But isn’t there a contradiction between quantum theory and the mind as meat?

8 Replies to “But isn’t there a contradiction between quantum theory and the mind as meat?”

1. 1
   daveS says:

   May 23, 2015 at 8:25 am

   But isn’t there a contradiction between quantum theory and the mind as meat?

   Is there? What, precisely, is the contradiction?

   This Nature article demonstrates how little is known about the fundamentals of QM. Understanding of the brain/mind/consciousness is also very spotty, AFAICS.

   It seems very premature to speak of contradictions at this stage.

   Prepares for Leggett’s Inequality and Wigner quotes
2. 2
   Seversky says:

   May 23, 2015 at 9:04 am

   This is still Materialism 2.0, studying the observable behavior of physical reality – whatever that might actually be – at the smallest scale. How this might affect consciousness or the multiverse theory is still an open question and mysteries like this are – as Mr Spock would have said – fascinating.
3. 3
   Silver Asiatic says:

   May 23, 2015 at 9:47 am

   How this affects the claims of evolutionary theories, especially the supposed evolution of human beings (given consciousness) must therefore also be “an open question”.
4. 4
   Popperian says:

   May 23, 2015 at 11:56 am

   But why would mere products of Darwinian evolution, whose only purpose is to spread their selfish genes and can’t typically understand that fact undertake such an enterprise?

   Again, you might want to think these posts though, as your conclusion betrays ID as a purely scientific theory. This is because it assumes some kind of omnipotent designer that merely obtains what it wants by will, and for which there are no unintended consequences.

   Specifically, just as there is no guarantee that any solution we conjecture to a specific problem will actually solve it, there is no guarantee any solution we conjecture will not solve some other problem we didn’t intend to solve as well. Ideas have reach beyond what we intended.

   This is why I keep posting out that intention simply isn’t enough. Yet, that is essentially what ID claims, as its designer is abstract and has no limitations.

   Again, the claim that we do not take what we know about designer into account is false. Rather, it’s you who ignores progress we’ve made. Specifically, you’re assuming design is an immutable primitive on which we can make no progress.
5. 5
   bornagain77 says:

   May 23, 2015 at 6:32 pm

   It is interesting to note that the presupposition of agent causality, i.e. God, behind the mathematical laws of the universe was presupposed by the Christian founders of modern science when they first discovered the mathematical laws of the universe.

   “About the time that the Reformation was proclaiming Christ rather than the pope as the head of the Church, science was announcing that the sun rather than the earth was the center of our planetary system. A leader in this changing scientific perspective was the German scientist Johann Kepler.,,, Throughout his scientific work, Kepler never sought any glory for himself, but always sought to bring glory to God. At the end of his life his prayer was: I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.”
   Diana Severance PhD, Rice University, historian

   In fact, on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared these very ‘unscientific’ thoughts:

   ‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’

   “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” [2,2a&2b]
   – Johannes Kepler

   Kepler was hardly alone in belief of God being behind the mathematical laws of the universe. Galileo stated:

   Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.
   Galileo Galilei

   Newton stated:

   “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God.”(Newton 1687,Principia)

   NEWTON’S REJECTION OF THE “NEWTONIAN WORLD VIEW”: THE ROLE OF DIVINE WILL IN NEWTON’S NATURAL PHILOSOPHY
   Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science, while his private writings evidence a lifelong interest in the relationship between God and the world. Yet the typical picture of Newton as a paragon of Enlightenment deism, endorsing the idea of a remote divine clockmaker and the separation of science from religion, is badly mistaken. In fact Newton rejected both the clockwork metaphor itself and the cold mechanical universe upon which it is based. His conception of the world reflects rather a deep commitment to the constant activity of the divine will, unencumbered by the “rational” restrictions that Descartes and Leibniz placed on God, the very sorts of restrictions that later appealed to the deists of the 18th century.
   http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm

   Both Faraday and Maxwell presupposed God as a causal agent in their scientific discoveries:

   The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell – Ian H. Hutchinson – 2014
   Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator.
   http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....nd-maxwell

   “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God.”
   Faraday, as cited in Seeger 1983, 101

   In fact, it can, and has, been forcefully argued that the success of modern science ‘is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism’:

   Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
   IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
   Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
   http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

   Yet, although God was presupposed to be behind the laws of nature at the founding of modern science, somehow God is, without us ever being told, or shown, exactly why, now somehow considered to be unscientific as a causal explanation for the mathematical laws of the universe.
   Dr. Bruce Gordon called Stephen Hawking’s bluff for erroneously believing that the laws are causally adequate within themselves to explain the universe:

   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,,,
   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.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
   Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
   http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

   But since agent causality was, mysteriously and without warrant, thrown out of the mathematical descriptions of the universe as being ‘unscientific’ then, as a result, agent causality is now deemed to be ‘unscientific’ in terms of describing ourselves. As a result, we find ourselves to wind up in what is termed ‘epistemological failure’:
   Professor Budziszewski puts the epistemological failure that results for denying agent causality like this:

   A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski
   Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
   If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
   The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
   http://www.undergroundthomist......theist.pdf
   A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – 2012 talk
   University of Wyoming J. Budziszewski
   http://veritas.org/talks/profe.....er_id=2231

   In other words, the denial of agent causality for ourselves leads to epistemological failure since it undermines our ability to be rational agents instead of mindless automatons.
   Interesting, the fact that it is impossible to live consistently within the materialistic worldview is a argument against it being true:

   The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
   Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
   http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

   Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
   Excerpt: ,,,One section in his book is even titled “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.”,,,
   When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
   Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis
   within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
   How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html

   Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
   1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
   2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
   3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
   4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
   5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
   Conclusion: Atheism is false.
   http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/
6. 6
   bornagain77 says:

   May 23, 2015 at 6:33 pm

   Not only is it impossible to live our personal lives as if we, and our loved ones, were merely machines, but the denial of agent causality within ourselves also undermines our ability to do science itself:

   Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
   Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
   By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

   Physicalism and Reason – May 2013
   Summary: So we find ourselves affirming two contradictory propositions:
   1. Everything is governed by cause-and-effect.
   2. Our brains can process and be changed by ground-consequent logical relationships.
   To achieve consistency, we must either deny that everything is governed by cause-and-effect, and open our worldviews to something beyond physicalism, or we must deny that our brains are influenced by ground-consequence reasoning, and abandon the idea that we are rational creatures.
   Ask yourself: are humans like falling dominoes, entirely subject to natural law, or may we stand up and walk in the direction that reason shows us?
   http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2.....nd-reason/

   (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
   (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain.
   (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
   (4) no effect can control its cause.
   Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
   per Box UD

   Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
   Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.
   To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
   So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,,
   Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.
   The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94171.html

   Quote: “In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage”
   Donald Hoffman PhD. – Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception – 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark – video
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439

   “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
   – C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, p. 32

   In the following article, Dr. Nelson ties the ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design:

   Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson September 24, 2014
   Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
   MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
   “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
   Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
   You are certainly an intelligent cause,, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90071.html

   And indeed, as Dr. Nelson alluded to, personal agency is very much closely associated with the creation of new information

   Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson
   Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.
   http://cires.colorado.edu/~dou...../info8.pdf

   And although Dr. Nelson, in the article I cited previously, alluded to writing an e-mail to tie his argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can be easily amended to any action that you, as a personal agent, choose to take:

   You didn’t walk through the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.
   You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.
   You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”

   Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of ‘academics’, a ‘miracle’ by simply raising his arm,,

   The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....qlE#t=746s

   Thus, as should be abundantly clear by now, the denial of personal agency in science is unwarranted in the first place, and the consequences of the denial of personal agency leads not only to irrationality, but sheer insanity in science.
   The reason I gave a short history on the role of agent causality in science, and the insane consequences for denying agent causality, is because one rightly allows agent causality, i.e. God, so as to ‘breathe fire into the equations’, then a solution to the most profound enigma in modern physics readily pops out for us.
   Namely, the resurrection of Christ from death provides a empirically backed reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity, (Quantum Electrodynamics), and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’:

   The Center Of The Universe Is Life (Jesus) – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
   http://vimeo.com/34084462
7. 7
   bornagain77 says:

   May 23, 2015 at 6:34 pm

   And as would be expected if Gravity was truly unified with Quantum Mechanics in the resurrection of Christ from death, 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

   Moreover, as would also be expected if General Relativity (Gravity), and Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (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

   Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many, many, brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity(QED), with Gravity (General Relativity),,,

   A Capella Science – Bohemian Gravity! – video
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc

   Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013
   Excerpt: there’s a large contingent of physicists who believe that string theory is the heroin of theoretical physics. It has absorbed not just millions of dollars, but hundreds if not thousands of grad student lifetimes without delivering what it promised–a unified theory of the universe and life. It is hard, in fact, to find a single contribution from string theory despite 25 years of intense effort by thousands of the very brightest and best minds our society can find.
   http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/

   Reflecting on that extreme difficulty, I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:

   Two very different ‘eternities’: Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit
8. 8
   bornagain77 says:

   May 23, 2015 at 6:35 pm

   Verses, poetry slam, and Music

   John 8:23-24
   But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.

   G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) – poetry slam – video
   https://vimeo.com/20960385

   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.

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

   Matthew 28:18
   Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

   Brooke Fraser – Hillsong: “Lord Of Lords” – music
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB4Tc5zJMUc

   Supplemental note: Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

   1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
   2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
   3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
   4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
   Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit