17th centuries and onward is one with which I have the deepest sympathies.) Now, it has long seemed to me that among the deepest motivations for theological metaphysics is the conviction that life and mind could not arise from mere matter alone, and in some sense this is perfectly correct. But it puts the emphasis in the wrong place and gets things completely backward as a result. For theological metaphysics, the 'formula' is
matter + mind = life
But why, I enjoin you to ask yourselves, must we begin with a conception of matter to which something else must be added in order to produce life? The answer, I believe, is that the Epicureans were so adamant in following Democritus' anti-creationism that they failed to see that in the process they were eliminating life as a basic category. It might also be noted that Democritus' arguments for atomism are generated entirely by a priori considerations, in his attempt to reconcile Parmenides' conception of being with the appearances. Aristotle, who was more attentive to the world as directly experienced, did not follow their error. So the correct starting-point for my inquiry is to begin roughly where Aristotle began: by taking life seriously. When this is done, both "matter" and "mind" fall into place as abstractions from the sensuous reality of embodied experience, not as fundamental realities in themselves. Now, I do not think that life always existed in the universe; there are no indications that it existed before about 3.4 billion years ago. And of course the problem of abiogenesis is one of the biggest problems of contemporary science. But here too, the path to a correct solution begins with the thought that "matter" itself is proto-biological, or that it has an inherent tendency to organize itself into larger and more complicated structures -- a tendency that Kauffmann calls 'the fourth law of thermodynamics'. (I'm not sure I follow him in all particulars, but it seems to be on the right track.) It might be noted here that Kauffman is following up on the insights of Prigogine, Deleuze, Whitehead, and Bergson -- to put them in reverse chronological order. Point being, people have been working on this problem for over a hundred years. I've been reading their work. It's really quite fascinating.
If both the the yardstick and the thing being measured are thought to be changing, rationality is lost forever. That seems evident.
Certainty, yes; rationality, no.Kantian Naturalist_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
On the other hand, nothing exists in the raw materials of matter that could possibly bring about the finished product of a human mind.
Matter lacks the potential to be the cause of mind?Mung_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

KN
What is unique (so far as we know) about human beings is that, because of culture, language, and technology, we are not ‘locked into’ the metaphysics of our evolutionary inheritance, but rather our metaphysical categories themselves evolve over time, and this evolution goes ‘all the way up’ to include even our conception of what metaphysics is.
Among other things, metaphysics provides us with the rational yardstick by which we analyze everything else. This is especially true for the first principles of right reason: the unchanging principles by which we analyze the ever changing world. We do not reason our way TO them; we reason our way FROM them. Accordingly, the Laws of Identity and Causality are not moving targets. If both the the yardstick and the thing being measured are thought to be changing, rationality is lost forever. That seems evident.
What I add to that account is the insistence that not only is all metaphysics historical for us human beings, but also that the history of metaphysics reaches deep into our continuity with other living things.
We don't judge rational principles by examining history; we examine history by using rational principles.StephenB_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

J.B.S.Haldane: “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter". ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]”
Box_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

To say that matter came from mind is an easy enough proposition to defend. A self-existent, omnipotent, causeless, personal being, created matter from out of nothing and fashioned the laws that determine its activity. From a philosophical perspective, this is a perfectly straightforward and reasonable account of the beginning of time, space, and matter. It ties in nicely with science’s Big Bang cosmology and he Biblical report of God’s command, “Let there be light.” It makes perfect sense. The universe is the intended product of an immaterial, causeless cause. On the other hand, nothing exists in the raw materials of matter that could possibly bring about the finished product of a human mind. One could perhaps argue that a material brain can emerge from a material cosmic base, but that would not suffice to explain human activity. Among other things, humans composed solely of matter cannot arrange or re-arrange other material elements. Only an immaterial, spiritual mind can lead matter’s path. A human brain, absent the spiritual component, would simply act as matter acts; it would follow the laws of matter. Spirit leads; matter follows. If cosmic matter cannot produce humans with a spiritual faculty, can we then place our hopes in some eternal, pre-existing cosmic “law” that could generate a universe containing spiritual beings? No. By definition, an eternal law cannot make sudden decisions or perform creative acts such as creating time, space, and matter. As a slave to its own principle, a law can only do what it does. If it was flexible enough to do anything other than what it does, it would not be a law. Neither the existence of matter nor the principle of law can produce anything at all. This brings us back to the eternal, personal, self-existent, omnipotent, causeless cause as the only viable candidate.StephenB_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

