Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design

Scientific American blogger gets fired for stating facts about Feynman, with context

Spread the love

Without the usual nuttery. As Ross Pomeroy tells it, Feynman was a jerk where women are concerned, except when he regarded them as colleagues.

Ashutosh Jogalekar, who penned the article at Scientific American, described having a similar reaction to Feynman’s “casual sexism,” which also manifested in more than just social arenas. But, he noted, though some of his actions are “disturbing and even offensive” when viewed from the socially-evolved lens of today, “they were probably no different than the attitudes of a male-dominated American society in the giddy postwar years.” Thus, Jogalekar reasoned, we should not condemn Feynman wholly as a sexist.

Actually, in a lot of places, a guy who behaved that way was viewed as a jerk in those days too. And if he offended the sisters of veterans, he could end up in the ER. Some did.

But it all sounds, to some of us at least, like a reasonable discussion we can have. Who knows about/remembers life in North America in the early to mid twentieth century? How acceptable do we think Feynman’s described behaviour would have been? Where? When? Why? To what extent?

At least back then, people were rarely nuts, as some must be at Scientific American today:

Ashutosh Jogalekar’s Feynman article appeared last Friday. The next day, it was taken down, and Jogalekar was abruptly excused from Scientific American‘s blog network. (The article has since been reposted “in the interest of openness and transparency.”)

Scientific American editor Curtis Brainard offered an explanation for the dismissal earlier this week. He said that some of Jogalekar’s posts lacked clarity, which made them insensitive to “valid concerns that many readers have about past and existing biases and prejudices in our society.”

Yada yada yuck.

From Pomeroy:

“A scientific topic cannot be declared off limits or whitewashed because its findings can be socially or politically controversial,” Jogalekar sagely wrote in one of his pieces.

Apparently, Scientific American disagrees. And in their politically correct world where feelings come before facts, that means you lose your job.

Grab a numbered ticket from the machine, Jog. Big world out there. You’ll be okay.

We suggest people remember this when they hear Scientific American’s bold advocacy of the multiverse and Darwinian evolution.

See also: Forrest Mims, previous PC dump-ee, comments.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

26 Replies to “Scientific American blogger gets fired for stating facts about Feynman, with context

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Scientific American is just a political rag who insists on insulting the intelligence of its readers. Their favorite topics are global warming alarmism and, of course, the infallibility of Darwinian evolution and materialism.

  2. 2
    Querius says:

    Speaking of SciAm, there was an article published in the late 1960’s that proposed new universes spawning from black holes.

    The illustrations showed a membrane representation of a gravitational space-time distortion. When the distortion was deep enough, the article speculated that a teardrop shape formed at the pointy tip (think about the mathematical implications), which then broke off as a brand new spherical universe, blissfully floating off somewhere in something.

    Maybe Stephen Hawking read the article. Maybe Kip Thorne wrote it. Dunno.

    -Q

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    Yeah, Mapou. Sadly true. Didn’t they fire a popular columnist some years back when they found out he was a [gasp!] Christian?

    -Q

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    It sounds as if the Scientific American is to American science what the Christian Science sect is to historical, Christian-driven science, properly so-called.

  5. 5
    humbled says:

    Nothing but a waste of fresh air these imbeciles.

  6. 6
    Forrest Mims says:

    Scientific American has forgotten the lesson it learned about the “public relations nightmares” (their phrase) that can occur when they dump a writer with an opposing view. (In my case they at least published several of my letters to the editor and even a news story about some of my research for NASA in Brazil after I was dismissed as a columnist.) Today’s staff has continued the ruination of the legacy of a once great magazine. The staff would do well to carefully review the history of Scientific American. Perhaps in doing so they will come to respect the Christian views and writings of Rufus Porter, the magazine’s founder. Porter was an authentic scientist and writer who knew both his Creator and his responsibilities to his audience. He was definitely not a journalism school widget trained in political correctness.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Richard Feynman, who was instrumental in unifying special relativity and quantum mechanics (QED), states that ‘it takes an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’.

