Review of Darwin’s Doubt slams ID theorists for not publishing in Darwinist-run journals

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 6, 2018

Books of interest, Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review}

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

From Daniel Muth at Living Church, reviewing Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt:

I am fairly certain that there are thoughtful and potentially influential intellectual movements that have been subjected to more shameful and inexcusable misrepresentation and ill treatment than Intelligent Design (ID), but the list is not long (Roman Catholic teaching on artificial birth control comes to mind). To be fair, ID theorists have invited critique in no small part by tending to hold theirs out as a valid area of scientific research while mainly publishing popular books rather than peer-reviewed articles. If their intention was not to be lumped in with creationists, it has not worked.

From the disastrous Dover School Board lawsuit to the propaganda screeds of the New Atheists, ID has managed in a short time to fix itself in the popular consciousness as little but another movement of bellicose anti-scientific crackpots. That is a shame, because the theorists are generally quite thoughtful and reputably credentialed. The stuff they have written is informative, challenging, and worthwhile. More.

Muth appears to believe the incorrect information I (O’Leary for News) know for a fact that they were not. They thought the Dover school board’s decision, which resulted in the case, was appalling but also felt they ought to get involved to try to minimize the damage. The myth he refers to persists because people often don’t actually want to know what happened. If they do, they can’t really say the things they feel burdened to say and can gain approval for saying.

As for “mainly publishing popular books rather than peer-reviewed articles,” surely Muth is not so naive as to imagine that Darwinist-run journals would publish good ID research?

Just recently, Gunter Bechly, the gifted scientist who was disappeared from Wikipedia after he turned out to be an ID supporter described a beautiful dragonfly fossil with ID implications, which he had spent some time studying, in a peer-reviewed ID journal, BIO-Complexity.

He was promptly slammed for not publishing it in a Darwinist-run journal—as if Darwinists would have accepted it. And as if they would allow a discussion of the way it upsets neat Darwinian categories—other than a discussion entirely controlled by themselves which closes with reassurances that all is well.

But then that is probably what Living Church readers want: reassurances that a good Christian just accepts whatever mainstream science says, whatever it is. Makes life easier.

Here’s a thought: When a “thoughtful and potentially influential intellectual” movement is “subjected to more shameful and inexcusable misrepresentation and ill treatment,” it is usually due to intellectual corruption in the establishment. Again, one hesitates to believe that Muth is too naive to know that, but is there a better explanation? If so, what?

See also: Evolution News slams “sloppy” IV book by BioLogos advisor

and

Fossil dragonfly named in Mike Behe’s honor has implications for ID

Note: In the combox below, bornagain77 offers examples of what happens when ID theorists or sympathizers try to publish in Darwin-sympathetic journals. I he taken the liberty of posting it here to the OP. Essentially, the evidence the ID theorists offer against Darwinism proves that they are outsiders. Insiders circle the wagons to protect a theory (Darwinism) that has become largely meaningless where it is not metaphysical. It has become so vague as to be largely unfalsifiable. And they like it that way. And they plan to keep evolution studies that way. nyway, here are some stories to ponder in that light:

—

At post 9 Allan Keith states this in regards to Darwinian journals not allowing ID friendly papers:

I often here this claim but I have never seen any concrete examples. It would be of great interest to post a rejected paper here along with the reviewers comments and reason for rejection.

Well, here are a few examples of Darwinists publicly suppressing dissent from their views:

Richard Sternberg

Richard Sternberg – Smithsonian Controversy
In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Subsequently, there were two federal investigations of my mistreatment, one by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in 2005 , and the other by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform in 2006. Both investigations unearthed clear evidence that my rights had been repeatedly violated. Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth.
http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php

Douglas Axe:

Douglas Axe, director of the Biologic Institute in Seattle, knows this first-hand. As a post-doctoral researcher at the prestigious Medical Research Council Centre in Cambridge in 2002, he was experimenting on protein structures when his superiors discovered that his research was being funded in part by an intelligent design organization. The science was solid – he later published his findings in a prestigious journal – but his association with intelligent design was considered unacceptable. He was asked to leave.
http://www.jewishpress.com/ind…..016/07/27/

Granville Sewell

ENV readers will recall that last year, University of Texas El Paso mathematics professor Granville Sewell was disallowed from publishing an article in Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) simply because it was (indirectly) critical of Darwinian evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/04/double_censorsh/

Guillermo Gonzalez

As we amply documented at the time, the real reasons Gonzalez did not get tenure at ISU were simple: discrimination and intolerance. Despite an exemplary record as a scientist, Gonzalez was rejected by ISU because of his support for intelligent design.
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/07/setting_the_rec/

Günter Bechly

Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/

William Dembski and Robert Marks:

Academic Freedom Expelled from Baylor University
https://evolutionnews.org/2007/09/academic_freedom_expelled_from/

Michael Behe

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

So, Michael Behe Was Right After All; What Will the Critics Say Now? – Casey Luskin July 16, 2014
Excerpt: Will Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, Paul Gross, Nick Matzke, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers now Apologize to Michael Behe? (for their ad hominem attacks),,,
Is an apology from Behe’s critics then forthcoming? In a world where debates were conducted with the goal of discovering truth rather (than) scoring points, it sure ought to be. Unfortunately, I’m not sure we live in that world.
What we’ll probably get is nothing more than PZ Myers’s concession, offered in the context of the rant quoted above,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..87901.html

Stephen Meyer

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

The attempted censorship of the book “Biological Information: New Perspectives”

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

James Tour and anyone he knew who signed the “Dissent from Darwinism” list

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

If silencing by intimidation, or censorship, does not work, Darwinists simply ‘EXPEL’ anyone who disagrees with them:

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

Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
“If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte…..0981873405

Origins – Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman – 2011 – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk

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

Here are some of the peer reviewed papers supporting ID that have been published in spite of the systematic bias against ID:

BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN – UPDATED – July 2017
http://www.discovery.org/scrip…..8;id=10141

Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
http://evoinfo.org/publications/

Bio-Complexity Publication Archive
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/…..ue/archive

Biological Information – New Perspectives – Proceedings of the Symposium – published online May 2013
http://www.worldscientific.com…..8818#t=toc

Dr. David L. Abel (The Gene Emergence Project) – list of published papers
http://lifeorigin.academia.edu/DrDavidLAbel/Papers

Of related note:

But Darwinism is universally accepted among “real” scientists! – December 30, 2016
Excerpt: A friend started making a list of books that doubt all or most of modern Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, the slightly elastic Extended Synthesis, and came up with a three-tiered, hardly exhaustive, shelf:
St. George Mivart, On the Genesis of Species (1871)
Charles Hodge, What Is Darwinism (1874)
Samuel Butler, Evolution, Old and New (1879)
Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution (1907/tr. 1911)
Svante Arrhenius Worlds in the Making (1908)
Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (1940)
Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage (1941)
Lecomte du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947)
Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959)
Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (Delta, 1971)
Pierre Paul Grassé: “L´evolution du vivant” (1973)
Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (Harper, 1983)
L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1984)
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985)
Soren Lovtrup Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987)
Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: The Memory of Nature (1988)
R. F. Baum, Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx & Freud (1988)
Robert Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT (1991)
Dorothy Kurth Boberg, Evolution and Reason – Beyond Darwin (1993)
Remy Chauvin: “Le darwinism où le fin d´un mythe” (1997)
Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Life: A New Look at Evolution (1998)
Stuart Newman and Gerd Muller (eds.), Origination of Organismal Form” (2002)
David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales (2006)
Etienne Gilson, From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again : A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution (2009)
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin God Wrong (2010)
Gerd Muller and Massimo Pigliucci, Evolution: the Extended Synthesis” (2010)
George McGhee, Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful, MIT (2011)
Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos (2012)
A Lima-de-Faria, Evolution without Selection: Form and Function by Autoevolution (2013)
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (2015 [updated from 1985])
Suzan Mazur’s:
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (2009)
Paradigm Shifters (2015) and
Public Evolution Summit (2016).
https://uncommondescent.com…..cientists/

Even though neo-Darwinists still like to complain that Intelligent Design advocates don’t have that many published peer-reviewed papers, it turns out that if one looks at the peer-reviewed papers coming from neo-Darwinists themselves, the evidence will many times directly, and overwhelmingly, support the Intelligent Design position (such as ENCODE research), while their explanation for the evidence is found to be, many times, highly contrived, and twisted, just to support their presupposed philosophical conclusion of neo-Darwinism.

Darwinian ‘science’ in a nutshell:
Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate – April 20, 2015
Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution:
1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact.
2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution].
3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory.
4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact.
https://uncommondescent.com…..ilerplate/

Comments

Kairosfocus,
PS, I am prompted to suggest that we take a look at sawdust: tiny little shavings. That proves that each tooth of a zipping saw isn’t doing a lot at any given time. But there are a lot of teeth and the saw is going back and forth, zip, zip, zip. If one extrapolates from oh that’s not a lot, to imagine there is not a large cumulative impact, s/he will be sadly mistaken. In this case, the branch that is being sawed away it bearing the load of our civilisation, apparently largely under-recognised. At some critical point, crack propagation takes over at the stress concentration caused by the indent created. Bang, catastrophic failure. Suicidal agit prop can come to a point of cumulative effect hitting a critical threshold, at which point rapid failure of civilisation ensues. Maybe, it is time to stop sawing away at our future.
Civilization is going to come crashing down because I used the term "Gish gallop" juxtaposed against a nonsense accusation that BA77 made against me? Don't you think that your hyperbole is over-the-top? Most measurable indicators show that we are less violent and more tolerant than we have ever been. Largely because we make the effort to understand our differences and accept them as long as they are not doing harm to others. We have better health care and a better social safety net than we have ever had. Our children are better educated. And they are now being provided with comprehensive and factual information about sex, such that rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortions are lower than they were since Roe v. Wade. People are no longer prosecuted,and the level of persecution is lower, for simply being homosexual. Do we face challenges? Of course we do. But I am very optimistic about the future ahead of us. Young people are less hampered by the puritanical edicts of their ancestors; retaining the sensible and logical teachings and discarding the more intolerant ones. We have a lot to learn from our youth.Allan Keith_{May 11, 2018
May
05
May
11
11
2018
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

PS, I am prompted to suggest that we take a look at sawdust: tiny little shavings. That proves that each tooth of a zipping saw isn't doing a lot at any given time. But there are a lot of teeth and the saw is going back and forth, zip, zip, zip. If one extrapolates from oh that's not a lot, to imagine there is not a large cumulative impact, s/he will be sadly mistaken. In this case, the branch that is being sawed away it bearing the load of our civilisation, apparently largely under-recognised. At some critical point, crack propagation takes over at the stress concentration caused by the indent created. Bang, catastrophic failure. Suicidal agit prop can come to a point of cumulative effect hitting a critical threshold, at which point rapid failure of civilisation ensues. Maybe, it is time to stop sawing away at our future.kairosfocus_{May 11, 2018
May
05
May
11
11
2018
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

CM, were this merely personal insult, I would agree. Unfortunately, it is agit-prop and takes its place in the branch-sawing that is currently undermining our civilisation. The intent is Laodicean: to lock out the unwelcome, so that truth knocks politely at the door of the alleged temple of truth, but in vain. Beyond a certain point we must reckon with why Jesus as prophet TWICE drove the money-changers from the Court of the Gentiles (the second time, sparking the plot that judicially murdered him -- and that Sunday was coming does not change the terrible dynamic of corruption thus set loose). I suggest, if you look above, I did not demand an apology but rather pointed out that this is a key step on the road to return to civility. Notice: "anyone who uses the phrase gish gallop here or elsewhere instantly disqualifies himself from serious consideration, pending a straight out apology and pledge never to resort to such slanderous nonsense again." Self-exile from civility requires self-correction, and the manifestation of such correction of oneself is a signal to others that there is a genuine turn. That does not mean that I have demanded, it means I have described, then pointed the correction. Nor, does it mean that I am holding my breath, waiting on the sort of turn that too often requires a crash into reality at rock bottom as it is said. And unfortunately, the cumulative impact of that spreading evil in its many forms is cumulatively suicidal. Sometimes, inadvertent enabling has to be eliminated. KFkairosfocus_{May 10, 2018
May
05
May
10
10
2018
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

KairosFocus
CM, I must disagree. Kindly, see the Rational Wiki to see what I am speaking about. This is slander to the man and to the current target. The intent is to smear without good cause, brand as intellectually dishonest, poison against and dismiss.
Of course this is an attempt to slander and smear. My point is that it fails. Rather than chastising people for doing this, we should allow them. It only makes them look bad. Demanding g that they apologize only gives credence to their views.Charles McVety_{May 10, 2018
May
05
May
10
10
2018
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

CM, I must disagree. Kindly, see the Rational Wiki to see what I am speaking about. This is slander to the man and to the current target. The intent is to smear without good cause, brand as intellectually dishonest, poison against and dismiss. While I am sure Dr Gish would indeed be gracious, the fundamental incivility and disrespect for truth in a context that is heavily freighted with consequences are also clear. That destruction of the civil space for serious discussion on the merits, cumulatively, is part of the suicide of our civilisation. I say suicide as those indulging in sawing off the branch are also sitting on it. KFkairosfocus_{May 10, 2018
May
05
May
10
10
2018
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus:
AK, anyone who uses the phrase gish gallop here or elsewhere instantly disqualifies himself from serious consideration, pending a straight out apology and pledge never to resort to such slanderous nonsense again.
With respect, I think that you are blowing this way out of proportion. As the President of Canada Christian College, I had the pleasure of meeting Duane on several occasions. He would not have been offended by this phrase. In fact, he would have viewed it as a sign that those who disagree with his arguments are clutching at straws.Charles McVety_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

AK, are you aware that eye for eye is in effect a statement of the key jurisprudential principle that punishments should be proportionate to crimes? As in, not wildly disproportionate and vindictive? KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

AK, are you aware of the discipline and movement known by the Russian Acronym, TRIZ? I suggest you look it up before suggesting that no frame of addressing how designs are done is on the table. FYI, this has been specifically pointed to by WmAD, years ago. We also have the ongoing work of Venter et al and genetic engineering. Even the gene knockout research technique is relevant. In short, the whole line of your objections is without serious merit. Not to mention, thattwerdun is prior to howtweredun. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

AK, your ad hom on have YOU published in darwinoist journals is duly noted. FYI, there are several dozen and growing technical, ID supportive articles regarding biology. On cosmology, likely the number is 1 - 2 orders of magnitude higher, given the fine tuning issue. Besides, the argument is the trifecta fallacy in action: red herring led away to a strawman caricature duly set alight to cloud, poison, polarise and frustrate the atmosphere for discussion. The core issue that you obviously have no answer to, is that on a trillion observation base, functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information is a reliable sign that intelligently directed configuration is a material causal factor. You have ZERO cases of reliably, actually observed cases where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have created such FSCO/I. You have no plausible answer to the implied repeated discovery of islands of function in ultra-large config spaces by blind needle in haystack search. That is, you are championing statistical miracles. This is often done by ideological lock-out of the otherwise well warranted candidate: design. When you can answer the core case on its merits, then you may have something of substance to say otherwise. In the meanwhile you are simply showing just how bankrupt the blind watchmaker case is. KF PS: I won't indulge a long list of articles, I simply point to Abel on the plausibility metric, which I urge you to read before further digging in deeper: https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-6-27kairosfocus_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

F/N: re 111, kindly note 64 above. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

PS: Plato's warning, as is just shown highly relevant by AK at 100:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

AK, 100:
since evil is a concept fabricated by religion
You here put your amorality on public display for all to see. The wise will take due heed, and it is appropriate to cite Plato's warning in The Laws Bk X. To follow. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

AK, anyone who uses the phrase gish gallop here or elsewhere instantly disqualifies himself from serious consideration, pending a straight out apology and pledge never to resort to such slanderous nonsense again. FYI, I personally met the late Dr Duane Gish and found him to be a decent Christian gentleman. Start there, then multiply by the fact that he won 300+:0 public debates on the evidence for evolution by repeatedly documenting what say Gould has conceded in his last book: the gaps of the fossil record are systematic and should not be there were darwinist gradualism even close to a true account, not with 250,000+ fossil observations on the record from all around the world and across the eras in museums etc and billions more fossils seen in the ground. This was a spectacularly failed prediction of Darwin in Origin. Then, if someone were to pile up reams of lies, distortions and misrepresentations, then to simply pick several key cases and show the true facts would discredit the case. That never happened, instead word was spread to not debate and now the live donkeys delight to kick the dead lions. and if you think that's offensive as a metaphor, kindly read Rational wiki or the like on that claimed fallacy. All such do is show they have no integrity or civility. You, sir, owe an apology bigtime. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

BA77@102 - 108, seven comments comprising over 6000 words to respond to a single comment. This must be a record. :)Allan Keith_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Allan:
Yet computer response times of more than 100 milliseconds are percepatable by everyone.
Only in NYC. But then again 100 milliseconds of green is an eternity for them.
But since evil is a concept fabricated by religion,
That is unsupported tropeET_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Correction, this following post should come immediately after post 102,,, The history of the square root of negative one is particularly interesting to look at. Descartes had rejected complex roots and coined the derogatory term "imaginary" to describe the square root of negative one. Whereas, Gauss, who was the mathematician who finally clearly explained the higher dimensional nature behind the square root of negative one, suggested that complex magnitudes be called "lateral" instead of "imaginary" magnitudes since they represent a dimensional extension of the continuum. Gauss also proposed that complex magnitudes be awarded "full civil rights." The author further comments, in the language of Plato's allegory of the cave, complex numbers represent "forms" from a higher dimension casting "shadows" on the real number line.
Complex Magnitudes Excerpt: Descartes had rejected complex roots and coined the derogatory term "imaginary" to describe the square root of negative one, , but Leibniz thought that "The divine spirit found a sublime outlet in that wonder of analysis, that portent of the ideal world, that amphibian between being and non-being, which we call the imaginary root of negative unity." Gauss invented the "complex plane" (shown below) to represent these quantities. He suggested that complex magnitudes be called "lateral" instead of "imaginary" magnitudes since they represent a dimensional extension of the continuum. Gauss also proposed that complex magnitudes be awarded "full civil rights." In the language of Plato's allegory of the cave, complex numbers represent "forms" from a higher dimension casting "shadows" on the real number line. http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/ComplexNum.html
And in quantum mechanics, we find that the square root of negative one is necessary for describing the wave packet prior to measurement.
Why do you need imaginary numbers (the square root of negative one) to describe Quantum Mechanics? “Quantum theory needs existence of an x such that x^2= -1. The reason for this is that orthogonal function spaces, of dimension greater than 2, cannot exist otherwise. In fact the only place where i (the square root of negative one) is needed is in the wave packet prior to measurement. Even the Canonical Commutation Relation doesn't need it. And nor do the eigenvalue equations. In those, any general scalar will do. But in the wave packet, you need an i.” - Steve Faulkner - Philosophy of Science, Logic, Epistemology https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_you_need_imaginary_numbers_to_describe_Quantum_Mechanics2
What was not mentioned in the preceding video, or in the article, is that the wave function is also represented as being in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space:
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. per wikipedia Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics? You need an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to represent a wavefunction of any continuous observable (like position for example). https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149786/why-do-we-need-infinite-dimensional-hilbert-spaces-in-physics The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, per dartmouth
Here is an interesting quote about the infinite dimensional Hilbert Spaces in quantum mechanics:
The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem - Mark Steiner - (page 44) Excerpt: The role of Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics.. is much more profound than the descriptive role of a single concept. An entire formalism-the Hilbert space formalism-is matched with nature. Information about nature is being "read off" the details of the formalism. (Imagine reading off details about elementary particles from the rules of chess-castling. en passant-a la Lewis Carro;; in Through the Looking Glass.) No physicist today understands why this is possible.. https://books.google.com/books?id=GKBwKCma1HsC&pg=PA44
Moreover, we find it is an infinite dimensional Hilbert space that takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the superposition of the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark Excerpt: real numbers with their infinitely many decimals have infested almost every nook and cranny of physics, from the strengths of electromagnetic fields to the wave functions of quantum mechanics: we describe even a single bit of quantum information (qubit) using two real numbers involving infinitely many decimals. - per edge
As should be needless to say, the preceding findings are very comforting to overall Christian concerns. Here is a video that goes over the preceding findings, and how they relate to Christian presuppositions, in a bit more detail
Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism- video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM
bornagain77_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Moreover, besides the overall structure of the universe, as revealed by the higher dimensional nature of the mathematics behind special and general relativity giving comfort to overall Christian concerns, we also find, in “quarter power scaling”, that higher dimensional mathematics are ubiquitous in life itself and offers further comfort to the Christian's belief that he has a soul. In particular, Quarter power scaling reveals that “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional.'
What Darwin Got Wrong – pg 79 “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection." They comment, "In the words of these authors, natural selection has exploited variations on this fractal theme to produce the incredible variety of biological form and function', but there were severe geometric and physical constraints on metabolic processes." "The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection. It's inconceivable that so many different organisms, spanning different kingdoms and phyla, may have blindly 'tried' all sorts of power laws and that only those that have by chance 'discovered' the one-quarter power law reproduced and thrived." Quotations from Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZxwO01AAFYMC&pg=PA79 The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf
In fact, unseen 'immaterial' quantum information is now found to be 'holding all the molecules of our material bodies together'.
Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y
Thus, besides quantum information providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims that say information is emergent from a material basis, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, or course, being the fact that we now have direct physical evidence strongly indicating that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff notes in this following video, “the quantum information,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
“Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=300
In conclusion, whereas the atheist denies the reality of the unseen immaterial realm, it is found that, number 1, the atheist scientifically cuts his own throat in that he, unwittingly, denies the reality of mathematics, and, number 2, this unseen immaterial realm of mathematics reveals that the universe itself was created and is sustained from a higher unseen dimension and also reveals that we ourselves have a higher dimensional component to our material bodies. The Atheistic materialist simply has no explanation for any of this. In fact the Atheistic materialist, a-priori, denies the 'unseen' reality of any of this. Video and verse:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk 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.
bornagain77_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

Besides the tunnel curvature to a higher eternal dimension found in special relativity, we also have tunnel curvature to a very different eternal dimension in general relativity. The following video clip is very good for illustrating that tunnel curvature that is found in general relativity.
Einstein: Einstein's Miracle Year ('Insight into Eternity' – Thought Experiment gravitational well) – video (16:00 minute mark)) https://youtu.be/N0x9gApvuGo?t=995
The following video is also very good for illustrating the tunnel curvature that is found for the space-time of gravity in general relativity. Specifically, it is good for visualizing the tunnel curvature that is found at black holes
Space-Time of a Black hole - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8
What makes the eternity of General Relativity profoundly different than the eternity found at Special Relativity, is that entropy, which is the primary reason why our material bodies grow old and eventually die in this universe,,,
Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both - 2007 Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,, http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030220
,,, is found to be greatest at black holes. As the following article stated,, 'supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy.'
Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized (to 1 in 10^10^123), whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space." Roger Penrose – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 copyright 1989, Penguin Books) http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
In the following quote, Kip Thorne describes what will happen to a hypothetical astronaut as he reaches the singularity of a black-hole. He stated: "Einstein's equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist."
"Einstein's equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist." Kip S. Thorne - "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" pg. 476 http://books.google.com/books?id=GzlrW6kytdoC&pg=PA476#v=onepage&q&f=false Kip Thorne and Charles Misner, and John Wheeler wrote Gravitation (1973), considered a definitive textbook on general relativity.
Or related interest is the extreme temperature that is found at black-holes:
Scientists gear up to take a picture of a black hole - January 2012 Excerpt: "Swirling around the black hole like water circling the drain in a bathtub, the matter compresses and the resulting friction turns it into plasma heated to a billion degrees or more, causing it to 'glow' – and radiate energy that we can detect here on Earth." http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-scientists-gear-picture-black-hole.html
Thus the ‘eternity’ that is found at a black hole can rightly be called an ‘eternity of decay and destruction’. Needless to say, to those of us who are of, shall we say, a spiritually minded persuasion, this finding of a eternity of destruction should be fairly sobering. Of related interest, in his resurrection from the dead, and as witnessed by the Shroud of Turin, Jesus Christ bridged this seemingly 'infinite gap' between these two very different entropies that are associated with Special Relativity and General Relativity respectfully. The following video gives an overview of that evidence:
Gödel, Infinity, and Jesus Christ as the Theory of Everything - video https://youtu.be/x1Jw5Y686jY
bornagain77_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

Four dimensional space was also mentioned in 'The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality' video. As was the necessity for Four-dimensional space in the formulation General Relativity also mentioned in the video:
Four-dimensional space - with 4-D animation: Excerpt: The idea of adding a fourth dimension began with Joseph-Louis Lagrange in the mid 1700s and culminated in a precise formalization of the concept in 1854 by Bernhard Riemann.,,, Higher dimensional spaces have since become one of the foundations for formally expressing modern mathematics and physics. Large parts of these topics could not exist in their current forms without the use of such spaces.,,, Einstein's concept of spacetime uses such a 4D space, though it has a Minkowski structure that is a bit more complicated than Euclidean 4D space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space animation https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/8-cell-simple.gif
What was not mentioned in the 'The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality' video is that special relativity is itself also based on a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. In fact, the higher dimensional nature of special relativity was a discovery that was made by one of Einstein math professors in 1908 prior to Einstein's elucidation of General Relativity in 1915.
Spacetime Excerpt: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. A key feature of this interpretation is the definition of a spacetime interval that combines distance and time. Although measurements of distance and time between events differ for measurements made in different reference frames, the spacetime interval is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Minkowski's geometric interpretation of relativity was to prove vital to Einstein's development of his 1915 general theory of relativity, wherein he showed that spacetime becomes curved in the presence of mass or energy.,,, Einstein, for his part, was initially dismissive of Minkowski's geometric interpretation of special relativity, regarding it as überflüssige Gelehrsamkeit (superfluous learnedness). However, in order to complete his search for general relativity that started in 1907, the geometric interpretation of relativity proved to be vital, and in 1916, Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski, whose interpretation greatly facilitated the transition to general relativity.[10]:151–152 Since there are other types of spacetime, such as the curved spacetime of general relativity, the spacetime of special relativity is today known as Minkowski spacetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Moreover, these four dimensional spacetimes that undergird both special relativity and general relativity are also comforting to overall Christian concerns in that they reveal two very different eternities to us. One eternity is found for a hypothetical observer who is going the speed of light, and the another eternity is found for a hypothetical observer falling to the event horizon of a black hole.
Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. --In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop.) 2.--In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer falling to the event horizon of a black-hole, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
As was mentioned, the eternity for special relativity is found when a hypothetical observer approaches the speed of light. In this scenario, time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop for that hypothetical observer as he reached the speed of light.
“Eternity is not a long time. Eternity is the opposite of time: It is no time. It is, as Augustine said, "The now that does not pass away." David Steindl-Rast - Music of Silence – pg 7 https://books.google.com/books?id=q-5aV_i0RYwC&pg=PA7
To grasp the whole concept of time coming to a complete stop at the speed at the speed of light a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the very same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into special relativity. Here is a short clip from a video that gives us a look into Einstein's breakthrough insight.
Einstein: Einstein's Miracle Year ('Insight into Eternity' – Thought Experiment 55 second mark) - video http://www.history.com/topics/albert-einstein/videos/einstein-einsteins-miracle-year
That time, as we understand it comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, and yet light moves from point A to point B in our universe, and thus light is obviously not 'frozen within time, has some fairly profound implications. In the following audio clip, Michael Strauss, who has a PhD. in particle physics, reflects on one of those profound implications:
Michael Strauss PhD in Particle Physics – Virtual Particles and Special Relativity - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1192793360733595/?type=2&theater
The only way it is possible for time not to pass for light, and yet for light to move from point A to point B in our universe, is if light is of a higher dimensional value of time than the temporal time we are currently living in. Otherwise light would simply be 'frozen within time' to our temporal frame of reference.
“For those of us who believe in physics. the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however tenacious this illusion may be.” – Albert Einstein – March 1955 – in the letter to comfort the family of a dear friend who had passed away. (of note: Einstein passed away the next month, in April of that same year) Einstein: A Biography, pg. 402 "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Dr. Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 11
One way for us to more easily understand this higher dimensional framework for time that light exist in is to visualize what would happen if a hypothetical observer approached the speed of light. In the following video clip, which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors, we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer approaches the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light.
Optical Effects of Special Relativity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
To give us a better understanding as to what it would be like to exist in a higher dimension, this following video, Dr. Quantum in Flatland, also gives us a small insight as to what it would be like to exist in an “unseen” higher dimension:
Dr. Quantum in Flatland – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5yxZ5I-zsE
bornagain77_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

The history of the square root of negative one is particularly interesting to look at. Descartes had rejected complex roots and coined the derogatory term "imaginary" to describe the square root of negative one. Whereas, Gauss, who was the mathematician who finally clearly explained the higher dimensional nature behind the square root of negative one, suggested that complex magnitudes be called "lateral" instead of "imaginary" magnitudes since they represent a dimensional extension of the continuum. Gauss also proposed that complex magnitudes be awarded "full civil rights." The author further comments, in the language of Plato's allegory of the cave, complex numbers represent "forms" from a higher dimension casting "shadows" on the real number line.
Complex Magnitudes Excerpt: Descartes had rejected complex roots and coined the derogatory term "imaginary" to describe the square root of negative one, , but Leibniz thought that "The divine spirit found a sublime outlet in that wonder of analysis, that portent of the ideal world, that amphibian between being and non-being, which we call the imaginary root of negative unity." Gauss invented the "complex plane" (shown below) to represent these quantities. He suggested that complex magnitudes be called "lateral" instead of "imaginary" magnitudes since they represent a dimensional extension of the continuum. Gauss also proposed that complex magnitudes be awarded "full civil rights." In the language of Plato's allegory of the cave, complex numbers represent "forms" from a higher dimension casting "shadows" on the real number line. http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/ComplexNum.html
And in quantum mechanics, we find that the square root of negative one is necessary for describing the wave packet prior to measurement.
Why do you need imaginary numbers (the square root of negative one) to describe Quantum Mechanics? “Quantum theory needs existence of an x such that x^2= -1. The reason for this is that orthogonal function spaces, of dimension greater than 2, cannot exist otherwise. In fact the only place where i (the square root of negative one) is needed is in the wave packet prior to measurement. Even the Canonical Commutation Relation doesn't need it. And nor do the eigenvalue equations. In those, any general scalar will do. But in the wave packet, you need an i.” - Steve Faulkner - Philosophy of Science, Logic, Epistemology https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_you_need_imaginary_numbers_to_describe_Quantum_Mechanics2
What was not mentioned in the preceding video, or in the article, is that the wave function is also represented as being in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space:
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics? You need an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to represent a wavefunction of any continuous observable (like position for example). https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149786/why-do-we-need-infinite-dimensional-hilbert-spaces-in-physics The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Here is an interesting quote about the infinite dimensional Hilbert Spaces in quantum mechanics:
The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem - Mark Steiner - (page 44) Excerpt: The role of Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics.. is much more profound than the descriptive role of a single concept. An entire formalism-the Hilbert space formalism-is matched with nature. Information about nature is being "read off" the details of the formalism. (Imagine reading off details about elementary particles from the rules of chess-castling. en passant-a la Lewis Carro;; in Through the Looking Glass.) No physicist today understands why this is possible.. https://books.google.com/books?id=GKBwKCma1HsC&pg=PA44
Moreover, we find it is an infinite dimensional Hilbert space that takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the superposition of the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark Excerpt: real numbers with their infinitely many decimals have infested almost every nook and cranny of physics, from the strengths of electromagnetic fields to the wave functions of quantum mechanics: we describe even a single bit of quantum information (qubit) using two real numbers involving infinitely many decimals. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344
As should be needless to say, the preceding findings are very comforting to overall Christian concerns. Here is a video that goes over the preceding findings, and how they relate to Christian presuppositions, in a bit more detail
Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism- video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM
bornagain77_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

Therefore, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible (by Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe, Durston etc.. etc..),,,
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population - John Sanford http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302 / LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information - William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://www.evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds - Doug Axe http://www.toriah.org/articles/axe-2004.pdf Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins - Kirk K Durston https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-4-47
,,,, Darwinian evolution is further falsified by mathematics as being a scientific theory since Darwinism denies the very reality of one the thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place.
Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA
Moreover, this 'unseen' immaterial mathematical realm gives us further compelling evidence that all of reality was created and is sustained by God. Whereas atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth. In fact, there is fairly strong evidence that can be mustered against their claims for parallel universes and/or multiverses,,
Multiverse Mania vs Reality - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo
Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension. In the following video, the discovery of the higher dimensional nature of the square root of negative one, which is integral to quantum mechanics, and the discovery of higher dimensional geometry, which is integral to General Relativity, are discussed:
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality - Gauss & Riemann - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxy3JhPRlV0
bornagain77_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith, states:
"I also have no grounding for the existance of Santa Clause or unicorns. I don’t see this as a weakness. I see this as being grounded in reality.,,, Again, why do I need to reconcile a non existent god with the fabricated concept of evil? Seems like a waste of time to me."
The only thing that is truly 'fabricated", mythical, and imaginary in the Atheist's worldview is not God but the Atheist himself who denies God. In what I consider to be a shining example of poetic justice, in their claim that God does not really exist as a real person but is merely an illusion, the Atheistic naturalist also ends up claiming that he himself does not really exist as a real person but that he is merely a neuronal illusion. Here are a few references that drive this point home,,,
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3 At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion… what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor etc.. etc.. etc...
Besides their sense of self, many other things become imaginary and illusory when the atheist denies the reality of God:
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387 Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Paper with references for each claim page; Page 34: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit
Thus, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Bottom line, if God is not real then nothing can be real. As mentioned in post 99, the main failing of the Atheist's materialistic worldview is the denial of the reality of the unseen immaterial realm.
2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
This problem of denying the reality of the unseen immaterial realm comes back to bite the Darwinist in a particularly hard way in mathematics. Although every rigorous theory of science requires verification from mathematics, and experimentation, in order to be considered scientific in the first place,
"No human investigation can be called real science if it cannot be demonstrated mathematically." - Leonardo da Vinci
,, as mentioned previously, the reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based upon denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.
What is the difference between naturalism and materialism? Excerpt: Naturalism is the view that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena/laws. Naturalists either assert that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,, Materialism is the related view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe, while the different branches of Naturalism focus on applications of effectively the same view. Thus, the difference between the two is the purpose of the definition - materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2406/what-is-the-difference-between-naturalism-and-materialism
There simply is no place for the immaterial realm of mathematics to find grounding for its reality in the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought.
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html Platonic World vs Physical World https://i2.wp.com/abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif
As David Berlinski states, “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
bornagain77_{May 9, 2018
May
05
May
9
09
2018
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

AK @ 100: "Since I can reason, I don’t need some moldy god to tell me what is good and bad. Are you so incapable of being able to reason that you need a mythical being to tell you what is right and what is wrong? That is sad." Actually, what is sad is that you would spend so much of your life contributing to a website that you almost completely disagree with. I will never understand why some a/mats spend so much time - a really lot of time - engaged in arguments and exchanging insults on theist websites. Also, BA77 is very capable of reasoning... you just don't like the results of his reasoning. Do you not see this obvious blunder?Truth Will Set You Free_{May 8, 2018
May
05
May
8
08
2018
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Allan Keith, you keep pretending that your materialistic Darwinian worldview can provide you a basis for objective morality.
You obviously haven’t been paying attention.
Atheistic materialism simply provides you no basis for judging whether ANYTHING is good or evil! PERIOD!
Since I can reason, I don’t need some moldy god to tell me what is good and bad. Are you so incapable of being able to reason that you need a mythical being to tell you what is right and what is wrong? That is sad.
To repeat what Dr. Egnor stated: “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence.
You can repeat Egnor all you want. But since evil is a concept fabricated by religion, his argument is circular.
The inability of atheistic materialism to deal with the all too real reality of the immaterial realm is, in fact, the primary weakness of their worldview that renders their worldview completely insane.
Further unsupported rhetoric.
As much as you may deny it AK, you simply have no grounding for the objective reality of ‘immaterial morality’ within your materialistic worldview.
I also have no grounding for the existance of Santa Clause or unicorns. I don’t see this as a weakness. I see this as being grounded in reality.
And as Dr Egnor also pointed out, once you honestly acknowledge the necessity of God in order to ground the transcendent reality of objective morality, then, and only then, a robust discussion about Theodicy i.e. reconciling God with the existence of evil) can begin.
Again, why do I need to reconcile a non existent god with the fabricated concept of evil? Seems like a waste of time to me.
Until then, as Dr. Egnor also pointed out, “Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.”
What is your obsession with Egnor? He is on record as saying that all murders are caused by Democrats. Anyone who makes stupid claims like this are really not worth listening to.Allan Keith_{May 8, 2018
May
05
May
8
08
2018
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith, you keep pretending that your materialistic Darwinian worldview can provide you a basis for objective morality. It can't. You continue to act as if it is readily apparent for everyone to see that, on Atheistic materialism, everyone should intuitively know that "killing homosexuals, wives who aren’t virgins on their wedding night, and children who disrespect their parents" is objectively morally wrong. Atheistic materialism simply provides you no basis for judging whether ANYTHING is good or evil! PERIOD! Morality, like "personhood", free will, mathematics, beauty, justice, logic, etc.. etc.., is basically a immaterial, transcendent, entity. Objective Morality, since it is immaterial, simply finds no place for rigid grounding within Atheistic materialism. To repeat what Dr. Egnor stated: "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,"
The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/
The inability of atheistic materialism to deal with the all too real reality of the immaterial realm is, in fact, the primary weakness of their worldview that renders their worldview completely insane. As Adam Sedgwick warned Charles Darwin, "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"
From Adam Sedgwick ? 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin Excerpt: 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 Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
As much as you may deny it AK, you simply have no grounding for the objective reality of 'immaterial morality' within your materialistic worldview. And as Dr Egnor also pointed out, once you honestly acknowledge the necessity of God in order to ground the transcendent reality of objective morality, then, and only then, a robust discussion about Theodicy i.e. reconciling God with the existence of evil) can begin. Until then, as Dr. Egnor also pointed out, "Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question." Morality and/or the 'argument from evil", as the following quote makes clear, are far deeper issues than you apparently realize in your shallow, baseless, and self-defeating, attempts to, basically, judge God as morally evil. (all while having no true moral basis to do so),,
“My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and 3,000,000 displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Though I used to complain about the indecency of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.” – Miroslav Volf – Croatian theologian
A few more notes along this line of the reality of the immaterial realm:
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume,,, reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that 'you' do not exist. For 'you' are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just 'you', but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html Naturalism and Self-Refutation - Michael Egnor - January 31, 2018 Excerpt: For Clark, thoughts merely appear out of matter, which has no properties, by the laws of physics, for generating thought. For Clark to assert that naturalistic matter as described by physics gives rise to the mind, without immateriality of any sort, is merely to assert magic. Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/ The mathematical world - James Franklin - 7 April 2014 Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,, James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/
bornagain77_{May 8, 2018
May
05
May
8
08
2018
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Axel,
Allan Keith, in the Old Testament, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’, was actually more like a counsel of perfection for the time, since it was normal – and I can understand this, alas – to take out both eyes or even kill the person responsible for your monocularity.
I understand this. But how do you reconcile this with the other punishments commanded in the OT? Thinks like killing homosexuals, wives who aren’t virgins on their wedding night, and children who disrespect their parents? That seems to far exceed the “eye for an eye” instruction. I am not trying to vilify Christianity, but if people are going to justify there actions on scriptures, they have to deal with these horrific ones.Allan Keith_{May 8, 2018
May
05
May
8
08
2018
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith, in the Old Testament, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth', was actually more like a counsel of perfection for the time, since it was normal - and I can understand this, alas - to take out both eyes or even kill the person responsible for your monocularity.Axel_{May 8, 2018
May
05
May
8
08
2018
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

ET,
99.999999999999999999% of the time anything under .5 seconds in imperceptible to 99.999999% of the people.
Yet computer response times of more than 100 milliseconds are percepatable by everyone.Allan Keith_{May 8, 2018
May
05
May
8
08
2018
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Humans can detect perceptible duration of time in the range of 100 milliseconds.
99.999999999999999999% of the time anything under .5 seconds in imperceptible to 99.999999% of the people.ET_{May 8, 2018
May
05
May
8
08
2018
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

ET,
done, occurring, or acting without any perceptible duration of time 180 milliseconds meets that definition.
Actually it doesn't. Humans can detect perceptible duration of time in the range of 100 milliseconds.Allan Keith_{May 8, 2018
May
05
May
8
08
2018
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply