Intelligent Design

The Spirituality of Physics

Spread the love

The metanarrative that pervades materialism goes something like this: science (especially physics), as it grows, will continue to replace more and more spiritual ideas, until all we are left with are physical ideas. Unfortunately for the materialists, the history of science instead shows that physics itself only grows as it embraces spiritual ideas and incorporates them into our knowledge of reality.

22 Replies to “The Spirituality of Physics

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    I agree JohnnyB, there is definitely a ‘spiritual’ side to physics.,,, In fact, as you somewhat pointed out, it is impossible to ‘do’ physics without believing that a rational ‘transcendent’ order has been placed on the universe for us to discover in the first place.,,,

    ————–

    John Lennox – Science Is Impossible Without God – Quotes – video remix
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/

    “Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth.
    As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain.” Creation-Evolution Headlines

    Can atheists trust their own minds? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin – Letter To William Graham – July 3, 1881

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.faqs.org/periodical.....27241.html

    This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

    Proof That God Exists – easy to use interactive website
    http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

    ,,,Shoot the first time someone ‘tried’ to explain the double slit experiment to me, the wonder and mystery of it all, was almost a ‘spiritual experience’ in and of itself;

    notes:

    Dr. Quantum – Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/

    Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/

    Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
    Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bot.....choice.htm

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

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    Max Planck – The Father Of Quantum Mechanics – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)(Of Note: Max Planck was a devout Christian, which is not surprising when you realize practically every, if not every, founder of each major branch of modern science also ‘just so happened’ to have a deep Christian connection.)

    Colossians 1:17
    “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

    further notes:

    Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation – Anton Zeilinger – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5705317/

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism – By Bruce L Gordon:
    Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.
    http://www.4truth.net/site/c.h.....ialism.htm

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  2. 2
    ellazimm says:

    I think you’re going to find that a lot of physicists (and others) are going to disagree with:

    “If you think about gravity, gravitational forces (at least as conceived by Newtonian physics) don’t operate by atoms bumping into each other, but by reaching instantaneously across vast reaches of space to touch every other object in the universe. Thus, in order to advance physics beyond where Democritus could take us, Newton introduced a spiritual concept into physics – non-local causation. Newton was criticized in his time for introducing spiritual entities into physics.”

    What was considered spiritual THEN is NOT considered spiritual now but a property of the universe because it operates blindly without intelligence. Once a phenomenon is reduced to a mathematical expression then it stops being non-materialistic.

  3. 3
    johnnyb says:

    ellazimm –

    “What was considered spiritual THEN is NOT considered spiritual now”

    True but irrelevant. The fact is that without modifying their conception about what is allowed into physics, we could not have had Newtonian mechanics. Likewise for the rest of them.

    “Once a phenomenon is reduced to a mathematical expression then it stops being non-materialistic.”

    Why? I disagree with your premise. However, even if your contention is true, quantum mechanics does not reduce things to a mathematical expression. The mathematical expression gives a *limit* to what is possible, but actually *explicitly* allows for multiple values. Thus, even by your contention, quantum physics has opened up physics to be beyond materialism.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    ellazimm, how are you justified in saying;

    ‘What was considered spiritual THEN is NOT considered spiritual now but a property of the universe because it operates blindly without intelligence.’

    ellazimm you simply are not justified in saying this;

    REPORT OF THE DARK ENERGY TASK FORCE
    The abstract of the September 2006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force says: “Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.”
    http://jdem.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs.....report.pdf

    But hey ellazimm, since you are so sure God is not needed for ‘causality’ in physics, perhaps you can write those guys and tell them exactly what they are missing so as to reconcile it to your atheistic belief system!!! 🙂

  5. 5
    ellazimm says:

    BA77: They said their theories were incorrect or incomplete NOT that the phenomenon is in any way spiritual or transcendent. We don’t know WHY gravity works but it seems to follow a set rule ALWAYS. (Or maybe not, there’s some talk of it varying under certain conditions . . . stay tuned.)

    johnnyb: I don’t see how allowing for certain, defined, limited, multiple values is an admission of anything spiritual. QM is weird and it does say that every so often quantum tunnelling will occur. But it happens at a defined rate of probability. And, like gravity, quantum entanglement spookily reaches across great distances instantaneously but not at whim or only sometimes.

    I am not a physicist but it’s said that QM has been verified over and over and over again (maybe because it was so hard to believe?). Which means there is a predictable, testable, repeatable pattern to the behaviour being modelled.

    All scientific knowledge is provisional. And there’s no way to proceed without occasionally proposing a new model/hypothesis and then testing the life out of it.

    Can’t remember which physicist said it (Feynman?) but the quote, roughly, is: A good scientist has 10 new ideas a day and 9.5 of them are wrong.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    ellazimm, and just where do you presuppose this unchanging transcendent order, that is imposed on the universe, arises from??? Do the material particles themselves somehow conspire together to obey this unchanging transcendent order as the atheists would have us believe???

    Psalm 119:89-91
    Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.

    Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio
    Excerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe.,,, For the first time, limits on the possible variability of the electron to proton mass ratio are low enough to constrain dark energy models that “invoke rolling scalar fields,” that is, some kind of cosmic quintessence. They also are low enough to eliminate a set of string theory models in physics. That is these limits are already helping astronomers to develop a more detailed picture of both the cosmic creation event and of the history of the universe. Such achievements have yielded, and will continue to yield, more evidence for the biblical model for the universe’s origin and development.
    http://www.reasons.org/Testing.....nMassRatio

    Moreover ellazimm for you to try to presuppose variance of Gravity reveals your underlying materialistic bias and would in fact severely compromise the reliability we have in the ‘constant’ mathematical equations describing gravity and space-time;

    further note:

    Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation – Granville Sewell – audio
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012

    At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation;

    ‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+b^i, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’.

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner
    Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe -Walter Bradley – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491

  7. 7
    ellazimm says:

    BA77: I think the ‘order’ in the universe arises out of the way the basic substance/building blocks fit together. Kind of like naturally occurring crystals . . . not a great analogy. No mind/plan/purpose necessary. We are going to disagree on this so please don’t berate me. I’m happy to leave it there if you are.

    And it is true that some physicists were proposing that maybe the force of gravity is not as constant as we think in order to explain some anomalies (as opposed to proposing dark matter and/or dark energy). Given the choice between you and I and the physicists I’ll defer to them since they’ve spent more time trying to figure it out.

    And just because you or I or Dr Sewell can’t explain why the Schroedinger equation accurately models certain behaviours doesn’t mean there’s a transcendental/spiritual reason. It’s okay to say: I don’t know. And it’s also okay to say: I think this or that or the other MIGHT be the reason. And then you put your idea to the test.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    ellazimm your comment sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook hitched to appeal to unknown authority (perhaps Lawrence Krauss of 2+2=5 fame is your authority?),,, The point being ellazimm is you have absolutely no basis in which to sustain rationality from a materialistic framework. This FACT is especially made clear with the fiasco of the multiverse conjecture of atheists in the face of the overwhelming evidence for the instantaneous origin of the universe at the Big Bang:

    “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that “nothing” is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.
    For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:

    Dr. Bruce Gordon – The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/

    What Would The World Look Like If Atheism Were Actually True? – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5486757/

    Mr Hoyle, call your office – Robert Sheldon – November 2010
    Excerpt: I think I understand what Penrose is saying, and the truly weird thing about it is that I was introduced to this theory from a DC comic book circa 1967, whereas Sir Roger only just discovered it in 2007.
    http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/page1

    further note:

    When Nothing Created Everything? A humorous account of the atheist’s creation myth
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....everything

    Nuclear Strength Apologetics – Presuppositional Apologetics – video
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....pologetics

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    ellazimm, You have no justification to for your atheistic beliefs!!!

  9. 9
    mike1962 says:

    What the hell does “spiritual” mean?

  10. 10
    PaV says:

    johnnyb:

    Personally, I think the idea that QM is non-deterministic is overplayed.

    Think of lasers: it’s based on QM principles, yet functions with regularity.

    What is “non-deterministic” is the measurements we make; that is, you cannot set up an apparatus that can simultaneously measure momentum and position with exactitude. Nevertheless, the atomic world operates quite well, and quite regularly.

    Radioactive decay is not exact, of course, but from a statistical point of view, it, too, is regular. (Although we have the famous Schrodinger’s Cat conundrum)

    My position would be that as science advances, more and more questions develop than answers. And the questions that develop are more fundamental than the answers provided.

    So, for example, the Big Bang Theory. While eliminating the notion that the universe is eternal (like God!!!), it also raises the questions of: (1) “what” went “bang”; (2) what existed ‘before’ the Big Bang; (3) what/who is the ’cause’ of the Big Bang; etc.

    When Einstein included his “cosmological constant” into his field equations, he felt content that he had described an eternal, steady-state universe—one which was “God-like” (Einstein tended to see the Universe as God Himself). Well, thanks to Lemaitre and others—namely, Hubble—this view had to be given up, and the one question, “Where did the Universe come from?”, was replaced by the above questions—and all fundamental ones—IOW, questions that fall outside the provenance of science and which dip into the provenance of philosophy/theology.

    Wasn’t it Jastrow who lamented that the confirmation of the Big Bang by the Bell Lab guys (Anzias and Wilson?) meant that science, having scaled the heights of knowledge, found the theologians already there, and having been there for centuries—an allusion to the ‘fit’ between the Big Bang and the Creation account.

    I’ve stated it before: the God of the Gaps is being replaced by the Gaps in Science. More and more, science is shown to have but a portion of the answers to our most fundamental questions. Its inadequacy becomes more and more apparent.

    I’ve studied a lot of science, and am now at the point of being stunned by how inexact it really is. If it weren’t for Taylor Series expansions, modern science wouldn’t exist. And TS expansions are approximations. Science can only give us partial answers.

    And to those who think the realm of mathematics is not subject to these same kinds of inadequacies, only recently there was a discovery that had to do with how much mathematics can really know. A proof was given demonstrating that whole swaths of the mathematical world are simply inaccessible to mathematicians.

    For myself, having read some on Real Analysis, to those who think that this field of mathematics ‘tidies up’ a lot of our mathematical conundrums, I would recommend you read Herman Weyl’s work on the “Real Continuum”. His criticisms mirror mine: at the heart of real analysis is a circularity in logic.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    ellazimm I come back to this comment of yours:

    ‘I think the ‘order’ in the universe arises out of the way the basic substance/building blocks fit together. Kind of like naturally occurring crystals . . . not a great analogy. No mind/plan/purpose necessary.’

    ellazimm, even if you could maintain justification, from the atheistic-materialistic framework, for presupposing transcendent order to be imposed on this universe at the creation event of the Big Bang. That is just the beginning of your problems that you need to explain! For not only do you have to explain why such extremely fine-tuned order originated for the universe as whole at the Big Bang, from an infinite set of possibilities no less, but quantum mechanics also dictates that you must be able to explain why such order is maintained (sustained) to each unique point of observation in the universe!!! Let me try to carefully explain the insurmountable problem facing you in your materialistic atheism;

    Quantum wave collapse is ‘centered’ on each unique observer in the universe,,, to prove this is so,,,

    Notes;

    ,,, First I noticed that the earth demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back;

    The Known Universe – Dec. 2009 – a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

    ,,, for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,,

    4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/

    ,,, yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a ‘mental experiment’ of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so i dug around a bit and found this;

    The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity – Igor Rodnianski
    Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity – While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity.
    http://www.icm2006.org/proceed.....l_3_22.pdf

    and also ‘serendipitously’ found this,,,

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: Gödel’s personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein’s seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, “the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point.” This means that “a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel.” In fact, “Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements.” Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within.
    http://www.faqs.org/periodical.....27241.html

    But if General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation! To prove this point I dug around a bit and found this experiment,,,

    This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the ‘spooky actions’, for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are ‘universal and instantaneous’:

    Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
    Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment
    was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bot.....choice.htm

    ,, and to make universal quantum Wave collapse much more ‘personal’ I found this,,,

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

    Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:

    Eugene Wigner
    Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
    http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_.....io/wb1.htm

    i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet inexplicably, from a materialistic perspective, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

    ,,, Thus ellazimm the fact of the matter is that ‘nature’ is severely constrained to each of billions, if not trillions, of unique points of observation! Yet though each point of observation is unique and ‘central’ in the universe all of these billions upon billions of unique points of observation still cohere to give us a consistent and coherent view of reality that agrees with other ‘observers”. This is a ‘fact of nature’ that only finds successful resolution as to its ’cause’ in the infinite mind of God;

    Psalm 33:13-15
    The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

    notes:

    I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:

    Psalm 33:13-15
    The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    supplemental note ellazimm:

    The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time ‘unifying’ into a ‘theory of everything’.(Einstein, Penrose).

    The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

    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

    Yet, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, 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

    Moreover there actually is physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

    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

  13. 13
    Mung says:

    (Or maybe not, there’s some talk of it varying under certain conditions . . . stay tuned.)

    Finely tuned. Stay finely tuned, is, I think, what you meant to say. 😉

  14. 14
    Mung says:

    Personally, I think the idea that QM is non-deterministic is overplayed.

    What is “non-deterministic” is the measurements we make; that is, you cannot set up an apparatus that can simultaneously measure momentum and position with exactitude.

    That’s very much in line with the argument that Stanley L. Jaki makes. There is a logical fallacy in confusing a statement about our measurements with a statement about reality.

    Wasn’t it Jastrow who lamented…

    Indeed it was. God and the Astronomers, iirc.

  15. 15
    ellazimm says:

    BA77: I am not a physicist. So I’m going to stop arguing an interpretation of QM and Relativity that differs from yours. It doesn’t mean I’m conceding your version, it just means it’s pointless for me to pretend to be an authority. As I’ve said: I’m really here to hear what you think NOT to defend my views. I’m happy to answer questions in return but I don’t understand your antagonistic tone. I’m just wondering . . .

    But, I will address a couple of points:

    “The point being ellazimm is you have absolutely no basis in which to sustain rationality from a materialistic framework.”

    In your opinion. We see things differently. It happens.

    “ellazimm, even if you could maintain justification, from the atheistic-materialistic framework, for presupposing transcendent order to be imposed on this universe at the creation event of the Big Bang. That is just the beginning of your problems that you need to explain! For not only do you have to explain why such extremely fine-tuned order originated for the universe as whole at the Big Bang, from an infinite set of possibilities no less, but quantum mechanics also dictates that you must be able to explain why such order is maintained (sustained) to each unique point of observation in the universe!!! Let me try to carefully explain the insurmountable problem facing you in your materialistic atheism;”

    I don’t assume or suppose transcendental order. I assume and suppose that basic units building on top of each other will tend to fall into some patterns and structures. I do not assume fine tuning which implies a goal or purpose to the universe. I assume we are NOT the product of a purpose but exist because we are a possible result of the basic units of the universe mixing and blending. So, the universe looks like it was designed for us because we arose from it. We HAVE to match its parameters.

    “To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.”

    The world does not have a privileged center. I can live with that. And it’s not terribly surprising that there’s a general agreement from millions/billions of points of focus: there is an underlying reality that we have all been honed to survive in. We’re all playing on the same field.

    “Yet, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man.”

    If you find the attempts to find a unified theory pointless or amusing then don’t pay any attention to them. I’m not going to speculate on how any of it relates to Christianity.

    And I apologise for not following all your many links and references. The scriptural references I don’t consider pertinent to a discussion of science but I accept that they have resonance for you.

    I’m happy to continue to respond to questions about my beliefs but, really, I’m here to find out about yours. I’m not going to try and convert you to my way of thinking, I’m not trying to be confrontational . . . I’ll let you dictate the course of this particular conversation.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    ellazimm you state:

    ‘I don’t assume or suppose transcendental order. I assume and suppose that basic units building on top of each other will tend to fall into some patterns and structures.’

    A more ill-defined picture of reality, with supposed scientific pretensions, would be hard for me to find. And really, to be blunt, is merely a sad, sad, ‘rationalization’ so as to deny the overwhelming evidence for God. But what I don’t get, ellazimm, is why in blue blazes are you, and other atheists, so predisposed to deny the overwhelming evidence for God?? Overwhelming evidence coming at us from all directions of science??? Just to maintain your atheistic belief! I don’t get what the payoff is for you!!! Do you think that by denying God that you will somehow not have to face God when you die??? Well you are in for a VERY BIG surprise!!!

    ellazimm, first, There is a timeless-spaceless component to you, and all of us, that never dies: i.e. there is a ‘higher dimensional’ component to life that transcends this material realm:

    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/~dre.....18_257.pdf

    “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.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-369806

    4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/

    Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for ‘random’ Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this ‘four dimensional scaling’ of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional ‘expectation’ for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an ’emergent’ property of the 3-D material realm.

    Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH
    Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
    http://journals.witpress.com/journals.asp?iid=47

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place?

    The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

    Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism’s inability to explain this ‘transcendent quantum effect’ adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to man that is not constrained by time and space. i.e. Theism has always postulated a ‘eternal soul’ for man that lives past the death of the body.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Further notes ellazimm:

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video with notes
    Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – March 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The Day I Died – Part 4 of 6 – The Extremely ‘Monitored’ Near Death Experience of Pam Reynolds – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560

    Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) – Pim von Lommel – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/

    Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This ‘anomaly’ is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).)
    http://findarticles.com/p/arti....._65076875/

    It is also very interesting to point out that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences:

    Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

    The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions
    Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer)

    Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – view
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/

    ,,,

    “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

    Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182

    It is very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies:

    ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’
    Mickey Robinson – Near Death Experience testimony

    ‘When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.’
    Dr. Ken Ring – has extensively studied Near Death Experiences

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  18. 18
    Mung says:

    And I apologise for not following all your many links and references.

    Ask him if he follows them all other than to find things to cut and paste.

  19. 19
    ellazimm says:

    BA77: Who said I was an atheist? 🙂

    Lots of people disagree on there being evidence for the existence of a deity. It doesn’t make them right OR you right. But I’m not here to discuss that issue anyway.

    Over and over I’ve heard that ID is a science. I want to find out why its proponents think so. So, I come to UD to find out why. My beliefs, my assumptions I know. I’m not interested in talking about those. I’m not sure why you are interested.

    By the way, I am an avid follower of the Skeptiko podcast where Near Death Experiences have been discussed at great length over the last year or so. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in that area. The last episode, which I have not listened to yet, deals with the power of prayer.

    And, finally, before I go to sleep, I understand that you are a person of great faith. I admire and respect that. But please, do not try and make me look a fool because you don’t think I share that faith. I’m here to learn and I’d like to be given the benefit of the doubt as to my motivations. Please.

  20. 20
    ellazimm says:

    Mung: You ask him. I’ll take BA77 as he presents himself. As a person of great conviction, faith and caring.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    ellazimm you state;

    ‘Lots of people disagree on there being evidence for the existence of a deity. It doesn’t make them right OR you right. But I’m not here to discuss that issue anyway.’

    Yet the topic of the thread is;

    ‘The Spirituality of Physics’

    So the whole point of this thread is to ‘discuss that issue’; ,,, I’m well aware people disagree as to the existence of God, but the evidence for God, some clear examples of evidence of which I’ve listed on this thread, is overwhelming, so the disagreement does not arise from the evidence, but it must arise primarily from personal philosophical biases.

  22. 22
    ellazimm says:

    BA77: True. About the topic of the thread.

    Thanks for the discussion!

Leave a Reply