In re: William J Murray @ 67:
One cannot apply a method of inquiry without a metaphysical framework (assumptions) to begin with; these lie in the mind. You seem to think that you can investigate and reach conclusions without fundamental assumptions about who and what you and the world are, and how it would be best to go about doing that, and what any collection of data would mean.
I agree with letter but not with the spirit. :) Where you said, "One cannot apply a method of inquiry without a metaphysical framework (assumptions) to begin with; these lie in the mind," it is only the second clause, "these lie in the mind," with which I disagree. Because I do agree that we bring metaphysical categories to bear on empirical inquiry, so that for any particular inquiry in which we engage, there is already some metaphysics up and running that gives that inquiry its value, significance, and purpose. But, for one thing, notice that it would be a sheer fallacy to infer from:
(1) For all particular inquiry in which we engage, there is some metaphysics already at work prior to it.
to
(2) Therefore, there exists some metaphysics already at work prior to all inquiry.
For another, I don't think of metaphysical categories as already at work "in the mind," at least not if the mind is regarded as a self-enclosed sphere of being that has direct access to its own contents and (at best) problematic or inferential access to what is outside of it. That is precisely what I've been calling "the Cartesian model of mind", and I think I've made my hostility to that conception abundantly clear by now. Instead, I think of metaphysical categories, as the most general features of a particular conceptual scheme or system, as necessarily embodied and social. They are implicit within our practices, and it takes the very rare person -- the philosopher -- to reflect upon them and make them explicit, sometimes also make suggestions for revision and improvement. But metaphysics is not the creation of philosophical reflection; it is always and already at work in our forms of life. And not just ours -- I commend to your attention Baboon Metaphysics and How Monkeys See the World, both by Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth, as contemporary works which describe how non-human, extremely intelligent and social primates categorize their physical and social environments. Indeed, I think that a truly comprehensive history of metaphysics would have to begin, not with Plato or Aristotle, or with the Pre-socratics or even with Homer, but with the social primates of the Oligocene. What is unique (so far as we know) about human beings is that, because of culture, language, and technology, we are not 'locked into' the metaphysics of our evolutionary inheritance, but rather our metaphysical categories themselves evolve over time, and this evolution goes 'all the way up' to include even our conception of what metaphysics is. So I think that the "historicity" of metaphysics goes all the way up -- not only is there a history of metaphysics, but metaphysics is itself affected by this history, although the very idea that metaphysics is historically constituted was first realized by Hegel. What I add to that account is the insistence that not only is all metaphysics historical for us human beings, but also that the history of metaphysics reaches deep into our continuity with other living things.Kantian Naturalist_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

KN, Your statement "Doing that just assumes a priori that the world as it really is conforms to our fairly naive categories about it. I think the relationship between how the world is, and our pre-theoretical, naive categories about it, is actually quite complicated and has to be mediated by empirical inquiry. And there could be some categorical revision as the result of empirical inquiry. " Doing that just assumes a priori that the world as it really is conforms to [y]our fairly naive categories about it - unless, of course, it is your view that it can be best understood via empirical inquiry is not just another naive category? Mediated ... by mind. Empirical = mental methodology. Inquiry - capacity of mind to examine, sort, categorize, reflect. One cannot apply a method of inquiry without a metaphysical framework (assumptions) to begin with; these lie in the mind. You seem to think that you can investigate and reach conclusions without fundamental assumptions about who and what you and the world are, and how it would be best to go about doing that, and what any collection of data would mean. For whatever reason, you (and many others) are just intent on believing that mind is a caused, secondary phenomena, and will - apparently - repeatedly beg the question and steal concepts to do so.William J Murray_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Not surprisingly, I'm still willing to fight the good fight, for a while longer anyway. In re: William J Murray @ 64
I mean that we must agree (or else fall into rational ruin) that mind cannot be considered the product of non-mind, but rather an objectively existent, uncaused commodity in its own right, with objectively valid or true principles as characteristics (logic, good), that is not caused by non-mind. Rather, how we see, examine, argue, interact with, and reach conclusions about our existence and what we call the physical world is entirely dependent upon the mind, and cannot rationally be held as entirely dependent upon non-mind (non-deliberate, non-teleological, caused) materials and forces as they happen to have interacted in our particular cases.
There's a non sequitur buried deep somewhere in here. The assumption seems to be something like this:
We should not regard our cognitive capacities -- especially our inferential capacities -- as reliable if those capacities are caused by, or dependent on, any biological, chemical, or physical properties.
I won't dispute that lots of people have believed this, or something like it. The question is whether this assumption really makes any sense. On my view, this assumption combines a deep insight with a serious error. The deep insight is the distinction between reasons and causes, and the further idea that reasons are sui generis with regard to causes. We cannot understand "what it is for something to be a reason for what" in terms of causes governed by laws. John McDowell, in his Mind and World, draws the distinction between "the space of reasons," using Sellars' term, and "the realm of law". McDowell's own view, which I largely share in outline but not in detail, is what he calls "naturalized platonism" -- in contrast with the "bald naturalism" (his term) which reduces the space of reasons to the realm of law (think Quine) and with "rampant platonism", which makes reasons look 'spooky' or 'mysterious' in comparison with the natural world. There's a long tradition of philosophers who insist on this distinction, running (roughly) from Plato's critique of Anaxagoras in Phaedo through Leibniz's critique of Spinoza down to Kant, somewhat overshadowed by late 19th-century materialism, and then revived at the beginning of the twentieth century by the critique of psychologism in Frege and Husserl. In the mid-20th century there was a naturalistic backlash against anti-naturalism, mostly led by Quine, but there are signs of it abating. My own view is, put quite roughly, a dialectical overcoming of the opposition between naturalism and anti-naturalism that focuses on "life" as the suppressed term that sustains the opposition between these views. (McDowell's "naturalized platonism" almost does this.) That's the insight. The error, as I see it, is to move too quickly from a categorical distinction -- a distinction in terms of the basic categories of how we carve up the world -- to basic ontology. Doing that just assumes a priori that the world as it really is conforms to our fairly naive categories about it. I think the relationship between how the world is, and our pre-theoretical, naive categories about it, is actually quite complicated and has to be mediated by empirical inquiry. And there could be some categorical revision as the result of empirical inquiry. In other words: just because we're committed, as a fundamental presupposition, to a distinction between "the space of reasons" and "the realm of law," it doesn't follow that we must reject out of hand, a priori, a naturalized account of the space of reasons which shows how the space of reasons fits into the natural world. Doing that would involve showing how reason-giving, inference, perception, and action all supervene on a whole host of complicated facts, including (but not limited to) neurophysiological facts. That is extraordinarily difficult, but I think the correct attitude for an anti-naturalism to have is, "ok, but I'm not holding my breath" rather than "INCONCEIVABLE!"Kantian Naturalist_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

WJM, BA, Thank you for the clarification. I concur.StephenB_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

StephenB: My argument isn't that mind "is" primary in the factual sense (although I personally hold this to be true), but rather that it must be considered primary in any debate. By primary, I mean that we must agree (or else fall into rational ruin) that mind cannot be considered the product of non-mind, but rather an objectively existent, uncaused commodity in its own right, with objectively valid or true principles as characteristics (logic, good), that is not caused by non-mind. Rather, how we see, examine, argue, interact with, and reach conclusions about our existence and what we call the physical world is entirely dependent upon the mind, and cannot rationally be held as entirely dependent upon non-mind (non-deliberate, non-teleological, caused) materials and forces as they happen to have interacted in our particular cases. The view that mind is either methodologically or ontologically secondary is self-defeating, even if it is true. Mind must be held as primary (without cause, not a secondary effect) in our epistemological and ontological considerations. This is why materialism (if true) would undermine one's basis for meaningful rational debate, and why non-teleological, non-deliberate matter cannot be the foundation of anything other than a self-defeating worldview. Unless, of course, one's worldview is that they just happen to believe whatever physics and biology happen to have produced in their particular case without any claimed, necessary or demonstrable connection to what is true. Buy, I don't see any "mind-is-secondary" advocates who accept that about their position.William J Murray_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "What exactly are we saying or not saying?" Sorry for any ambiguity on my part. I didn't mean to imply that the human mind is 'creating' physical reality. As far as our empirical science is concerned, each human mind is found to be merely 'central' to physical reality. here is a rough outline of the evidence: The Galileo Affair and the true "Center of the Universe" The Galileo affair has certainly turned out to be far different, and far more nuanced, than the simplistic 'science vs. religion' narrative that is told in popular culture today. Often times an atheist will try to deride a person's Christian belief by saying something along the lines of, 'Well, we also don't believe that the sun orbits the earth any longer do we?', trying to mock the person's Christian belief as some type of superstitious belief that is left over from the Dark Ages that had blocked the progress of science. Yet, those atheists who say such things fail to realize that the geocentric (Earth centered) model of the solar system was overturned by three devout Christians, Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, the three primary scientists involved in overturning the geocentric model, were all devout Christians and it certainly was not an atheist, nor some group of atheists, nor some other religion, involved in overturning the geocentric model. Johann Kepler (1571-1630), a devout Lutheran, was the mathematician who mathematically verified Copernicus's, a loyal Catholic, heliocentric model for the solar system. Diana Severance (PhD, Rice University), a historian with broad experience teaching in universities and seminaries, stated this about Kepler
"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."[1]
In fact, on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared this very 'unscientific' thought:
‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’ [2]
I/n 1610, it was the Italian scientist Galileo Galilee (1564-1642), who was also a dedicated Christian to his dying day despite his infamous conflict with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church [3,4], who empirically verified Catholic Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus's (1473-1543) heliocentric theory. Thus it is undeniable fact of history that it was men of the Christian faith, and no other faith (especially atheistic faith), who overturned the geocentric model. In fact, it can also be forcefully argued that modern science had its foundation laid during the protestant reformation of the 16th century, and also when the Catholic church had its own private 'mini-reformation' from Greek influences over its central teachings during this era. The main point being that it can be forcefully argued that modern scientific thought itself, of a rational, approachable, intelligible, universe, a universe that could dare be comprehended by the mind of man, was brought to a sustained maturity when a more pure Christian influence was brought to maturity in the Christian church(es) of western culture and the stifling pagan influences were purged from it.[5,6,7,8,9] The heliocentric theory was hotly debated at that time, for it proposed a revolutionary idea for the 1600's stating all the planets revolved around the sun. Many people of the era had simply, and wrongly, presumed everything in the universe revolved around the earth (geocentric theory), since from their limited perspective everything did seem to be revolving around the earth. As well the geocentric model seems, at first glance, to agree with the religious sensibilities of being made in God's image, although the Bible never actually directly states the earth is the 'center of the universe'.
Job 26:7 “He stretches the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing”
Galileo had improved upon the recently invented telescope. With this improved telescope he observed many strange things about the solar system. This included the phases of Venus as she revolved around the sun and the fact Jupiter had her own satellites (moons) which revolved around her. Thus, Galileo wrote and spoke about what had become obvious to him; Copernicus was right, the planets do indeed revolve around the sun. It is now commonly believed that man was cast down from his special place in the grand scheme of things, for the Earth beneath his feet no longer appeared to be the 'center of the universe', and indeed the Earth is now commonly believed by many people to be reduced to nothing but an insignificant speck of dust in the vast ocean of space (mediocrity principle). Yet actually the earth became exalted in the eyes of many people of that era, with its supposed removal from the center of the universe, since centrality in the universe had a very different meaning in those days. A meaning that equated being at the center of the universe with being at the 'bottom' of the universe, or being in the 'cesspool' of the universe, as this following quote makes clear. In addition, contrary to what is commonly believed, we now know that in the eyes of its contemporaries, the Copernican Revolution glorified the Earth, making it an object worthy of study, in contrast to the preceding view, which demeaned the Earth. Ironically, the Copernican Revolution is almost invariably portrayed today as having demoted the Earth from a position at the center of the universe, the main concern of God, to being merely one of the planets. Danielson(2001) made a compelling case that this portrayal is the opposite of what really happened, i.e., that before the Copernican Revolution, Earth was seen not as being at the center, but rather at the bottom, the cesspool where all filth and corruption fell and accumulated. [10] Yet contrary to what is commonly believed by many people today of the earth being nothing but a insignificant speck of dust lost in a vast ocean of space, there is actually a strong case that can now be made for the earth being central in the universe once again. In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, Einstein's General Relativity has shown that 4-dimensional (4D) space-time, along with all energy and matter, was created in the 'Big Bang' and continues to 'expand equally in all places':
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. [11]
Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as 'center of the universe' as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered 'center of the universe'. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live. So in a holistic sense, when taking into consideration the 'Privileged Planet principle' [12] which overturned the mediocrity principle, and which gives strong indication that the Earth is uniquely suited to host complex life in this universe, it may now be possible for the earth to be legitimately, once again, considered 'central in the universe'. This intriguing possibility, for the earth to once again be considered central, is clearly illustrated by the fact the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), remaining from the creation of the universe, due to the 4-Dimensional space-time of General Relativity, forms a sphere around the earth. I find the best way to get this 'centrality of the Earth in the universe'' point across is to visualize it first hand. Thus I reference the first few minutes of this following video to clearly get this 'centrality' point across:
Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8421879
Moreover, this 'circle' of the CMBR that is found by modern science to encompass the Earth, from the remnant of the creation event that brought the entire universe instantaneously into being, was actually predicted in the Bible centuries earlier:
Proverbs 8:27 (King James Version) "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he drew a circle upon the face of the depth:" Proverbs 8:27 (New International Version) "I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,"
But as compelling as it is to use the privileged planet principle, in conjunction with the centrality of the Earth in the 4-Dimensional (4D) space-time of General Relativity, to establish the centrality of the Earth in the universe, this method of establishing centrality for the earth falls short of explaining 'true centrality' in the universe and still does not fully explain exactly why the CMBR forms an ‘almost’ perfect sphere around the Earth. The primary reason for why the higher dimensional 4D space-time, governing the expansion of this 3-Dimensional universe, is insufficient to maintain 3D symmetry, all by itself, becomes clear if one tries to imagine radically different points of observation in the universe. Since the universe is shown to have only (approximately) 10^79 atoms to work with, once a person tries to imagine keeping perfect 3D symmetry, from radically different points of observation within the CMBR sphere, a person quickly finds that it is geometrically impossible to maintain such 3D symmetry of centrality within the CMBR sphere with finite 3D material particles to work with for radically different 3D points of 'imagined observation' in the universe. As well, fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, seems to, at least from as far as I can follow the math, mathematically prove the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the 'completeness' of 4D space-time within the sphere of the CMBR from differing points of observation in the universe. [13] But if the 4D space-time of General Relativity is insufficient to explain 'true 3D centrality' in the universe, what else is since we certainly observe centrality for ourselves within the sphere of the CMBR? Quantum Mechanics gives us the reason why. 'True centrality' in the universe is achieved by 'universal quantum wave collapse of photons', to each point of 'conscious observation' in the universe, and is the only answer that has adequate sufficiency to explain 'true 3D centrality' that we witness for ourselves within the CMBR of the universe. Moreover because of advances in Quantum Mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
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 central, position within material reality. [14] 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
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 a 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. [15]
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.
As to the fact that, as far as the solar system itself is concerned, the earth is not 'central', I find the fact that this seemingly insignificant earth is found to revolve around the much more massive sun to be a very fitting 'poetic reflection' of our true spiritual condition. Please reflect on this for a moment, in regards to God's 'kingdom of light', are we not to keep in mind our lives are to be guided by the much higher purpose which is tied to our future in God's kingdom of light? Are we not to avoid placing too much emphasis on what this world has to offer, since it is so much more insignificant than what heaven has to offer?
Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?
Here is a quote from evangelist Louie Giglio which I think captures this 'poetic reflection' of our true spiritual condition
You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God. - Louie Giglio [16]
Thus, as is extremely fitting from the basic Christian view of reality, the centrality of the world in the universe, comparatively speaking, is found to be rather negligible, save for 'the privileged planet' principle which reflects God's craftsmanship, whereas the centrality of each individual 'conscious soul' in the universe is found to be primary,,,
,,,"Is anything worth more than your soul?" Matthew 16:26
References linked at bottom of following page:
The Galileo Affair and the true "Center of the Universe" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit
bornagain77_{January 3, 2013
January
01
Jan
3
03
2013
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

Funny you should ask, StephenB-- I'm not too clear on the terms of the debate myself. It began with my taking issue with something William Murray said, and snowballed from there. I took issue with William Murray's claim that "mind is primary" by introducing the distinction between ontological priory and epistemological priority. I wanted to make this distinction between I thought that Murray was appealing to the epistemological priority of mind as an argument for the ontological priority of mind, and that seemed confused to me. I wouldn't say that "mind is epistemologically primary," but I do think that there is something almost right about that thought. What is right about it is this: our epistemological starting-point is the fact of our lived experience as conscious and self-conscious embodied beings in the midst of a perceptible and intelligible world. I suppose we might argue over whether what is ontologically primary is "the universe" or "God." But in my more pantheistic moods, I doubt that it matters very much.Kantian Naturalist_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

I am not clear on the terms of this debate. What precisely does it mean to say that the mind is primary? From a metaphysical perspective, it seems evident that mind is primary in the sense that matter arose from mind and not the other way around. Thus, God as pure spirit brought matter into existence. From an epistemological perspective, though, it seems equally evident that the human mind does not create physical reality, it apprehends it. A tree doesn’t exist because I think it into existence. What exactly are we saying or not saying?StephenB_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

“I have no interest in informing anyone about the true structure of reality.” Then why in blue blazes are you trying to defend your position that mind is not primary? "Because it makes no sense to me how it could be." Strange, did your mind decide that your mind does not make sense or was it the material state of your brain that decided your mind does not make sense?bornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Then why in blue blazes are you trying to defend your position that mind is not primary?
Because it makes no sense to me how it could be. The view towards which I lean most strongly takes it that what is epistemologically primary is what the phenomenologists (Husserl and Merleau-Ponty in particular) called "the life-world". As for what is ontologically primary, I suppose I would say "the universe". The path from life-world to universe is the history of knowledge, and in particular of science; the path from universe to life-world is the history of life, and in particular sentient and sapient life. I like the idea that it is through science that the universe discovers itself. As I said, I'm very Hegelian. :) As for the origins or causes of the universe, I have no opinion at all. Quite frankly, it's not a question that interests me very much. On the other hand, I am very interested in the origins of life, and I have just barely enough biology under my belt that I can sort of follow abiogenesis research. I wouldn't presume to call what I think makes most sense "the correct structure of reality." It's the view that makes the most sense to me, and to a certain tradition of philosophers, scientists, logicians, etc.Kantian Naturalist_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

"I have no interest in informing anyone about the true structure of reality." Then why in blue blazes are you trying to defend your position that mind is not primary?bornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

I have no interest in informing anyone about the true structure of reality. I'm an intellectual, not a mystic. I have to offer what it is I have to offer. If what I have to offer is of no value to you, then by all means ignore me; I shan't be offended.Kantian Naturalist_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

as to: 'Everett’s many-worlds interpretation' Ludicrous, and now falsified! "and Bohmian mechanics." now falsified! KN, I've noted before that you always fail to provide any precise empirical evidence to support any of your positions you claim to hold (you tend to just allude to broad areas without bothering to cite any specific experiments). So please tell me why should I, or anyone, pay your "educated" musings any 'mind' at all since as far as science is concerned, without empirical support, your words may sound as sweet as the ocean breeze but be just as empty for informing one on the true structure of reality?bornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

as to: 'I presume the ‘mind’ is not to be questioned because its part of your theology.' correction: 'I presume the ~~‘mind’~~ material is not to be questioned because its part of your ~~theology~~ religion.' There, all better!bornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

I presume the 'mind' is not to be questioned because its part of your theology.Graham2_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

My main reason for thinking that quantum mechanics does not, pace BornAgain77, show that "mind" is more ontologically fundamental than "matter" is the following: from what I can tell, the citations he provides rest upon accepting the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. But, from what I know, there are at least two other interpretations that seem to be viable contenders: Everett's many-worlds interpretation and Bohmian mechanics. (Perhaps there are others; I don't know.) The other interpretations do not prioritize the observer as the Copenhagen Interpretation does. Not being a physicist (obviously!) I don't have any scientific reasons for preferring one interpretation over another. I confess a penchant for Bohmian mechanics, from what little I know of it, but that's just because he's a Hegelian, as I am. So one could consider that as a "philosophical" rather than "scientific" reason, if you like. Granted, my knowledge of the philosophy of quantum mechanics is quite limited -- I've read exactly articles in the field, one by Hilary Putnam ("A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics (Again)") and one by Nancy Cartwright ("Another Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics"). So I am not pretending to be as well-versed in the subject as BornAgain77. In any event, I have some reasons for disputing the claim that "the rational approach" requires that mind be ontologically primary -- bearing in mind that I'm willing to accept, with reservation, the claim that mind is methodologically primary. So if it's all the same to you, and if you're still willing to engage with me, I'd rather go back to discussing that.Kantian Naturalist_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply