From Nature:
The tests being used to work that out are extremely subtle, and have yet to produce a definitive answer. But researchers are optimistic that a resolution is close. If so, they will finally be able to answer questions that have lingered for decades. Can a particle really be in many places at the same time? Is the Universe continually dividing itself into parallel worlds, each with an alternative version of ourselves? Is there such a thing as an objective reality at all?
“These are the kinds of questions that everybody has asked at some point,” says Alessandro Fedrizzi, a physicist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. “What is it that is really real?” More.
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?
Something is cracking. Don’t we all sense it?
See also: What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness
Follow UD News at Twitter!
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
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.
How this affects the claims of evolutionary theories, especially the supposed evolution of human beings (given consciousness) must therefore also be “an open question”.
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.
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.
In fact, on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared these very ‘unscientific’ thoughts:
Kepler was hardly alone in belief of God being behind the mathematical laws of the universe. Galileo stated:
Newton stated:
Both Faraday and Maxwell presupposed God as a causal agent in their scientific discoveries:
In fact, it can, and has, been forcefully argued that the success of modern science ‘is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism’:
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:
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:
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:
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:
In the following article, Dr. Nelson ties the ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design:
And indeed, as Dr. Nelson alluded to, personal agency is very much closely associated with the creation of new information
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:
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,,
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’:
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:
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:
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),,,
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:
Verses, poetry slam, and Music
Supplemental note: Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: