Question for materialists

_{Tom Peeler

October 22, 2022

Intelligent Design}

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

It’s been a while since I’ve been “out here” and I am wondering if materialism is still considered by some to be a rational position to hold. I understand “materialism” to be the idea that every existing thing is comprised of the periodic table of elements (rearranged in a vast number of ways described by the standard model and general relativity) and no more. Is this a fair definition? Thanks.

Comments

Q, either you or Jerry recently posted a link to a survey of physicists about their thoughts about various aspects of QM. I don't know where it is. I remember that only a small percentage of the respondents believed that what appeared as probability was actually caused by deterministic "hidden variables." Perhaps you or Jerry will remember what I'm talking about. I looked at the scrolling transcript at the video you linked to. You posted a complete transcript to the other video. How did you do that? Did you copy the transcripts and then edit out the times and page breaks? That would be a lot of work. It appears that she thinks the work that has ruled out hidden variables is in error, so she becomes a strict determinist and really doesn’t think probability is real: that it only appears because we can’t see the information that is hidden. She is making this argument to her fellow physicists: maybe her arguments will become widely held, but I don’t think they are now.Viola Lee_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @132,
Hmmm, Q, if you can easily copy-paste a transcript of the video, then why not just link to that instead of or in addition with the link to the video? And where is that transcript? I looked and couldn’t find such a thing.
You can display a transcript as a column on the right side of some YouTube videos. You can copy or save the transcripts, but you can only link to the video itself.
Second, Hossenfelder doesn’t deny that probability exists: “What about quantum mechanics? In quantum mechanics some events are truly random and cannot be predicted.”
Dr. Hossenfelder, who specializes in quantum mechanics, posted the following video on “superdeterminism” that will help you understand why this isn’t a contradiction: Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI This video link also comes with a transcript. It starts out like this:
Superdeterminism is a way to make sense of quantum mechanics. But some physicists and philosophers have argued that if one were to allow it, it would destroy science. Seriously. How does superdeterminism work, what is it good for, and why does it allegedly destroy science? That’s what we’ll talk about today. First things first, what is superdeterminism? Above all, it’s a terrible nomenclature because it suggests something more deterministic than deterministic and how is that supposed to work? Well, that’s just not how it works. Superdeterminism is exactly as deterministic as plain old vanilla determinism. Think Newton’s laws. If you know the initial position and velocity of an arrow, you can calculate where it will land, at least in principle. That’s determinism: Everything that happens follows from what happened earlier. But in quantum mechanics we can only predict probabilities for measurement outcomes, rather than the measurement outcomes themselves. The outcomes are not determined, so quantum mechanics is indeterministic. Superdeterminism returns us to determinism. According to superdeterminism, the reason we can’t predict the outcome of a quantum measurement is that we are missing information . . .
You then wrote:
I’ll also point out her argument is strictly about the particles that make up the brain. I’m assuming that as a materialist she assumes that consciousness and all the things associated with it arise from those particles, but she nor anyone else knows how that is supposed to happen, but that’s a different topic.
Yes, materialistim, also known as physicalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/), asserts that all phenomena in reality can be explained with interactions of particles (mass-energy) in space-time. This includes consciousness and "free will." You had previously written:
And I know Hossenfelder is a good popularizer of science, and a legitimate quantum physicist, but her views on the determinism issue are not shared by a majority of quantum physicists, and are certainly not the definitive word on the subject.
To which I responded with this question that you forgot to answer:
That’s a pretty ambitious assertion on your part. Can you support it with any references?
-QQuerius_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

I've seen catholic Ken Miller's 'theistic evolution' view in action when he tried to refute Michael Behe, also a catholic, on 'irreducible complexity'. It was not pretty.
Ken Miller's Embarrassingly Bad Argument Against ID https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeGobRxLrN4 Has Ken Miller Refuted (Behe's) Irreducible Complexity with a Tie Clip? https://evolutionnews.org/2014/10/has_ken_miller/
bornagain77_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Realtd writes, "Theistic evolution, as stated here, is a useless idea. It is assumed that God made something like a wind-up toy, set it on the floor and let it go wherever it wanted." I have had several discussions, with documentation, showing that this is not the Catholic idea of theistic evolution. Just saying, for the record.Viola Lee_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Theistic evolution, as stated here, is a useless idea. It is assumed that God made something like a wind-up toy, set it on the floor and let it go wherever it wanted. God constantly sustains His Creation, knowing, before it was made, all of its parts, including some that human beings are just starting to investigate, like the quantum world. Science has been discovering the inner workings of atoms and will discover more. But everything was already established by God. We are not at a point where we can find out certain things. The creativity God gives to men will allow us to uncover more and more in the near future. He has seen this. He knows when certain things will happen.relatd_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Of further note to post 120. To further validate the claim that it is preposterous to believe that “particles and waves carry a rulebook”. i.e. that particles can make their own universal laws as to how they behave, it is very interesting to note that, unlike all hard sciences, Darwinists simply have no universal laws to appeal to in order to make their theory 'scientific'. As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”
The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf
In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same point as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
And Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf
Not having any laws, and/or rules, telling the particles/waves how to behave is certainly not a minor problem for Darwinists. If Darwinists don't have any universal laws, and/or rules, telling the particles exactly how to behave so as to conform to any particular 'biological form', and/or species,, exactly how is it remotely possible for a Darwinist to ever give us a coherent definition for what a species actually is? The simple answer is that, without any universal laws, and/or rules, telling the particles exactly how to behave, Darwinists will never be able to give us a coherent definition of what a species actually is. As Logan Paul Gage states in the following article, ”In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.”,,, ” this denial (of true species) is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge.”
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
And you don't have to take Logan Paul Gage's word for it. In 2019, a Darwinist honestly admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”
What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
And as the following 2020 article pointed out, Darwinists simply have no rigid, ‘one size fits all’, demarcation criteria for what actually constitutes a species.
At New Scientist: Questioning The Idea Of Species – Nov. 2020 Excerpt: Take the apparently simple organising principle of a species. You might have learned at school that a species is a group of individuals that can breed to produce fertile offspring. But this is just one of at least 34 competing definitions concocted over the past century by researchers working in different fields.,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/at-new-scientist-questioning-the-idea-of-species/
And as Logan Paul Gage pointed out in his article, even Charles Darwin himself honestly admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what a species actually was when he stated, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience,”
“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” – Charles Darwin
As should be needless to say, if your theory can’t even provide a rigid ‘scientific’ definition for what a ‘species’ actually is in the first place, (in your theory that adamantly claims to be the ‘be all/end all’ scientific explanation for the ‘origin of species’), well then, so much for your claim that you have scientifically explained the ‘origin of species’. i.e. Scientifically speaking, your claim is worse than useless, and as Wolfgang Pauli might have put it, your theory is, ‘Not even wrong’. Quotes and verse
“There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.,,” – Letter from Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin – 24 Nov 1859 “I have tried to make this intentional plan in the organization of the animal kingdom evident, by showing that the differences between animals do not constitute a material chain, analogous to a series of physical phenomena, bound together by the same law, but present themselves rather as the phases of a thought, formulated according to a definite aim. I think we know enough of comparative anatomy to abandon forever the idea of the transformation of the organs of one type into those of another.” Letter from Louis Agassiz To A. Sedgwick. Neuchatel, June, 1845. In Elizabeth Cary Agassiz (Ed.). 1885. Louis Agassiz: His Life and Correspondence. Houghton, Mifflin and Co: Boston. P. 388 – 390 1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Hmmm, Q, if you can easily copy-paste a transcript of the video, then why not just link to that instead of or in addition with the link to the video? And where is that transcript? I looked and couldn’t find such a thing. Second, Hossenfelder doesn’t deny that probability exists: “What about quantum mechanics? In quantum mechanics some events are truly random and cannot be predicted.” She also says,
These laws have the common property that if you have an initial condition at one moment in time, ... then you can calculate what happens at any other moment in time from those initial conditions. This means in a nutshell that the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the big bang. We are just watching it play out.
These statements are contradictory if she really means that some QM events are truly random. You can’t “calculate what happens at any other moment in time” from the conditions of the previous moment if in fact something probabilistically random happens in the transition. Can you explain why this is not a contradiction? So she doesn’t deny the undetermined probabilistic quantum events happen, but she claims that doesn’t affect her “no free will” argument. But I’ve never been interested in the libertarian free will issue from a materialistic point of view, so this isn’t relevant to discussions I’ve been having. Not sure why you have focused on me about this topic. The part about strict determinism being inconsistent with quantum probability is the topic I’ve been interested in. I’ll also point out her argument is strictly about the particles that make up the brain. I’m assuming that as a materialist she assumes that consciousness and all the things associated with it arise from those particles, but she nor anyone else knows how that is supposed to happen, but that’s a different topic.Viola Lee_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Defining Theistic Evolution An Introduction to the book "Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, And Theological Critique" Stephen C. Meyer - February 1, 2019 Excerpt: Theologically Problematic Views Other formulations of theistic evolution explicitly deny that God is directing or guiding the mutation/selection mechanism, and instead see a much more limited divine role in the process of life’s creation. One formulation affirms that God designed the laws of nature at the beginning of the universe to make the origin and development of life possible (or inevitable). This view is scientifically problematic, however, since it can be demonstrated that the information necessary to build even a single functional gene (or section of DNA) cannot have been contained in the elementary particles and energy present at the beginning of the universe.18 Another formulation holds that God created the laws of nature at the beginning of the universe and also affirms that he constantly upholds those laws on a moment-by-moment basis. Nevertheless, both of these understandings of theistic evolution deny that God in any way actively directed the mutation/selection (or other evolutionary) mechanisms. Both formulations conceive of God’s role in the creation of life (as opposed to the maintenance of physical law) as mainly passive rather than active or directive. In both views, the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation (and/or other similarly undirected evolutionary mechanisms) are seen as the main causal actor(s) in producing new forms of life. Thus, God does not act directly or “intervene” within the orderly concourse of nature.,,, https://stephencmeyer.org/2019/02/01/defining-theistic-evolution/
bornagain77_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

I know nothing about BioLogos. Do you have a source about what they believe? ((And by source I don't mean a series of quotes. I mean a link to an article or part of their website that describes their beliefs.)Viola Lee_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Well Viola Lee, the Theistic Evolutionists over at Biologos will certainly be surprised by your statements since they themselves jumped on Leibniz's deistic bandwagon
Newton, Leibniz, and the Role of God in Planetary Orbits – December 2014 Excerpt: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being” — Sir Isaac Newton. “Principia Mathematica” (1687) Perhaps the most spectacular early success of Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was its natural explanation for Johannes Kepler’s observation that the planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits. But upon further reflection, some nagging problems emerge. The perfect elliptical orbits are only valid for an isolated planet orbiting around the sun. Gravity works on all objects, and so the other planets perturb the motion of the Earth, potentially leading to its ejection from the solar system. This problem vexed Sir Isaac, who postulated that God occasionally “reformed” the planets, perhaps by sending through a comet with just the right trajectory. In a famous exchange of letters, cut short only by his death in 1716, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, took Sir Isaac to task for his view. He objected that: “if God had to remedy the defects of His creation, this was surely to demean his craftsmanship.”1 And moreover that: “..when God works miracles, he does it not to meet the needs of nature but the needs of grace. Anyone who thinks differently must have a very mean notion of the wisdom and power of God.”2 In other words, the regular sustaining activity of God, as evidenced by natural laws, should be sufficient to explain the regular behavior of the solar system, without the need for additional ad-hoc interventions. Making it right the first time is more glorious than having to fix it later. Moreover, when God deviates from his regular sustaining activity to perform miracles, he does so for soteriological reasons, not to repair nature.,,, 1. 1. John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion, CUP, Cambridge (1991), p147. 2. From letter 1 point 4 (Nov 1715). The full correspondence can be found online. - per biologos
Yet, although Newton held God to be active in creation and not a distant clock-maker, the preceding account of Newton is a bit of Whig history: Here is an interesting article about the Newton-Leibniz-Laplace controversy that shows Newton's ‘God of the gaps’ controversy is not nearly as cut and dried as some atheists and/or Theistic Evolutionists have tried to make it out to be:
a) Newton did develop perturbation theory for the orbits (and actually applied it to the moon), so it is false that God belief prevented him from attempting to solve the problem. b) the math was not "crumbs" for Newton, since Laplace had worked on foundations laid by some of the most brilliant mathematicians of the century (Euler, Lagrange, Clairaut), some of whom also failed to solve the very same problem Newton was working on, and one of these, Euler is regarded as the greatest mathematician of all time! c) Laplace did not really solve the problem (of perturbations) in the end, but only for first degree approximations, but Haret showed that orbits are not absolutely stable using third degree approximations. d) Finally, and most ironically perhaps, it is not clear that Laplace was motivated by atheism to solve this problem, Laplace cites with approval Leibniz's criticism of Newton's invocation of divine intervention to restore order to the Solar System: "This is to have very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God.", to them, it would count as evidence against intelligent design if God had to intervene to prevent the solar system from collapsing. So intelligent design could just as easily be a motivation to prove the stability of the solar system. (of note: original article modified since originally accessed) https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-newton-part-1/ "Leibniz, in his controversy with Newton on the discovery of infinitesimal calculus, sharply criticized the theory of Divine intervention as a corrective of the disturbances of the solar system. "To suppose anything of the kind", he said, "is to exhibit very narrow ideas of the wisdom and power of God'." - Pierre-Simon Laplace https://books.google.com/books?id=oLtHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73
Even according to wikipedia, Laplace paraphrase is in all likelihood based on folklore not on fact,
In 1884, however, the astronomer Hervé Faye[76][77] affirmed that this account of Laplace's exchange with Napoleon presented a "strangely transformed" (étrangement transformée) or garbled version of what had actually happened. It was not God that Laplace had treated as a hypothesis, but merely his intervention at a determinate point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Religious_opinions
Of further note: As to not having to "remedy the defects of His creation", I hold that both Newton and Leibniz (and even the often misquoted Laplace) would all be very pleased by what modern science has now revealed about the wisdom and power of God in creating this solar system:
“You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?” R. Webb - Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? - New Scientist – 2009 Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine - 2011 Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,, As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism. Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.” https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine Rare Planetary System BY HUGH ROSS - JUNE 12, 2017 Excerpt: Thanks in large part to research on extrasolar planets, astronomers also know that every planet in the solar system fulfills a key role in making advanced life possible on Earth. Two Brazilian astronomers showed that even tiny adjustments in the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune would prove catastrophic for life in our solar system.5 Regions beyond the precise orbital positions of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune abound in destructive mean motion resonances. As it is, Uranus is close to a 7:1 resonance with Jupiter (where Jupiter would make exactly 7 orbits around the Sun for every single orbit of Uranus), a 2:1 resonance with Neptune, and a 3:1 resonance with Saturn. Meanwhile, Jupiter and Saturn are very close to 5:2 resonance. If any of the solar system gas giant planets’ orbital positions were to shift ever so slightly, that shift would destabilize the orbit of one or more of the eight planets in the solar system with catastrophic consequences for a long history of life on Earth. Three Canadian astronomers further demonstrated that the orbital positions of Venus, Earth, and Mars must be fine-tuned so as to break up mean motion resonances that could be damaging for life on Earth. They showed that even the orbital features of the Earth-Moon system must be fine-tuned for this purpose.6 The Earth-Moon system suppresses a resonance in Venus’ orbit that is generated from the orbital patterns of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Unless the Earth-Moon system is configured the way it is, both Venus’ and Mercury’s orbits would destabilize and generate destructive chaos throughout the inner solar system. Every planet in our solar system and Earth’s Moon contribute to making advanced life possible on Earth. The solar system’s array of eight planets must be exactly the way it is. Have you thanked God today for Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune? https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2017/06/12/rare-planetary-system
bornagain77_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

BA, TE is not a " mechanical and/or necessitarian philosophy". You also write, "Newton certainly did not believe that God created the universe and then, basically, walked away to let the universe unfold to its own accord. (i.e. Theistic Evolution)." That is deism, not TE.Viola Lee_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee tries to hold that "Newton was a “theistic evolutionist”" Yet, as I already referenced, Newton explicitly rejected the mechanical and/or necessitarian philosophy, (i.e. Theistic Evolution), of Descartes and Leibniz.
“Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991) Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science,,, Newton’s voluntarist conception of God had three major consequences for his natural philosophy. First, it led him to reject Descartes’ version of the mechanical philosophy, in which matter was logically equated with extension, in favor of the belief that the properties of matter were freely determined by an omnipresent God, who remained free to move the particles of matter according to God’s will. Second, Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm
Shoot, even wikipedia itself, (which is certainly no friend of ID), states that "(Newton) rejected Leibniz's thesis that God would necessarily make a perfect world which requires no intervention from the creator."
"Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[19] Nevertheless, he rejected Leibniz's thesis that God would necessarily make a perfect world which requires no intervention from the creator." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton#God_as_masterful_creator
Moreover, elsewhere Newton himself stated, “Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”
“Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.” - Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (3rd edition)
In short, directly contrary to Viola Lee tried to claim, Newton certainly did not believe that God created the universe and then, basically, walked away to let the universe unfold to its own accord. (i.e. Theistic Evolution).bornagain77_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @125, Fortunately, I can easily copy-paste a transcript of Dr. Hossenfelder's presentation so you won't have to click a link and watch her presentation. And here's a even a short summary, which I'll probably regret spending the time to write. Summary: Free will is a rubbish idea because everything that exists, including your brain, is made of of particles and that everything that happens to those particles had a cause that can be traced back to the big bang. Dr. Hossenfelder said, "These deterministic laws of nature apply to you and your brain because you are made of particles, and what happens with you is a consequence of what happens with those particles." She goes on to say that it's no good to simply label it as materialism or reductionism to belittle the concept. "But this is denying scientific evidence. We do not guess, we know that brains are made of particles. And we do not guess, we know, that we can derive from the laws for the constituents what the whole object does. If you make a claim to the contrary, you are contradicting well-established science. "
Today I want to talk about an issue that must have occurred to everyone who spent some time thinking about physics. Which is that the idea of free will is both incompatible with the laws of nature and entirely meaningless. I know that a lot of people just do not want to believe this. But I think you are here to hear what the science says. So, I will tell you what the science says. In this video I first explain why free will does not exist, indeed makes no sense, and then tell you why there are better things to worry about. I want to say ahead that there is much discussion about free will in neurology, where the question is whether we subconsciously make decisions before we become consciously aware of having made one. I am not a neurologist, so this is not what I am concerned with here. I will be talking about free will as the idea that in this present moment, several futures are possible, and your “free will” plays a role for selecting which one of those possible futures becomes reality. This, I think, is how most of us intuitively think of free will because it agrees with our experience of how the world seems to works. It is not how some philosophers have defined free will, and I will get to this later. But first, let me tell you what’s wrong with this intuitive idea that we can somehow select among possible futures. Last week, I explained what differential equations are, and that all laws of nature which we currently know work with those differential equations. These laws have the common property that if you have an initial condition at one moment in time, for example the exact details of the particles in your brain and all your brain’s inputs, then you can calculate what happens at any other moment in time from those initial conditions. This means in a nutshell that the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the big bang. We are just watching it play out. These deterministic laws of nature apply to you and your brain because you are made of particles, and what happens with you is a consequence of what happens with those particles. A lot of people seem to think this is a philosophical position. They call it “materialism” or “reductionism” and think that giving it a name that ends on –ism is an excuse to not believe it. Well, of course you can insist to just not believe reductionism is correct. But this is denying scientific evidence. We do not guess, we know that brains are made of particles. And we do not guess, we know, that we can derive from the laws for the constituents what the whole object does. If you make a claim to the contrary, you are contradicting well-established science. I can’t prevent you from denying scientific evidence, but I can tell you that this way you will never understand how the universe really works. So, the trouble with free will is that according to the laws of nature that we know describe humans on the fundamental level, the future is determined by the present. That the system– in this case, your brain – might be partly chaotic does not make a difference for this conclusion, because chaos is still deterministic. Chaos makes predictions difficult, but the future still follows from the initial condition. What about quantum mechanics? In quantum mechanics some events are truly random and cannot be predicted. Does this mean that quantum mechanics is where you can find free will? Sorry, but no, this makes no sense. These random events in quantum mechanics are not influenced by you, regardless of exactly what you mean by “you”, because they are not influenced by anything. That’s the whole point of saying they are fundamentally random. Nothing determines their outcome. There is no “will” in this. Not yours and not anybody else’s. Taken together we therefore have determinism with the occasional, random quantum jump, and no combination of these two types of laws allows for anything resembling this intuitive idea that we can somehow choose which possible future becomes real. The reason this idea of free will turns out to be incompatible with the laws of nature is that it never made sense in the first place. You see, that thing you call “free will” should in some sense allow you to choose what you want. But then it’s either determined by what you want, in which case it’s not free, or it’s not determined, in which case it’s not a will. Now, some have tried to define free will by the “ability to have done otherwise”. But that’s just empty words. If you did one thing, there is no evidence you could have done something else because, well, you didn’t. Really there is always only your fantasy of having done otherwise. In summary, the idea that we have a free will which gives us the possibility to select among different futures is both incompatible with the laws of nature and logically incoherent. I should add here that it’s not like I am saying something new. Look at the writing of any philosopher who understand physics, and they will acknowledge this. But some philosophers insist they want to have something they can call free will, and have therefore tried to redefine it. For example, you may speak of free will if no one was in practice able to predict what you would do. This is certainly presently the case, that most human behavior is unpredictable, though I can predict that some people who didn’t actually watch this video will leave a comment saying they had no other choice than leaving their comment and think they are terribly original. So, yeah, if you want you can redefine “free will” to mean “no one was able to predict your decision.” But of course your decision was still determined or random regardless of whether someone predicted it. Others have tried to argue that free will means some of your decisions are dominated by processes internal to your brain and not by external influences. But of course your decision was still determined or random, regardless of whether it was dominated by internal or external influences. I find it silly to speak of “free will” in these cases. I also find it unenlightening to have an argument about the use of words. If you want to define free will in such a way that it is still consistent with the laws of nature, that is fine by me, though I will continue to complain that’s just verbal acrobatics. In any case, regardless of how you want to define the word, we still cannot select among several possible futures. This idea makes absolutely no sense if you know anything about physics. What is really going on if you are making a decision is that your brain is running a calculation, and while it is doing that, you do not know what the outcome of the calculation will be. Because if you did, you wouldn’t have to do the calculation. So, the impression of free will comes from our self-awareness, that we think about what to do, combined with our inability to predict the result of that thinking before we’re done. I feel like I must add here a word about the claim that human behavior is unpredictable because if someone told you that they predicted you’d do one thing, you could decide to do something else. This is a rubbish argument because it has nothing to do with human behavior, it comes from interfering with the system you are making predictions for. It is easy to see that this argument is nonsense because you can make the same claim about very simple computer codes. Suppose you have a computer that evaluates whether an equation has a real-valued root. The answer is yes or no. You can predict the answer. But now you can change the algorithm so that if you input the correct answer, the code will output the exact opposite answer, i.e. “yes” if you predicted “no” and “no” if you predicted “yes”. As a consequence, your prediction will never be correct. Clearly, this has nothing to do with free will but with the fact that the system you make a prediction for gets input which the prediction didn’t account for. There’s nothing interesting going on in this argument. Another objection that I’ve heard is that I should not say free will does not exist because that would erode people’s moral behavior. The concern is, you see, that if people knew free will does not exist, then they would think it doesn’t matter what they do. This is of course nonsense. If you act in ways that harm other people, then these other people will take steps to prevent that from happening again. This has nothing to do with free will. We are all just running software that is trying to optimize our well-being. If you caused harm, you are responsible, not because you had “free will” but because you embody the problem and locking you up will solve it. There have been a few research studies that supposedly showed a relation between priming participants to not believe in free will and them behaving immorally. The problem with these studies, if you look at how they were set up, is that people were not primed to not believe in free will. They were primed to think fatalistically. In some cases, for example, they were being suggested that their genes determine their future, which, needless to say, is only partly correct, regardless of whether you believe in free will. And some more nuanced recent studies have actually shown the opposite. A 2017 study on free will and moral behavior concluded “we observed that disbelief in free will had a positive impact on the morality of decisions toward others”. Please check the information below the video for a reference. So I hope I have convinced you that free will is nonsense, and that the idea deserves going into the rubbish bin. The reason this has not happened yet, I think, is that people find it difficult to think of themselves in any other way than making decisions drawing on this non-existent “free will.” So what can you do? You don’t need to do anything. Just because free will is an illusion does not mean you are not allowed to use it as a thinking aid. If you lived a happy life so far using your imagined free will, by all means, please keep on doing so. If it causes you cognitive dissonance to acknowledge you believe in something that doesn’t exist, I suggest that you think of your life as a story which has not yet been told. You are equipped with a thinking apparatus that you use to collect information and act on what you have learned from this. The result of that thinking is determined, but you still have to do the thinking. That’s your task. That’s why you are here. I am curious to see what will come out of your thinking, and you should be curious about it too. Why am I telling you this? Because I think that people who do not understand that free will is an illusion underestimate how much their decisions are influenced by the information they are exposed to. After watching this video, I hope, some of you will realize that to make the best of your thinking apparatus, you need to understand how it works, and pay more attention to cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
As you can see, Dr. Hossenfelder is fully aware of chaos and that a few quantum events are truly random. It's pretty obvious that she totally destroys your argument. But you'll have to read a transcript of Dr. Chalmer's perspectives to see how he addresses Dr. Hossenfelder's arguments. You then wrote:
And I know Hossenfelder is a good popularizer of science, and a legitimate quantum physicist, but her views on the determinism issue are not shared by a majority of quantum physicists, and are certainly not the definitive word on the subject.
That's a pretty ambitious assertion on your part. Can you support it with any references? -QQuerius_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Q, let's get this straight. I don't like watching videos, for reasons I've explained before. If you can't write a summary and provide written statements here, then you are expecting me to do your homework, not vice versa. And I know Hossenfelder is a good popularizer of science, and a legitimate quantum physicist, but her views on the determinism issue are not shared by a majority of quantum physicists, and are certainly not the definitive word on the subject. And the idea that probability is real is not my view, it’s the view of the majority of quantum physicists. I think it was you who posted a link to a chart of what percent of different physicists believed what about QM, and far more thought probability was real than thought it wasn’t. And I seriously doubt that you are enough of an expert to conclude that Hossenfelder totally destroys the argument that probability is real, especially in a short youtube video. So given that we’re at an impasse about youtube videos, I’d like it it if you wouldn’t bother me about them anymore.Viola Lee_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee @111,
I don’t know why you would say materialism is deterministic physicalism. Most (but not all) quantum physicists believe that the probability in quantum events is real, and thus the material world is not deterministic.
Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, a research physicist of note, totally destroys your conclusion in the 11-minute video below: You don’t have free will, but don’t worry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY The 13-minute counterpoint to Dr. Hossenfelder is provided by Dr. David Chalmers a professor of Philosophy and Neural Science at New York University: Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI-cESvGlKc
Also, could you summarize the main opposing views regarding materialism in the videos you linked to.
No, I don’t do homework assignments for people. Besides, I’ve already watched them twice. But go ahead and watch them yourself (I really do think they would be enlightening for you). If you think it would be helpful to the discussion, why don't you post a summary of their views on materialism with your comments? -QQuerius_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

@106
I could go on but I would be happy to have a “materialist” or as Owen Flanagan says in “The Problem of the Soul” “Humans don’t possess some animal parts or instincts. We are animals. Many think the conflict … lies in our resistance to materialism, physicalism, naturalism, call it what you will… We are, I repeat, animals.”
Interesting that you cite Flanagan. I like his work in general and that book in particular. Flanagan's project there is summed up in the subtitle: "Two Visions of Mind and How to Reconcile Them". (Interestingly, I just realized that one of the mentors to whom the book is dedicated is the great neo-Thomist philosopher Alastair MacIntyre.) One of these visions is the idea of human beings as persons. The other vision is the idea of human beings as animals. So the question of a naturalistic philosophy of mind is, "how can persons be animals, and how did (and do) animals become persons?" By persons, I mean the idea that we are (if all goes well in our biological development and socio-cultural immersion) beings that are conscious, self-conscious, rational and reasonable, choosing to act and of refraining from acting, capable of holding ourselves and others responsible for our actions, capable of making choices based on criteria that are available for public commentary, and capable of revising those criteria based on rational deliberation of what is best for ourselves, others, and the good of the moral community to which we belong. (This is not intended to be exhaustive -- just what I came up right now.) By animals, I mean living things capable of perceiving various configurations of their surroundings, purposefully responding to those configurations by moving their bodies and especially, in many cases, altering the configurations of their environments, and in many cases, engaging in forms of social behavior with various affects (love, care, dislike, aggression, envy, etc.). (Again, this is not intended to be exhaustive!) (And by living things I mean complex dynamical systems that are constituted by an interlocking set of causal constraints that jointly distinguish the organism from its environment, but which require constant exchanges of energy and matter with its environment in order to maintain itself as far from thermodynamic equilibrium with that environment. Once again, not intended to be exhaustive!) So the question of a "could there be a wholly naturalistic theory of persons?" is the question of how things that are entirely and wholly animals (as defined above) could, under specific conditions, also become persons (as defined above). One could also, with equal justice, call this a wholly secular theory of persons: an account of what persons are that does not require concepts drawn from any religious tradition. A secular theory of persons does not, so far as I can tell, depend on any claims about the nature of "matter", nor does it depend on any claims about theories of fundamental physics. It certainly does not depend upon the idea that everything that exists can be explained in terms of fermions and bosons. In other words, I think there's quite a big difference between asking the question "what might a wholly secular theory of persons look like?" and asking the question, "can everything that exists be explained in terms of fundamental physics?"PyrrhoManiac1_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

BA writes, "Sir Isaac Newton himself believed that God was “constantly sustaining the universe by the word of His power”. In addition,
Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do.
Yes, Newton was a "theistic evolutionist" in this regard, although the evolution part of it wouldn't come up for 150 years.Viola Lee_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Moreover, at the 16:47 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Stephen Meyer reveals that Sir Isaac Newton himself believed that God was “constantly sustaining the universe by the word of His power”.
Stephen Meyer Answers Questions about the Judeo-Christian Origins of Science – video https://youtu.be/YBwRC8qJSoI?t=994
Specifically, “Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of,,”
“Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991) Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science,,, Newton’s voluntarist conception of God had three major consequences for his natural philosophy. First, it led him to reject Descartes’ version of the mechanical philosophy, in which matter was logically equated with extension, in favor of the belief that the properties of matter were freely determined by an omnipresent God, who remained free to move the particles of matter according to God’s will. Second, Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm
And since Newton also held the orthodox belief that man is made in the image of God,,,
Priest of Nature – the religious worlds of Isaac Newton – R. Iliffe (Princeton University Press, 2017) Excerpt page 5: “The analogy between the human and the divine would remain at the heart of Newtons theological metaphysics. In the essay on God, space, and time that he penned in the early 1690s, the analogy between man and God played a key role. Was it not most agreeable to reason, he asked, that Gods creatures shared his attributes as far as possible as fruit the nature of the tree, and an image the likeness of a man, and by sharing tend towards perfection? Similarly, was it not reasonable to believe that God could be discerned in the more perfect creatures as in a mirror? Such a view also enabled humans to understand the being and attributes of the divine.” https://www.yoono.org/download/prinat.pdf
,,, and since Newton also held to the orthodox belief that man is made in the image of God, (and since he explicitly rejected the mechanical and/or necessitarian philosophy), then I hold that Newton would be very pleased to see the recent closing of the “freedom of choice” loophole within quantum mechanics.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
This is simply devastating to Atheistic materialism since it undermines the Darwinian worldview from within. As the late Steven Weinberg, who was an atheist, stated in the following article, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. Again, the 'freedom of choice' loophole has now been closed, via Zeilinger and company, to at least 7.8 billion years ago. Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
December 2021 – When scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-time-for-american-thanksgiving-stephen-meyer-on-the-frailty-of-scientific-atheism/#comment-741600 The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE
Verses:
Matthew 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Of supplemental note: Also see George Ellis's article, 'Recognising Top-Down Causation'
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf
bornagain77_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

AF at 116 states,
"Do you think particles and waves carry a rulebook? Scientific laws are we humans best efforts at modelling the properties and predicting the behaviour of aspects of the physical universe that we are aware of."
So apparently AF rightly concedes that it is preposterous to believe that particles and waves can make their own rules,
“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes - UD blogger
,,, and yet AF also concedes that humans, mysteriously, look for universal laws that can model and predict how particles and waves will behave. So, as a Darwinian materialist, these leaves an 'elephant in the living room' question hanging for AF.,,, "From whence do these scientific laws come from?" As he himself, inadvertently, conceded, it is simply preposterous for anyone to believe that "particles and waves carry a rulebook". i.e. that particles can make their own rules as to how they behave. And yet if you rightly believe that particles and waves can't possibly make their own rules, and yet you are also an atheistic materialist who believes everything 'emerged', in a 'bottom-up' fashion, from particles randomly jostling, and/or fluctuating, around in the void, then, or course, you will never look for any universal rules governing the particles and waves. And this belief that everything emerges in a 'bottom-up' fashion from particles randomly jostling around in the void is the primary belief of atheistic materialism that prevented atheistic materialists from ever founding modern science, or from ever making a significant contribution to the founding of modern science, since they, inherently, don't believe "particles and waves carry a rulebook". On the following site, starting on page 235, there is a list of the 'Bible believing' founders of modern science. You will be very hard pressed to find a single non-believing atheist that founded any major branch of 'hard' science, (excluding Darwinian evolution, of course, which is shown, via Robert Marks, William Dembski and company, to NOT even be a 'hard' science in the first place that can be realistically modeled).
Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD - Tihomir Dimitrov - (pg. 235) SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES - BIBLE-BELIEVING SCIENTISTS 1. ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY - RENE DESCARTES - (1596-1650) 2. ANESTHESIOLOGY - JAMES SIMPSON - (1811-1870) 3. ANTISEPTIC SURGERY - JOSEPH LISTER - (1827-1912) 4. ASTRONAUTICS - HERMANN OBERTH - (1894-1989) - WERNHER VON BRAUN - (1912-1977) 5. ATOMIC PHYSICS - JOSEPH J. THOMSON - (1856-1940) 6. BACTERIOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR - (1822-1895) 7. BIOLOGY - JOHN RAY - (1627-1705) 8. CALCULUS - ISAAC NEWTON - (1642-1727) - GOTTFRIED LEIBNIZ - (1646-1716) 9. CARDIOLOGY - WILLIAM HARVEY - (1578-1657) 10. CELESTIAL MECHANICS - JOHANNES KEPLER - (1571-1630) 11. CHEMISTRY - ROBERT BOYLE - (1627-1691) 12. COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - GEORGES CUVIER - (1769-1832) 13. COMPUTER SCIENCE - CHARLES BABBAGE - (1791-1871) 14. CRYOLOGY - LORD KELVIN - (1824-1907) 15. DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY - CARL FRIEDRICH GAUSS - (1777-1855) 16. DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH - (1842-1919) 17. DYNAMICS - ISAAC NEWTON - (1642-1727) 18. ELECTRODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL - (1831-1879) ANDRE-MARIE AMPERE - (1775-1836) 19. ELECTRO-MAGNETICS - MICHAEL FARADAY - (1791-1867) 20. ELECTRONICS - JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING - (1849-1945) MICHAELFARADAY - (1791-1867) 21. ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY - JOHN ECCLES - (1903-1997) 22. EMBRIOLOGY - WILLIAM HARVEY - (1578-1657) 23. ENERGETICS - LORD KELVIN - (1824-1907) 24. ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS - HENRI FABRE - (1823-1915) 25. EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS - GALILEO GALILEI - (1564-1642) 26. FIELD THEORY - MICHAEL FARADAY - (1791-1867) 27. FLUID MECHANICS - GEORGE STOKES - (1819-1903) 28. GALACTIC ASTRONOMY - WILLIAM HERSCHEL - (1738-1822) 29. GAS DYNAMICS - ROBERT BOYLE - (1627-1691) 30. GENETICS - GREGOR MENDEL - (1822-1884) 31. GEOLOGY - NICOLAUS STENO - (1638-1686) 32. GLACIAL GEOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ - (1807-1873) 33. GYNECOLOGY - JAMES SIMPSON - (1811-1870) 34. HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY - NICOLAUS COPERNICUS - (1473-1543) 35. HYDRAULICS - LEONARDO DA VINCI - (1452-1519) 36. HYDRODYNAMICS - BLAISE PASCAL - (1623-1662) 37. HYDROGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY - (1806-1873) 38. HYDROSTATICS - BLAISE PASCAL - (1623-1662) 39. ICHTHYOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ -(1807-1873) 40. IMMUNOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR - (1822-1895) 41. ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY - WILLIAM RAMSAY - (1852-1916) 42. LASER SCIENCE - CHARLES TOWNES - (1915-2015) - ARTHUR SCHAWLOW - (1921-1999) 43. MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS - LEONHARD EULER - (1707-1783) 44. MICROBIOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR - (1822-1895) 45. MINERALOGY - GEORGIUS AGRICOLA - (1494-1555) 46. MODEL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH - (1842-1919) 47. MODERN MEDICINE - WILLIAM HARVEY - (1578-1657) 48. NANOTECHNOLOGY - RICHARD SMALLEY - (1943-2005) 49. NATURAL HISTORY - JOHN RAY - (1627-1705) 50. NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY - BERNHARD RIEMANN - (1826-1866) 51. NUMBER THEORY - CARL FRIEDRICH GAUSS - (1777-1855) 52. OCEANOGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY - (1806-1873) 53. OPTICAL MINERALOGY - DAVID BREWSTER - (1781-1868) 54. OPTICS - JOHANNES KEPLER - (1571-1630) 55. PALEONTOLOGY - JOHN WOODWARD - (1665-1728) - GEORGES CUVIER - (1769-1832) 56. PATHOLOGY - RUDOLPH VIRCHOW - (1821-1902) 57. PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY - JOHANNES KEPLER - (1571-1630) 58. PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY - MIKHAIL LOMONOSOV - (1711-1765) 59. PHYSIOLOGY - WILLIAM HARVEY - (1578-1657) 60. QUANTUM MECHANICS - MAX PLANCK - (1858-1947) - WERNER HEISENBERG - (1901-1976) 61. REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES JOULE - (1818-1889) 62. STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL - (1831-1879) 63. STRATIGRAPHY - NICOLAUS STENO - (1638-1686) 64. SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY - CAROLUS LINNAEUS - (1707-1778) 65. TAXONOMY - JOHN RAY - (1627-1705) 66. THERMODYNAMICS - LORD KELVIN - (1824-1907) 67. THERMOKINETICS - HUMPHRY DAVY - (1778-1829) 68. TRANSPLANTOLOGY - ALEXIS CARREL - (1873-1944) - JOSEPH E. MURRAY - (1919-2012) 69. VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY - GEORGES CUVIER - (1769-1832) 70. WAVE MECHANICS - ERWIN SCHROEDINGER - (1887-1961) https://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal
Of note, although some atheists might try to claim that Ludwig Boltzmann, a Darwinian atheist who first linked probability and entropy, is an exception to this rule of Christians founding modern science, I simply note, via Max Planck, that Ludwig Boltzmann "never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the (Boltzmann) constant."
The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said: This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann’s constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant. Nothing can better illustrate the positive and hectic pace of progress which the art of experimenters has made over the past twenty years, than the fact that since that time, not only one, but a great number of methods have been discovered for measuring the mass of a molecule with practically the same accuracy as that attained for a planet. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Boltzmann_equation.html
I hold that the primary reason why Boltzmann, an atheist, never thought to carry out, or even propose, a precise measurement for the universal constant on entropy is that it would simply be unfathomable for him, as an Atheistic materialist, to conceive that the random jostling of particles should ever be governed by a universal constant. Whereas on the other hand, to a Christian Theist such as Max Planck, it is expected that even these seemingly random entropic events of the universe should be governed by a universal constant. In fact modern science was born out of such thinking. As C.S. Lewis put it, "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver."
The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - Monday, Aug. 2012 Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/
And as Paul Davies pointed out, "Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way."
Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
And although Darwinian atheists often falsely portray Christianity as being 'at war' with science,
The Two Guys to Blame for the Myth of Constant Warfare between Religion and Science - February 27, 2015 Excerpt: Timothy Larsen, a Christian historian who specializes in the nineteenth century, notes: The so-called “war” between faith and learning, specifically between orthodox Christian theology and science, was manufactured during the second half of the nineteenth century. It is a construct that was created for polemical purposes. No one deserves more blame for this stubborn myth than these two men: Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the founding president of Cornell University, and John William Draper (1811-1882), professor of chemistry at the University of New York. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/02/27/the-two-guys-to-blame-for-the-myth-of-constant-warfare-between-religion-and-science/
,,, And although Darwinian atheists often falsely portray Christianity as being 'at war' with science, the fact of the matter is that it is Darwinian atheism itself that is 'at war' with science. As Dr. Cornelius Hunter pointed out, "the conflict is the exactly the opposite—it is between the metaphysical foundation of evolutionary thought and science. That metaphysical foundation of naturalism is unyielding and unbending, and it makes no sense on the science. It is the evolutionists who have a conflict between their religious beliefs and science.,,, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely."
The Importance of the Warfare Thesis - Cornelius Hunter, PhD in Biophysics - July 26, 2015 Excerpt: Historians have understood for the better part of a century now that this Warfare Thesis (between science and religion) is a false history. It was constructed by evolutionists to frame the origins debate in their favor. In fact the conflict is the exactly the opposite—it is between the metaphysical foundation of evolutionary thought and science. That metaphysical foundation of naturalism is unyielding and unbending, and it makes no sense on the science. It is the evolutionists who have a conflict between their religious beliefs and science. The Warfare Thesis is an attempt to turn the tables and turn the attention away from the obvious problems with evolutionary thought. Evolutionists say that their skeptics suffer from bad religion and bad science. In fact, the metaphysical foundation of naturalism is not biblical (in spite of the fact that it comes from Christians), and evolutionary theory is not scientific. Science does not indicate that the world spontaneously arose.,,, Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely. Of course Scripture can have different interpretations. But the science leaves no such wiggle room. It does not prove, indicate or suggest that the species arose spontaneously, as a consequence of natural laws and processes. That is a metaphysical mandate (from atheists) that is in conflict with the science. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/07/heres-whats-going-on-with-biologos.html
Of further note to the Christian presupposition that there should be universal laws governing the universe since there is a 'universal law giver', (i.e. since there is a God), Sir Isaac Newton himself stated that, ‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God… From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed",,
‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God… From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed, in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experiments.”,,, – Sir Isaac Newton – (Cited from Religion and the Rise of Modern Science by Hooykaas page 49). https://thirdspace.org.au/comment/237
bornagain77_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

re 112: Irrelevant to my post, which was about defining materialism, not defending it.Viola Lee_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Very interesting message from an older UD article
43 Heartlander An algorithmic system and/or system of postulates requires some basic assumptions which are taken as given – so naturalism requires at least a single miracle (the origin of the postulates) at the beginning. Put more broadly, natural processes cannot create natural processes (circulus in probando) – so we are left with creation from the supernatural. Futhermore, methodological naturalism cannot incorporate human consciousness (mind), abstract concepts, or information (all immaterial), which are measured differently from mass or energy– yet these are the very tools required for methodological naturalism to exist.
“When we force science to adhere to naturalism, it requires scientists to simply ascribe supernatural powers to ordinary matter.” – Arminius Mignea
whistler_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

Yes it is.
Oh no, it isn't. She's behind you!
There are the universal laws and the matter that blindly obey them.
Do you think particles and waves carry a rulebook? Scientific laws are we humans best efforts at modelling the properties and predicting the behaviour of aspects of the physical universe that we are aware of.Alan Fox_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee I don’t know why you would say materialism is deterministic physicalism.
Yes it is. There are the universal laws and the matter that blindly obey them.
Most quantum physicists believe that
:))) Bring all your quantum physicists to sit around a rock and make quantum spells so the rock won't fall down but will fly...because of quantum physics.whistler_{October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

I don’t know why you would say materialism is deterministic physicalism.
Another case of severe strawman syndrome? When a fission event occurs, what determines the timing (and whose time) and what determines the path taken by an emitted particle (and whose coordinates)? Determinists, please step forward and explain.Alan Fox_{October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

@ KF Nothing prevents you or anyone else from carrying out your own empirical research into whatever aspect of reality or imagination that interests you. Instead you spend time writing nonsense such as this GEM:
This is self referentially incoherent and self defeating, self falsifying. Instead, the abductive inference to design on reliable signs offers a fresh departure. But the mutiny on the ship of the academy will not allow it to be seriously heard, even as the increasingly erratic voyage points to shipwreck.
It's a waste of your time to write it and a waste of everyone else's time to read itAlan Fox_{October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

VL, blind mechanical necessity augmented by blind chance is not capable of causing Orgel-Wicken functionally specific complex organisation and.or associated information, FSCO/I, beyond 500 to 1,000 bits. On trillions of observed cases, intelligently directed configuration can and does. Your own comments exemplify. The physical world yes often shows dynamic-stochastic entities and for a generation the butterfly effect and related studies have transformed understanding of the dynamics side through chaos. Evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers can be understood on saying that the physical, dynamic stochastic world and extensions [this includes multiverse speculations], per the 4 forces, specifies all that exists, reality. Now, account for a fine tuned cosmos, for origin of life, for origin of major body plans, of mind we need as credible to ponder on such terms. Include code and algorithms so language and goal directed process in the heart of cell based life. Do so, on empirically well founded terms. You cannot, instead you will see the sort of ideological imposition Crick, Mahner, Provine, Rosenberg, Lewontin, NAS and NSTA variously document. This is self referentially incoherent and self defeating, self falsifying. Instead, the abductive inference to design on reliable signs offers a fresh departure. But the mutiny on the ship of the academy will not allow it to be seriously heard, even as the increasingly erratic voyage points to shipwreck. KFkairosfocus_{October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

I don't know why you would say materialism is deterministic physicalism. Most (but not all) quantum physicists believe that the probability in quantum events is real, and thus the material world is not deterministic. Also, could you summarize the main opposing views regarding materialism in the videos you linked to.Viola Lee_{October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Since there were no vocal materialists posting comments, here are two informed but radically opposing views regarding materialism (or deterministic physicalism) and consciousness, one by a theoretical physicist and the other by a philosopher. You don't have free will, but don't worry (11 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism? (13 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI-cESvGlKc -QQuerius_{October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Hi TGP. Interesting to have you drop back in given that the response to your question got fairly derailed starting at about post 20. You write, “So I think there is some basic agreement here about what “materialism” is.” Back at 2, I wrote,
Modern materialism includes everything that modern physics accepts as existing, including all the facets of quantum mechanics, fields, etc. that go way beyond just thinking of the elemental particles that make up atoms as summarized in the periodic table.
So metaphysical materialism would then say that everything in the universe is part of the material, or physical, world, as described in the quote above. Or, as I wrote in 32
The modern meaning of materialism would include the idea that there is no plan or intention in the outflowing of causal histories via physical mechanisms, including all the forces and quantum phenomena that have been mentioned above.
Added in edit: to be thorough, prompted by your recent post, I would say,
Modern materialism would say that there is no aspect of human beings, such as consciousness, will and decision making, emotions, rational thought, etc., that isn’t a component of the material world, as described above.
Is this a reasonably accurate statement of what you think the basic agreement is about the philosophical meaning of materialism? I’ll also point out that nobody in the thread posted in defense of materialism. The goal, as per your OP, was just to get clear on what the word meant.Viola Lee_{October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply