Intelligent Design

Quote of the Day

Spread the love

All that follows is from commenter RDM:

Perhaps the greatest irony of this whole discussion, given that it is primarily dealing with materialists and their objections to self-evident moral truths, is two-fold.

First, consider that in many respects, philosophical arguments are simply plausibility comparisons. One argument/view is simply more plausible than another. Now, in terms of a plausibility comparison between “it is always and everywhere wrong and evil to torture a child for fun” and “materialism is true and thus it is not always wrong to torture a child for fun”, the former is light-years more plausible and certain than the latter. Any worldview that rejects that moral truth is infinitely less plausible than the moral truth itself. In fact, that moral truth is more plausible than the claim that “matter itself exists”. And so, the irony here is the following: the moment that I doubt the truth of that moral statement is the moment that I gain infinitely more reason to doubt the truth of materialism (or naturalism, to use a different name for it).

Now the second great irony in hearing the materialist argue, in part, against self-evident truths, is that materialism, at its core, depends, in a certain way, on the idea of self-evidence. And not in the ways already mentioned—although in those as well—but rather in that the existence of matter itself is arguably supported by nothing but self-evidence. After all, what is the materialist’s proof or empirical evidence that matter actually exists? As Berkeley and others showed, not only is there nothing that can “prove” that matter exists, but there are actual good arguments against the existence of matter. And so, for the existence of matter, the materialist can offer, as inferential evidence or proof, nothing more than the person who says that “it is always wrong to torture a child for fun” can offer for his view. And remember, the burden of proof is on the materialist, for he asserts the existence of matter. And so, if you think yourself justified to rejecting the aforementioned moral claim, than you are doubly justified in rejecting the very existence of matter, and, in turn, in rejecting materialism. So, in rejecting the very moral claim that it must reject in order to be coherent, materialism simultaneously provides us with the very grounds to deny the existence of matter, and thus to deny materialism itself. Materialism, in essence, loses no matter which way it turns.

38 Replies to “Quote of the Day

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “As Berkeley and others showed, not only is there nothing that can “prove” that matter exists, but there are actual good arguments against the existence of matter.”

    Here is a summary of Berkeley’s main arguments:

    Berkeley’s main arguments in the three dialogues can be reduced to these themes:
    Dialogue 1: Matter is inconceivable.
    Dialogue 2: Matter plays no functional role in explanation.
    Dialogue 3: Idealism is consistent with everyday experience.
    http://www2.drury.edu/cpanza/berkeley1&2.html

    Here is a book that also attacks materialism from the philosophical viewpoint:

    The Waning of Materialism Edited by Robert C. Koons and George Bealer
    Description: Twenty-three philosophers examine the doctrine of materialism and find it wanting. The case against materialism comprises arguments from conscious experience, from the unity and identity of the person, from intentionality, mental causation, and knowledge. The contributors include leaders in the fields of philosophy of mind, metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, who respond ably to the most recent versions and defenses of materialism. The modal arguments of Kripke and Chalmers, Jackson’s knowledge argument, Kim’s exclusion problem, and Burge’s anti-individualism all play a part in the building of a powerful cumulative case against the materialist research program. Several papers address the implications of contemporary brain and cognitive research (the psychophysics of color perception, blindsight, and the effects of commissurotomies), adding a posteriori arguments to the classical a priori critique of reductionism. All of the current versions of materialism–reductive and non-reductive, functionalist, eliminativist, and new wave materialism–come under sustained and trenchant attack.
    http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/.....0199556199

    Dr.Robert C. Koons — “The Waning of Materialism” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZLHKlwue20

    But besides these philosophical arguments which refute materialism, empirical science itself, namely quantum mechanics, has now unambiguously refuted materialism.

    Double-slit experiment
    Excerpt: In 1999 objects large enough to see under a microscope, buckyball (interlocking carbon atom) molecules (diameter about 0.7 nm, nearly half a million times that of a proton), were found to exhibit wave-like interference.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....experiment

    Physicists Smash Record For Wave-Particle Duality – Oct. 2013
    Excerpt: According to quantum mechanics, wave-particle duality and quantum superpositions must also occur for macroscopic objects such as viruses, cells and even baseballs,,,
    Having created a beam of these molecules, Eibenberger and co pass them through a series of slits that reveal any wavelike characteristics. Sure enough, the molecules form an interference pattern at the detector which implies that they must have been superposed (i.e. in superposition) while passing through the slits.,,,
    “Our data confirm the fully coherent quantum delocalization of single compounds composed of about 5000 protons, 5000 neutrons and 5000 electrons,” they say.
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism – By Bruce L Gordon:
    Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.,,
    The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    i.e., It is now shown that what we think of material reality, i.e. think of as solid material atoms, simply do exist as solid material atoms prior to conscious observation of them, but material atoms only come into existence upon conscious observation, i.e. upon collapse of the quantum wave state.

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
    Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together 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.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect)
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit

    Thus materialism is now found to be not only philosophically incoherent, (as it has been philosophically incoherent since the time of the ancient Greeks), but now materialism is also empirically falsified by experiment.
    Since the philosophical arguments have been around for centuries and quantum mechanics has been around for decades (circa 1920), perhaps in another 150 years or so atheistic materialists will finally realize that both science and philosophy have now left them far behind?
    Some may say that I’m a dreamer for thinking atheistic materialists will ever be reasonable to argument and evidence even 150 years from now, but then I have always been optimistic ‘cup is half full’ type of guy. 🙂

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    In its relationship with empirical science properly so-called, atheist science bears a remarkable resemblance to television ‘infotainment’, passing as News: a digest of gratuitously subjective, low-level Establishment propaganda; in short, a comic-strip in the guise of a purveyor of serious, true and coherent information.

  3. 3
    RDFish says:

    The notion that the universe consists of “matter in motion” was abandoned by physical scientists 100+ years ago. Yet people on this forum pretend that people (whom you call “materialists”) still believe that matter consists of little bits of stuff that bounce off each other while they move around in space.

    Then you equate these “materialists” with atheists – as though atheists for some reason don’t believe in modern physics.

    Then you equate atheists with “evolutionists”, as though if you don’t believe in some particular god you are obliged to accept that evolutionary theory explains the existence living systems.

    So much confusion from your desire to label, categorize, demonize, and blame this enemy called “the materialists”.

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    RDFish

    The notion that the universe consists of “matter in motion” was abandoned by physical scientists 100+ years ago. Yet people on this forum pretend that people (whom you call “materialists”) still believe that matter consists of little bits of stuff that bounce off each other while they move around in space.

    No, RDFish, that is your straw man caricature of materialism that you attribute to your opponents so that you can knock it down. You’ve done so numerous times. It is tiresome. Kindly give it a rest.

    Do you really think that when people use short hand notations like “materialism” nowadays (and both materialists and non-materialists do), they must necessarily be talking about “tiny billiard ball” materialism that was once believed many years ago? If so, you are an idiot. In fact, it occurs to me that there is a post at UD entitled “RDFish is an Idiot” Thanks for adding more confirming data.

    If, like RDFish, I could respond to my opponents arguments only by lying about what they say, I think it would give me pause. Based on much experience, RDFish is unfazed when his lies are exposed.

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    Fish mon:

    The notion that the universe consists of “matter in motion” was abandoned by physical scientists 100+ years ago.

    Woah. You got a reference for this? The last I heard, physicists still believe that the universe consists of particles of matter in motion. Heck, they’ve built miles-long particle accelerators based on that assumption.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Right Mapou, but those particles never actually collide with other particles. Super collider is a complete misnomer.

  7. 7
    RDM says:

    I am not sure if RDFish simply skimmed until offended, or if he actually missed it, but I will point out that I did write the following in the OP:

    “…materialism (or naturalism, to use a different name for it).

    So it was not like I don’t understand the great nuances–or more often evasions–that pervade amongst materialist / naturalistic circles.

    At the same time, however, it should also be pointed out that, as a rule of thumb, it is entirely rational, at least in the West, to assume that any atheist is a materialist / naturalist until and unless provided with evidence to the contrary. And so, using such a term as “materialist” to describe a western atheist is not only not unwarranted, but is quite sensible until provided with proof to the contrary.

  8. 8
    Ray Martinez says:

    The utter hypocrisy of a website full of Christians who spend every waking moment of every waking day showing the evil of Materialism while accepting its main scientific claim: natural selection causing species mutability.

    How do we explain such an egregious contradiction?

    Ignorance?

    Delusion?

    Whatever the case, contrary to their belief about them self, one can rightfully use the fact of acceptance to say these persons are NOT following Christ.

    RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

  9. 9
    Ray Martinez says:

    RDM (msg #7):

    At the same time, however, it should also be pointed out that, as a rule of thumb, it is entirely rational, at least in the West, to assume that any atheist is a materialist / naturalist until and unless provided with evidence to the contrary. And so, using such a term as “materialist” to describe a western atheist is not only not unwarranted, but is quite sensible until provided with proof to the contrary.

    What else could an Atheist be except a Materialist? Materialism means “matter came first.” Thus human beings invented God or the Immaterial.

  10. 10
    RDFish says:

    Hi Barry,

    No, RDFish, that is your straw man caricature of materialism that you attribute to your opponents so that you can knock it down. You’ve done so numerous times. It is tiresome. Kindly give it a rest.

    The truth is diametrically opposed to what you just said. It is the people on this forum who draw a silly strawman caricature of “materialists”, not me. Just read ba77’s ridiculous post in this very thread:

    He declares “It is now shown that what we think of material reality, i.e. think of as solid material atoms, simply do exist as solid material atoms prior to conscious observation of them, but material atoms only come into existence upon conscious observation, i.e. upon collapse of the quantum wave state.

    Sorry, but this is very old news (> 100 years!), and no educated person believes anything else. (Except of course that ba77’s notion that consciousness collapses the waveform is a minority opinion, but that’s a different issue).

    ba77 cheerily laments:

    Since the philosophical arguments have been around for centuries and quantum mechanics has been around for decades (circa 1920), perhaps in another 150 years or so atheistic materialists will finally realize that both science and philosophy have now left them far behind?

    Who, Barry, are these “atheistic materialists” who somehow missed the revolution in physics at the turn of the 20th century? They exist only in the imagination of the paranoid and confused theists such as those on this forum who fear and despise the bogeyman of “materialism” that they themselves invent.

    Do you really think that when people use short hand notations like “materialism” nowadays (and both materialists and non-materialists do), they must necessarily be talking about “tiny billiard ball” materialism that was once believed many years ago?

    Good grief, how wrong can you be? Here are just a few of the poor confused folks here who cling to this ridiculous notion that atheists attribute all phenomena to “matter in motion”:

    “This is just one more in a long line of incoherencies inherent in the materialist position. It’s all jut [sic] matter in motion. no meaning.” – Mung

    “There is already plenty of evidence that mindless matter in motion did not create what we see around us in biology. Anyone with any reasonable level of objectivity can see this. And yet, people still cling to the myth.” – Eric Anderson

    “There is only matter in motion, and matter in motion cannot “rebel” against itself. Indeed, the concept of matter in motion rebelling against matter in motion is logically incoherent.” – Barry Arrington

    🙂 (emphasis added)

    If so, you are an idiot. In fact, it occurs to me that there is a post at UD entitled “RDFish is an Idiot” Thanks for adding more confirming data.

    Hahahahahahahahahaha! You are hilarious Barry.

    If, like RDFish, I could respond to my opponents arguments only by lying about what they say, I think it would give me pause. Based on much experience, RDFish is unfazed when his lies are exposed.

    As usual, you are indulging in what psychologists call “projection”. It is you who lies and blusters and builds stupid strawmen. It is sadly comical that you attribute these acts to me.

    Cheers,
    RDFish/AIGuy

  11. 11
    Barry Arrington says:

    Red Fish, your lies have long since grown tiresome. You are an expert at Definition Deficit Disorder.

    If someone uses a common shorthand term such as “materialism” or a shorthand way of describing it without giving a 20-page dissertation on the differences among the various monist philosophies, you dishonestly ascribe your own caricature to their views. You lie, dissemble obfuscate and then close with “cheers” and a little smiley face. A certain level of good faith is demanded to participate at this site. You are not meeting the standard. Last warning.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    RDFish, if you believe, as neo-Darwinists do, that mind and information ’emerge’ from a energy-matter basis, that makes you, contrary to your denials, a reductive materialist.

    If you do not believe that mind and information are emergent from a material basis, but are primary, then you are not a materialist, nor are you even a neo-Darwinist. (and if you are not a neo-Darwinist why in blue blazes are you even on this site fighting against ID so hard with what I perceive to be blatant lies?)

    Advances in Quantum Mechanics have shown that mind and information are both irreducible to a material basis. That is what the empirical evidence itself shows. That is not the truth according to what interpretation of QM is most popular at the present time. Which is apparently, i.e. opinion polls, how you think science should be conducted.

    On page 8 of the following paper we see just 18% accept Everett’s many worlds.
    But on page 7 we see that 55% of the scientists accept that the observer plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role
    page 7
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069.pdf
    But then we also see that only 6% say that the observer plays a distinguished physical role….how is that possible?

    This video at 8:18 mark explains the descrepancy and shows how ‘metaphysical prejudice’ drastically alters what physicists are willing to say they believe about quantum mechanics ‘formalism’ from what they say quantum mechanics actually indicates:

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=3

    Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics have also shown that this ‘material’ reality is dependent on a ‘non-local’ reality that transcends time and space.

    Einstein and other materialists had fought tooth and nail against ‘non-locality’, and had fought for ‘realism’, since non-locality went directly against their materialistic presuppositions.

    They, i.e. THE MATERIALISTS, lost that fight big time!

    For you to pretend that materialists were not upset by these developments in quantum mechanics displays either willful ignorance or deception on your part.

    My bet is for willful deception.

    The falsification of local realism is as shattering to the materialism as the discovery of Big Bang cosmology was!

    notes:

    Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008
    Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct.
    Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,,

    (to which Anton Zeilinger responded)

    When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate.
    http://seedmagazine.com/conten....._tests/P3/

    “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize.
    John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it.
    How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?”
    per Jimfit
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-548632

    And to further solidify the case that ‘consciousness precedes reality’ the violation of Leggett’s inequalities have been extended. This following experiment violated Leggett’s inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations:

    Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011
    Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,,
    https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf

    Leggett’s Inequality, the mathematics behind it, and the Theistic implications of it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:

    Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449

    Entanglement: The Quantum Around You. Ep 2 (How Bell’s Inequality is derived, similar to how Leggett’s is derived)) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC_XES4xQD4

    Here is the article by Dr. Richard Conn Henry that Dr. Paul Giem discussed at the 32:28 minute mark of the ‘Quantum Weirdness’ video

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations)
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

  13. 13
    Mapou says:

    RDFish:

    Sorry, but this is very old news (> 100 years!), and no educated person believes anything else. (Except of course that ba77’s notion that consciousness collapses the waveform is a minority opinion, but that’s a different issue).

    Most quantum physicists (and most of them are materialists) believe in this silly nonsense. If matter had to wait for conscious observers to be present in order to do anything, then nothing would happen. All kinds of interactions are occurring inside the sun or even inside a pebble without anybody around to observe them. Where did this observer-centric crap come from, pray tell?

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, a billiard ball collision never actually implies some sort of mythical direct contact, it is repulsive fields of electron clouds. Particles have long since been known to be wavicles [with mas-energy relations mixed in], and so forth, but that only means that the way matter-energy interacting purposelessly in space-time is more particularly defined. Philosophically, it is still materialism or physicalism or the like. Makes not five cents of difference to the issues at stake. KF

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Oh goody RDFish and Mapou are buddies now! 🙂 Somehow that comforts me!

    Of note: at the 8:30 minute mark of the following video, Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner’s Friend are highlighted:

    Divinely Planted Quantum States – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCTBygadaM4#t=156s

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
    Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”;
    Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

    “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
    Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961

    ‘all real things are contents of consciousness’
    – John von Neumann
    https://books.google.com/books?id=NQm6BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT51&lpg=PT51&dq=John+von+Neumann+%E2%80%9CAll+real+things+are+contents+of+consciousness

    Of supplemental note to the preceding Wigner ‘consciousness’ quotes, it is interesting to note that many of Wigner’s insights have now been experimentally verified and are also now fostering a ‘second’ revolution in quantum mechanics,,,

    Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution – Anton Zeilinger – Sept. 2014
    Conclusion
    It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics,
    http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles....._01010.pdf

    Thus, since Wigner’s insights into the foundational role of the ‘conscious observer’ in Quantum Mechanics are bearing fruit with a ‘Second Quantum Revolution’, then that is certainly very strong evidence that his ‘consciousness’ insights are indeed true.

  16. 16
    Mapou says:

    BA77 @15,

    I’m sorry but this is all pseudoscientific nonsense, IMO. Wigner must have written this nonsense after he got old and senile. Schrodinger was actually making fun of the whole thing with his cat experiment: he thought it was silly and preposterous.

    The fact remains that we know what occurs during particle collisions because we have zillions of unconscious sensors inside the particle collider.

    I’m not sure why you keep bringing this stuff to support the non-materialist view. It does not need it. Most of physical science interpretations are crap. You are using private interpretations of QM as fact. Interpretations are not science. They are mere opinions.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Mapou, when you foster a ‘second quantum revolution’ with your insights into physics, I will give your opinion more respect than I do now which is next to none, on the negative side of next to none I might add.

    i.e. Your ad hominem of Wigner just made me lose even more respect for your opinions in physics. (as if that were possible).,,

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    BA77, so be it. In the meantime, your use of opinions as facts is not convincing anybody. See you around.

    PS. You almost never have a logical argument. All you have are opinions.

  19. 19
    Barry Arrington says:

    KF

    Makes not five cents of difference to the issues at stake

    Indeed, which makes RDFish’s antics all the more irksome, and he has been warned for the last time.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Contrary to what RDFish claims about how materialists/naturalists have handled the findings of Quantum Mechanics in a rational cool headed manner, the following reaction is the typical reaction that materialists/naturalists most often have upon learning about some of the ‘weirdness’ inherent in Quantum Mechanics:

    Hitler Reacts to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlJYUIXAAQ8

    🙂 🙂

    Of technical note to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is found to support Wheeler’s, Zeilinger’s, and Dembski’s, (and others), contention that ‘material’ reality is actually ‘information theoretic’ in its most foundational basis:

    Quantum physics just got less complicated – Dec. 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply the quantum ‘uncertainty principle’ in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,,
    “The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,”,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2014-12-q.....cated.html

  21. 21
    RDFish says:

    Hi Barry,

    I provided a number of quotes that demonstrated how folks here – you included – identify anyone who doesn’t believe in a god to be a “materialist”, and then further reduce “materialism” to the belief that everything occurs as a result of “matter in motion”.

    You attempt to pass this off as “shorthand”, and suggest that it would take a “20 page dissertation” in order to stop making a caricature of what actual atheists believe.

    You’ve never engaged what I believe; instead you make up accusations, call me names, and ban me from the board. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Cheers,
    RDFish/AIGuy

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    RDFish, for you to pretend that atheistic materialists, especially of the neo-Darwinian variety, do not believe it is all just ‘matter in motion’ is delusional at best and downright deceptive at worst.
    As to your claim at 4:

    “people on this forum pretend that people (whom you call “materialists”) still believe that matter consists of little bits of stuff that bounce off each other while they move around in space.”

    Bruce Alberts, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, comments on how prevalent the ‘molecules bouncing off each other’ view was, (and still is), amongst molecular biologists.

    “We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB — and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. Consider an enzyme, for example. If its substrate molecule is present at a concentration of 0.5mM,which is only one substrate molecule for every 105 water molecules, the enzyme’s active site will randomly collide with about 500,000 molecules of substrate per second. And a typical globular protein will be spinning to and fro, turning about various axes at rates corresponding to a million rotations per second.
    But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”
    – Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294) Editor-in-Chief of Science (2009-2013) served two six-year terms as the president of the National Academy of Sciences

    To this day, despite Alberts’ confession of gross naivete on the part of molecular biologists, Darwinists still try to purposely portray molecular biology as just ‘randomly colliding particles’, i.e. as just ‘matter in motion’.
    Dr. Wells relates, in this following article from last year, how Darwinists, trying to counter the overwhelming impression of Design that the Harvard BioVisions animation ‘Inner Life of the Cell’ had created, tried, with a new animation, to make the cell look as random and chaotic as possible,,

    Flailing Blindly: The Pseudoscience of Josh Rosenau and Carl Zimmer – Jonathan Wells April 17, 2014
    Excerpt: The new animation (like the old) also includes a kinesin molecule hauling a vesicle, but this time the kinesin’s movements are characterized (in Zimmer’s words) by

    “barely constrained randomness. Every now and then, a tiny molecule loaded with fuel binds to one of the kinesin “feet.” It delivers a jolt of energy, causing that foot to leap off the molecular cable and flail wildly, pulling hard on the foot that’s still anchored. Eventually, the gyrating foot stumbles into contact again with the cable, locking on once more — and advancing the vesicle a tiny step forward. This updated movie offers a better way to picture our most intricate inner workings…. In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd.”

    But that’s not what the biological evidence shows. In fact, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....84521.html

    Indeed, far from the ‘barely constrained randomness’ of proteins just flailing around ‘blindly in a crowd’, as the neo-Darwinists had claimed, protein molecules are found to communicate with the other molecules in the cell in a way that is so precise that it is said to resemble a ‘symphony’:

    Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life – Jan. 16, 2014
    Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz’ team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb.
    This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies.
    So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed.
    This technique, , allowed the team to identify which sections of the protein vibrated under normal biological conditions. The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions.
    “If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave,” Markelz said. “Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don’t get any sustained sound.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....084838.htm

    Of related note as to how fine-tuned protein molecules are for biophotonic communication

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    Moreover, that molecular biologists, and neo-Darwinists in particular, have completely ignored advances in quantum mechanics is also made abundantly clear in the fact that they have ignored Erwin Schrodinger’s contention, that he made all the way back in 1944, that life must be based on quantum mechanical principles.

    WHAT IS LIFE? ERWIN SCHRODINGER – First published 1944 Pg. 28-29
    TWO WAYS OF PRODUCING ORDERLINESS
    Excrpt: “The orderliness encountered in the unfolding of life springs from a different source. It appears that there are two different ‘mechanisms’ by which orderly events can be produced: the ‘statistical mechanism’ which produces order from disorder and the new one, producing order from order. To the unprejudiced mind the second principle appears to be much simpler, much more plausible. No (a) doubt it is. That is why physicists were so proud to have fallen in with the other one, the ‘order-from-disorder’ principle, which is actually followed in Nature and which alone conveys an understanding of the great line of natural events , in the first place of their irreversibility . But we cannot expect that the ‘laws of physics’ derived from it suffice straight away to explain the behaviour of living matter, whose most striking features are visibly based to a large extent on the ‘order-from-order’ principle. You would not expect two entirely different mechanisms to bring about the same type of law-you would not expect your latch-key, to open your neighbour’s door as well. We must therefore not be discouraged by the difficulty of interpreting life by the ordinary laws of physics. For that is just what is to be expected from the knowledge we have gained of the structure of living matter. We must be prepared to find a new type of physical law prevailing in it. Or are we to term it a non-physical, not to say a super-physical, law?
    THE NEW PRINCIPLE IS NOT ALIEN TO PHYSICS
    No. I do not think that. For the new principle that is involved is a genuinely physical one: it is, in my opinion, nothing else than the principle of quantum theory over again.,,,”
    http://whatislife.stanford.edu.....s-Life.pdf
    (Indeed, unless life is based on quantum mechanical principles, how else can the billion trillion protein molecules of a human being possibly cohere as a single unified whole for precisely a lifetime before they go their separate ways back into the environment upon the death of a human?)

    Jim Al-Khalili, at the 2:30 minute mark of the following video, states that in regards to advances in quantum mechanics ‘biologists have gotten off lightly’,

    “Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can’t build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn’t really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it.”

    That is, contrary to your claim RDFish, certainly a VERY materialistic view of molecular biology!
    At the 6:52 minute mark of the same video, Jim Al-Khalili goes on to paraphrase Schrodinger:

    “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrodinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”.
    Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q

    As well, in an article from last year, Jim Al-Khalili comments on how Schrodinger’s ‘order from order’ principle was virtually completely ignored by molecular biologists up until about a decade ago:

    You’re powered by quantum mechanics. No, really… – Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden – Saturday 25 October 2014
    Excerpt: “Schrödinger pointed out that many of life’s properties, such as heredity, depend of molecules made of comparatively few particles – certainly too few to benefit from the order-from-disorder rules of thermodynamics. But life was clearly orderly. Where did this orderliness come from? Schrödinger suggested that life was based on a novel physical principle whereby its macroscopic order is a reflection of quantum-level order, rather than the molecular disorder that characterises the inanimate world. He called this new principle “order from order”. But was he right?
    Up until a decade or so ago, most biologists would have said no. But as 21st-century biology probes the dynamics of ever-smaller systems – even individual atoms and molecules inside living cells – the signs of quantum mechanical behaviour in the building blocks of life are becoming increasingly apparent. Recent research indicates that some of life’s most fundamental processes do indeed depend on weirdness welling up from the quantum undercurrent of reality.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/sci.....cs-biology

    Thus RDFish, for you to claim that materialists, and neo-Darwinists in particular, don’t believe that ‘matter consists of little bits of stuff that bounce off each other while they move around in space’ is either willful ignorance or willful deception on your part.
    Moreover, quantum mechanics, specifically quantum entanglement, is found to be in molecular biology on a far more massive scale than Jim Al-Khalili highlighted in his video. Quantum Entanglement is now found in every DNA and protein molecule

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – Elisabeth Rieper – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain – Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija – 2006
    Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural – amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy – classical and quantum state, and (3) information – classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system.
    http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note: quantum information and quantum entanglement are basically equivalent:

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    Moreover, I hold quantum computation to solve the enigma of protein folding:

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html

    etc.. etc..

    In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    And although Naturalists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism By Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D
    Excerpt: The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

    Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is falsified in its claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a reductive materialist basis.
    Of related note: classical ‘digital’ information is found to be a subset of ‘non-local’ (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    And here is the evidence that quantum information is in fact ‘conserved’;,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

    Black holes don’t erase information, scientists say – April 2, 2015
    Excerpt: The “information loss paradox” in black holes—a problem that has plagued physics for nearly 40 years—may not exist.,,,
    This is an important discovery, Stojkovic says, because even physicists who believed information was not lost in black holes have struggled to show, mathematically, how this happens. His new paper presents explicit calculations demonstrating how information is preserved, he says.
    The research marks a significant step toward solving the “information loss paradox,” a problem that has plagued physics for almost 40 years, since Stephen Hawking first proposed that black holes could radiate energy and evaporate over time. This posed a huge problem for the field of physics because it meant that information inside a black hole could be permanently lost when the black hole disappeared—a violation of quantum mechanics, which states that information must be conserved.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-04-b.....sts.html+/

    Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information, the implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:

    Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjpEc98o_Oo

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIyEjh6ef_8

    Verse and Music

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    ROYAL TAILOR – HOLD ME TOGETHER
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw

  25. 25
    RDFish says:

    I think ID folks make a caricature of atheists by equating them with “materialists” who reduce all phenomena to “matter in motion”.

    The point is important because nobody believes that “matter in motion” can lead to complex form and function, the way ID folks pretend. Rather, there are complex laws of physics (which gives rise to chemistry, etc) and these greatly constrain what these “particles” in motion actually do. Think about it: “Matter in motion” wouldn’t even form a snowflake, so nobody thinks “matter in motion” would form a living cell.

    As BA77 points out at great length in most of these threads, the laws of physics are actually quite bizarre, quite relevant to biology, and they ought to be taken into account when imagining what might be responsible for life origins.

    But we can’t discuss the issue as long as ID folks caricature atheists as believing that all phenomena are merely “matter in motion”.

    Barry thinks I am an idiot for complaining about this:

    (@4) No, RDFish, that is your straw man caricature of materialism that you attribute to your opponents so that you can knock it down. You’ve done so numerous times. It is tiresome. Kindly give it a rest.

    Do you really think that when people use short hand notations like “materialism” nowadays (and both materialists and non-materialists do), they must necessarily be talking about “tiny billiard ball” materialism that was once believed many years ago? If so, you are an idiot.

    Later in this very same thread, BA77 explains that indeed, atheists are materialists who reduce all phenomena to “matter in motion”:

    RDFish, for you to pretend that atheistic materialists, especially of the neo-Darwinian variety, do not believe it is all just ‘matter in motion’ is delusional at best and downright deceptive at worst.

    And then we find this from Barry in another thread, where he explains that materialism considers all phenomena to be “matter in motion”:

    There is only matter in motion, and matter in motion cannot “rebel” against itself. Indeed, the concept of matter in motion rebelling against matter in motion is logically incoherent.

    So let me get this straight: ID folks are right even when they contradict each other, and even when they contradict themselves. Got it.

    Cheers,
    RDFish/AIGuy

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    RDFish states:

    As BA77 points out at great length in most of these threads, the laws of physics are actually quite bizarre, quite relevant to biology, and they ought to be taken into account when imagining what might be responsible for life origins.

    But we can’t discuss the issue as long as ID folks caricature atheists as believing that all phenomena are merely “matter in motion”.

    RDFish you were also shown, at great length, that materialists, especially Darwinian atheists, DO THINK it is all ‘randomly colliding particles’.

    Funny you still want to discuss an issue that you were unequivocally shown to be wrong on. Ever hear the phrase ‘a dog chasing its tail in a circle?’

    As to breaking the impasse, Paul Davies states:

    the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer – an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff – hardware – but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.
    http://www.theguardian.com/edu.....ucation.uk

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    RDF,

    You will observe that I have spoken very specifically to evolutionary materialist scientism dressed up in a lab coat and pretending to monopolise knowledge and truth, similar to what has been espoused by Lewontin:

    . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [==> as in, “we” have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

    Yes, other kinds of atheism exist, which are not relevant here.

    Yes, we do not have a billiard-ball model of atoms or particles, having come to understand that at that level we deal with wavicles.

    Not a farthing’s worth of difference, the conception of reality as exhausted by blind chance and mechanical necessity driven interactions of matter-energy in space-time falls under the same core understanding and self-refuting incoherence.

    Not that such will bring you to surrender a convenient talking point that you want to ride on and on and on.

    Sadly, tellingly.

    KF

  28. 28
    Barry Arrington says:

    RDFish

    The point is important because nobody believes that “matter in motion” can lead to complex form and function, the way ID folks pretend.

    Tell us what else there is besides space, time, matter and energy.

  29. 29
    RDFish says:

    BA77,

    RDFish you were also shown, at great length, that materialists, especially Darwinian atheists, DO THINK it is all ‘randomly colliding particles’.

    So you are contradicting Barry, who thinks it’s idiotic to think materialists believe this or that ID folks accuse them of it! OK, that’s fine with me – there’s plenty of confusion to go around here 🙂

    Funny you still want to discuss an issue that you were unequivocally shown to be wrong on.

    You forgot to explain the part about where I’ve been wrong.

    I can explain where you are wrong, though:

    1) You cherry-pick quotes that seem to show that atheists in general fail to understand modern physics and cling for some reason to Newtonian mechanics. You’re wrong about that.

    2) You cherry-pick quotes that seem to show that physicists generally believe that consciousness is causal and exists independently of the physical world. You’re wrong about that.

    3) You quote people talking about the information physics, or non-locality, or any number of other things, and seem to think that this means theism and mind/body dualism is somehow empirically supported. You’re outlandishly wrong about that.

    Cheers,
    RDFish/AIGuy

  30. 30
    RDFish says:

    Hi Barry,

    Tell us what else there is besides space, time, matter and energy.

    First, you should realize that time and space are not distinct; they are entwined as dimensions of a 4D spacetime manifold.

    Second, you should realize that matter and energy are not distinct; they are both manifestations of the same underlying “stuff”, and that we cannot conceive of what this “stuff” actually is because none of our classical conceptions fit: The fundamental “particles” of reality are not “things” that exist at one place at one time, or that obey locality and causality as we understand them.

    Third, there are lots of things described by modern physics that are not spacetime or mass-energy, such as the fundamental forces; properties like electric charge, color charge, or quantum spin; phenomena that have no underlying conceptual explanation at all such as entanglement; and so on.

    BA77 is right that these aspects of reality are fundamental and need to be comprehended in order to derive an accurate picture of the most important questions of existence, starting with ontology. BA77 is completely wrong about what the implications of these things are, of course. To move forward we need to move the discussion past this ridiculous cartoon of people believing that “matter in motion” jostles around and results in planets, stars, snowflakes, and people.

    Cheers,
    RDFish/AIGuy

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    RDFish, I am satisfied that I have more than established my case. As for your typical denial in the face of that clear evidence, oh well, dogs will be dogs and militant atheists will be militant atheists, so I’ll let you chase your own tail in a circle.

    As I heard said the other day, “an atheist apparently thinks, even though his argument is soundly refuted, that just because he can still type on his keyboard that he must still have a argument.”

    i.e. I’m done with your endless stupid games.

  32. 32
    RDFish says:

    Hi BA77,

    No, you’ve never made a case for anything except that physics is weird, which of course I agree with completely.

    You pretend that it is somehow settled science that consciousness collapses the waveform, and you comb the net to cherry-pick your quotes, but only a minority of physicists take that interpretation. You pretend that the role of quantum phenomena in consciousness – and conversely the role of consciousness in quantum phenomena – is somehow already understood, when that isn’t the case whatsoever.

    Fundamentally, your argument is “QM is weird therefore Christianity is the one true religion”.

    This is your endless, stupid game.

    Cheers,
    RDFish/AIGuy

  33. 33
    Axel says:

    There’s no arguing with RDF, is there? It’s the old business of confusing appearance with self-evidence, dealt with in an article yesterday. ‘Ye can lead a horse to the watter, but ye cannae mak it drink.’ (Well, that’s my Caledonian version.

    No amount of right reason and logic will persuade the recalcitrant. ‘The servant isn’t greater than his Master.

  34. 34
    RDFish says:

    Hi Axel,

    There’s no arguing with RDF, is there?

    How would you know? You’ve failed to actually articulate an argument!

    Cheers,
    RDFish/AIGuy

  35. 35
    Peter Nyikos says:

    Ray Martinez has complained in the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins that he was banned for Comment number 8. Be that as it may, I have shown how hypocritical his Comment number 8 is, on the same talk.origins thread:

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/SUIpcq3UBaY/KVG5JrOaDwAJ

  36. 36
    Axel says:

    Hi RD,

    Why would I? I’ve just remarked on the futility of engaging in a colloquy with you, other, perhaps, than to ‘pass the time of day’, so to speak!

    See what I mean, folks?

  37. 37
    Axel says:

    Good morrow, RD! There. I’ve done my stint.

  38. 38
    Mung says:

    Axel, you never converse with me. At best you have a kind thing to say to me and then go on as if I ceased to exist the moment you said it.

Leave a Reply