    “It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”
    – Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics)
    Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw

    I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:

    John1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

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

    In fact, the unification of Quantum Mechanics and special relativity, QED, was only possible by ‘brushing infinity under the rug’.

    THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe
    Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
    http://www.americanscientist.o.....g-infinity

    But alas, infinity is not so easily ignored. Infinity pops up again in the attempt to reconcile Special Relativity-Quantum Mechanics (QED) with General Relativity.

    Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity
    Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.
    In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to.
    If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity.
    http://www.infoplease.com/cig/.....ivity.html

    THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
    Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
    http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

    Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY

    An interesting nuance to draw out of this irreconcilable infinity problem between Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity (QED), and General Relativity, is that we have two very different ‘eternities’ associated with Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    “I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.”
    Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest – 2005

    Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video
    https://vimeo.com/93101738

    “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.”
    Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

    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.
    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.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

    ,,, It is also very interesting to note that Special Relativity and General Relativity reveal two very different ‘qualities of eternity’ (as predicted in Christian Theism). In particular, Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme (1 in 10^10^123) order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang.

    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

    Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang?
    “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, 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.”

    “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

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion!

    General Relativity, Special Relativity, Heaven and Hell:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit

    It should also be noted that Kurt Gödel, by studying the ‘logic of infinity’, formulated his infamous incompleteness theorem:

    BBC-Dangerous Knowledge – Part 1
    https://vimeo.com/30482156
    Part 2
    https://vimeo.com/30641992

    Kurt Godel’s part in bringing the incompleteness theorem to fruition can be picked up here

    Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
    https://vimeo.com/92387853

    As you can see, somewhat from the preceding ‘Dangerous Knowledge’ video, mathematics cannot be held to be ‘true’ unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God.

    Thus, with all that in mind, Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics-special relativity, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    With all this in mind and in light of this dilemma that the two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:

    Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
    Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tGkwrdg6cu5mH-RmlKxHv5KPMOL49qEU8MLGL6ojHU/edit

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
    Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.
    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

    THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist
    Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox.
    http://shroud3d.com/findings/i.....-formation

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/journals/i.....802004/271

    “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    Kevin Moran – optical engineer

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

    It seems readily apparent from the evidence that we have now examined that when one allows God into math, as Godel indicated must ultimately be done to keep math from being ‘incomplete’, then there actually exists a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a ‘Theory of Everything’! As a footnote; Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the ‘Theory of Everything’, also had this to say:

    The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.”
    Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian that God needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ, I am, none-the-less, very happy to see what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a unification into a ‘theory of everything’ for what is in essence the materialistic world of General Relativity and the infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a very credible resolution for ‘unification’ within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the ‘scientific evidence’ we now have that Christ literally ripped a hole in the entropic space-time of this universe so as to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart.

    Verse and Music:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Matthew 10:28
    “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection music video)
    Lyric “Death has lost and Love has won!”
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX

  10. 10
    Mapou says:

    bornagain77:

    Richard Feynman, who was instrumental in unifying special relativity and quantum mechanics (QED), states that ‘it takes an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’.

    Come on, man. First off, nobody has unified special relativity with quantum mechanics. The former is a classical deterministic theory based on continuity while the latter is probabilistic and discrete. This is the reason that Einstein wrote that God does not play dice with the universe.

    Second, if Feynman believed in infinity, he would be a crackpot in my book. Why? Because if infinity existed, it would lead to a contradiction: any finite quantity is infinitely smaller than infinity. IOW, infinity calls for quantities to be both finite and infinitesimal at the same time. That’s not even wrong.

    That the physics community is still talking about infinity as if it were a logical concept is a sign of the general malaise that has gripped science in the last one hundred years or so. But then again, this is not very surprising since worthless rags like Scientific American can prosper by preaching voodoo nonsense like multiple universes, robot consciousness, time travel and the like. It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

  11. 11
    humbled says:

    But then again, this is not very surprising since worthless rags like Scientific American can prosper by preaching voodoo nonsense like multiple universes, robot consciousness, time travel and the like. It’s enough to make a grown man cry.”

    Well put 😉

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Christianity and Panentheism – (conflict or concordance?) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

  13. 13
    Robert Byers says:

    Its funny but predictable that once a establishment decides to control thoughts and speech then they have to control everyone.
    I don’t know about this guy and women or if the writer was being malicious or unfair. however it smacks of DON’t question our favourites.
    anyways i can’t pronounce this writers name. Its not really from mainstreet historic america. its really those folks turing on their own.
    anyways its all about truth, freedom of conscience and so freedom of thoughts and speech.
    We must fight once again as we did in the old days.
    Its fun and profitable for creationists to lead in this and gain the fruits of victory. its not JUST creationism anymore being attacked and censored and punished.

  14. 14
    Axel says:

    ‘ infinity calls for quantities to be both finite and infinitesimal at the same time.’

    No, mapou. Surely not. Anything finite would interrupt, would break up infinity, in the measure of its own dimensions. They’d have to exist in different reference frames.

    Or was that your drift?

  15. 15
    Mapou says:

    Axel:

    ‘ infinity calls for quantities to be both finite and infinitesimal at the same time.’

    No, mapou. Surely not. Anything finite would interrupt, would break up infinity, in the measure of its own dimensions. They’d have to exist in different reference frames.

    Or was that your drift?

    I’m sorry but I don’t understand your comment. Is not the number 2 (a finite number) infinitely smaller than infinity? If so, the concept of infinity is illogical. It’s that simple. There was no hidden magic in my argument.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Well then, following such inscrutable logic,,, the finite must certainly not exist! 🙂

    Oh wait, you want it to mean the other way around. OOPS

  17. 17
    Axel says:

    If it doesn’t make sense to you, it’s probably not sensible, but to me, the answer to your question is, no: That would be, infinity minus 2, i.e. 2 less than infinity.

    I wonder if you are somehow seeing infinity as a finite concept of endlessness, instead of simply, endlessness – in which case it would brook no interruption at all.

    As a comparison, eternity minus two years, or two nanoseconds would be less than eternity.

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    bornagain77:

    Well then, following such inscrutable logic,,, the finite must certainly not exist! 🙂

    Oh wait, you want it to mean the other way around. OOPS

    bornagain77, you must do better than that. Finite quantities are observed. Thus they are not in question. It is infinity that is never observed. It’s a pseudoscientific concept in the Popperian sense. And please, knock off the sarcasm.

  19. 19
    Mapou says:

    Axel:

    As a comparison, eternity minus two years, or two nanoseconds would be less than eternity.

    Sorry. Infinity minus any finite quantity is still infinity. You are coming up with your own proof against infinity without realising it.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Mapou you state

    Finite quantities are observed. Thus they are not in question.

    Really??? And where is your proof that the finite is real and the infinite is unreal? the uncertainty principle?

    in 1927, Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa,,
    per wiki

    or Did you prove reality to be finite, and the infinite to be illusory, by showing the electron to have a definite internal structure?

    Is it possible to find the radius of an electron?
    The honest answer would be, nobody knows yet. The current knowledge is that the electron seems to be a ‘point particle’ and has refused to show any signs of internal structure in all measurements. We have an upper limit on the radius of the electron, set by experiment, but that’s about it. By our current knowledge, it is an elementary particle with no internal structure, and thus no ‘size’.
    http://www4.hcmut.edu.vn/~huyn.....14.cfm.htm

    or Did you prove reality to be finite, and the infinite to be illusory, by showing that any mathematics precise enough to have the ‘finite’ counting numbers in it is a ‘complete’ mathematical description of reality instead of a ‘incomplete’ mathematical description of reality?

    Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
    1. Validity … all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
    2. Consistency … no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
    3. Completeness … all statements made in the system are either true or false.
    The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
    Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
    Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
    http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#

    Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
    https://vimeo.com/92387853

    or Did you prove reality to be finite, and the infinite to be illusory, by showing that collapsed state of the wave function was real while the uncollapsed infinite dimensional wave function was illusory?

    Does the quantum wave function represent reality? April 2012 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: “Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system’s wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ality.html

    It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?

    Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon
    Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,,
    http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

    “By its conventional definition, a photon is one unit of excitation of a mode of the electromagnetic field. The modes of the electromagnetic field constitute a countably infinite set of basis functions, and in this sense the amount of information that can be impressed onto an individual photon is unlimited.”
    Robert W. Boyd – The Enabling Technology for Quantum Information Science 2013 – University of Rochester, Rochester, NY – lead researcher of the experiment which encoded information in a photon in 2010

    Here is a more rigorous measurement of the ‘infinite dimensional’ wave function which establishes it as ‘physically real’ and not ‘illusory’ or abstract:

    Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction – June 2011
    Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....10120.html

    Thus Mapou, I have principled reasons to doubt that you have found any ‘finite’ parameter that allows you to say ‘aha there is no infinite past the finite’, and I have much reason to believe, instead, that the ‘finite’ is what is truly illusory when compared to the infinite that resides in God and in God alone:

    Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013
    Excerpt: Quanta magazine carried an article about a hypergeometric object that is as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman was better than Heisenberg’s S-matrices. But the discoverers are candid about it,
    “The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity. “Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and the lead author of the new work, which he is presenting in talks and in a forthcoming paper. “Both are suspect.””
    What are these suspect principles? None other than two of the founding principles of materialism–that there do not exist “spooky-action-at-a-distance” forces, and that material causes are the only ones in the universe.,,,
    http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/

    Verse and Music:

    Psalm 139:17-18
    How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! How great is the sum of them!
    If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: When I awake, I am still with thee.

    Mindy Smith – Come To Jesus
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxIsKcdy3Jk

  21. 21
    Mapou says:

    boragain77:

    Mapou you state

    Finite quantities are observed. Thus they are not in question.

    Really???

    Absolutely. I don’t understand your expression of shock, unless you’re mocking me again (which is not cool). I’m the one who should be shocked by your response.

    And where is your proof that the finite is real and the infinite is unreal? the uncertainty principle?

    The finite is real by observation. The infinite does not exist because it leads to a contradiction. You’re beating around the bush, bornagain77. You are not addressing my argument. But don’t bother. This topic is getting old.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Mapou, contrary to what you seem to believe with such certainty, there is no finite particle or parameter that you can point to that would prevent the infinite from existing. In fact, it is now known that particles are not self sustaining finite entities but are reliant on something beyond themselves to explain their existence.

    from incompleteness theorem we have:

    “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

    and for empirical confirmation of ‘incompleteness’ we have,,

    Quantum Mechanics has now been extended to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:

    Falsification of Local Realism without using Quantum Entanglement – Anton Zeilinger – video
    http://vimeo.com/34168474

    ‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
    Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....111942.htm

    Thus, we may ‘observe the finite’, but the belief that their is nothing beyond the finite is refuted since particles are not self sustaining.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Mapou this may help,

    If an actual infinite doesn’t exist, then how can God exist? – Dr. Craig – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc

    ,,, the logical contradictions inherent in believing in an infinite number of THINGS only applies to the infinite materialistic conjectures of the infinite multiverses to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the universe and the quasi-infinite Many Worlds scenario used to ‘explain away’ collapse of the infinite dimensional quantum wave function. Such logical contradictions inherent in the materialistic conjectures for infinity is indeed a powerful argument against those materialistic conjectures of infinity being true. But God is not a finite “thing”. As Isaac Newton put it:

    “The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:
    Sir Isaac Newton – Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book “Principia”
    http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    please note the last sentence:

    “He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”

  25. 25
    Vishnu says:

    Infinity is a mathematical concept pertaining to quantity. The Reality that transcends space-time is neither finite nor infinite. It is altogether outside the domain of quantity. It is the source of quantity, not subject to it.

  26. 26
    Vishnu says:

    P.S. the only way we can deal with the mathematical concept of infinity is to get rid of them, usually by cancellation, in our equations whenever we come across them, thus revealing their illusory nature.

Leave a Reply