But why is the quantum world thought spooky anyway?

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 1, 2015

News, Physics}

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

Quantum ‘spookiness’ passes toughest test yet

It’s a bad day both for Albert Einstein and for hackers. The most rigorous test of quantum theory ever carried out has confirmed that the ‘spooky action at a distance’ that the German physicist famously hated — in which manipulating one object instantaneously seems to affect another, far away one — is an inherent part of the quantum world.

…

In quantum mechanics, objects can be in multiple states simultaneously: for example, an atom can be in two places, or spin in opposite directions, at once. Measuring an object forces it to snap into a well-defined state. Furthermore, the properties of different objects can become ‘entangled’, meaning that their states are linked: when a property of one such object is measured, the properties of all its entangled twins become set, too.

…

Zeilinger also notes that there remains one last, somewhat philosophical loophole, first identified by Bell himself: the possibility that hidden variables could somehow manipulate the experimenters’ choices of what properties to measure, tricking them into thinking quantum theory is correct.

That would be the evolutionary psychology version, right?: The physicists were naturally selected back on the African savannah to see things this way, to spread their selfish genes. There is no way for a hairless primate to know how things actually are.

Leifer is less troubled by this ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’, however. “It could be that there is some kind of superdeterminism, so that the choice of measurement settings was determined at the Big Bang,” he says. “We can never prove that is not the case, so I think it’s fair to say that most physicists don’t worry too much about this.” More.

Great physicists were often not even materialists. See what they have said about immateriality and consciousness

Our friendly local physicist Rob Sheldon notes,

Quantum spookiness is only spooky to materialists–like Einstein himself. For physicists like Aristotle, you would expect there to be purpose and order and long-distance correlations. For example, if you made a machine to observe at 500nm wavelength, it wouldn’t be spooky to find that there was a source of 500nm light nearby that illuminated the laboratory. They are both “entangled” by design.

Not to worry, an American circuit court is going to strike that down soon.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

"Has Dr Long performed controlled, double-blind experiments?"
A blind or blinded experiment is an experiment in which information about the test is kept from the participant until after the test.[1] Bias may be intentional or unconscious. If both tester and subject are blinded, the trial is a double-blind experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment
Not that I know of. Although I do know there are many near death experiences where the experiencer themselves had no preconceived notion of NDE's. For instance former militant atheist Howard Storm's NDE,
"I knew for certain there was no such thing as life after death. Only simple minded people believed in that sort of thing. I didn't believe in God, Heaven, or Hell, or any other fairy tales. I drifted into darkness. Drifting asleep into anihilation.,,(Chapter 2 - The Descent),, I was standing up. I opened my eyes to see why I was standing up. I was between two hospital beds in the hospital room.,,, Everything that was me, my consciousness and my physical being, was standing next to the bed. No, it wasn't me lying in the bed. It was just a thing that didn't have any importance to me. It might as well have been a slab of meat in the supermarket",,, Howard Storm - former hard-core atheist - Excerpt from his book, 'My Descent Into Death' (Page 12-14) http://books.google.com/books?id=kd4gxtQAeq8C&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false The Near Death Experience of Howard Storm: Parts I & II- The Chains We Forge in Life/Rescue - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsyWGPoMiMI
Thus at least one aspect of the 'blind' test has been achieved in people who had no preconceived notion. In fact Dr. Storm was heavily biased against NDEs being real. So that definitely counts against personal bias being a factor. The only scientific 'tests' that I know of, (and I am certainly no expert on all the tests that have been done), were the Parnia study and the 'more real than real' study. Both of those studies resulted in positive evidence for the validity of NDEs: In the following study, researchers who had a bias against NDEs being real, set out to prove that they were merely hallucinations by setting up a questionnaire that would prove that the memories of NDEs were merely hallucinatory in nature. They did not expect the results they got:
'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/ Memories of Near Death Experiences (NDEs): More Real Than Reality? - Mar. 27, 2013 Excerpt: University of Liège researchers have demonstrated that the physiological mechanisms triggered during NDE lead to a more vivid perception not only of imagined events in the history of an individual but also of real events which have taken place in their lives!,,, ,,,researchers,, have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events. The researchers compared the responses provided by three groups of patients, each of which had survived (in a different manner) a coma, and a group of healthy volunteers. They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm
Parnia, who is perhaps the most skeptical NDE researcher out there, who originally set a 'number test' up in a operating room to try to prove remote viewing, though the number test itself drew no hits, now personally concedes the evidence for remote viewing of the hospital room is 'very credible'
Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real - October 7, 2014 Excerpt: Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton who led the research, said that he previously (held) that patients who described near-death experiences were only relating hallucinatory events. One man, however, gave a “very credible” account of what was going on while doctors and nurses tried to bring him back to life – and says that he felt he was observing his resuscitation from the corner of the room. Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, Dr Parnia said: “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating. “But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes. “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for. “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largestever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-neardeath-experiences-may-actually-be-real-9780195.html Near-death patients do see afterlife by JENNY HOPE - October 8, 2014 Excerpt: The latest study, by Southampton University researchers, suggests the mind may continue to exist after the brain has ceased to function and the body is clinically dead. The research team studied 63 survivors of a cardiac arrest who were resuscitated at Southampton General Hospital after they had been clinically dead with no pulse, no respiration and fixed dilated pupils. Independent studies have confirmed that the brain ceases to function at that time. But seven out of the 63 survivors recalled emotions and visions during their unconsciousness, says a report in the journal Resuscitation. Four patients (six per cent) met the strict criteria used to diagnose NDEs. They recalled feelings of peace and joy, of time speeding up, heightened senses, lost awareness of body, seeing a bright light, entering another world, encountering a mystical being or deceased relative and coming to a point of no return.,,, It has been suggested that the experiences are hallucinations, the result of disturbed brain chemistry caused by medication, lack of oxygen or changes in carbon dioxide levels. But Dr Parnia said there was no difference in oxygen levels or drug treatment between the heart attack survivors who had not had NDEs and those who had. 'In fact, the four patients who met the criteria for a true NDE actually had higher oxygen levels,' he added. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-24509/Near-death-patients-afterlife.html
bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Aleta: There is a difference between the biological self – the whole system which acts for the well-being of the organism as a whole, and the metaphysical self, which does not exist. And there is a difference between sense and nonsense.Mung_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Has Dr Long performed controlled, double-blind experiments?daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

daveS, "whatever the status of Darwinian evolution," Actually, the transcendent nature of information, one of the main things unguided material processes have not explained, and indeed cannot possibly explain, directly supports the transcendent nature of the soul: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/1-dawkins-wants-to-land-porn-on-muslim-world-2-dawkins-yawnfest-has-just-got-to-stop/#comment-545518 As to your claim that the quality of evidence is 'terrible', I consider the quality of evidence to be superb: For example Dr. Jeffrey Long's research
Dr. Jeffrey Long: Just how strong is the evidence for a afterlife? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mptGAc3XWPs The Reality of Near-Death Experiences and their Aftereffects - Jeffrey Long - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIqKTE6jNmQ Dr Jeffrey Long's Near Death Experience Research a Game Changer for Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO_YHdD9evI
bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

BA77, Of course I'm not certain my mind will not survive my body. Anyway, whatever the status of Darwinian evolution, the quality of the evidence for NDEs is terrible. Just one properly controlled, double-blind experiment is all I ask...daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Thank you, Dave. I have another similar story with, given the context, a strangely hilarious aspect to it. Tomorrow. Must retire.Axel_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Axel, Thanks for the account. I always find these interesting.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

well daveS, until you quit hiding in a non-falsifiable 50/50 grey area, and seriously consider the irreconcilable difficulties of thinking your mind is your brain, you will, IMHO, never make progress. Either the mind is caused by the brain or it is not. If it is not caused by the brain then, as an atheist, you have some very serious questions to be answered. I'm not the one who needs to ask nor answer these questions. You are. It is not about me convincing you of a position that you apparently would rather not be true. It is about you being honest enough to ask the right questions and open enough to then follow the evidence where it leads. as to: "I don’t think my mind will survive my death." Are you absolutely certain about this or is this another one of those 50/50 waffles? Such as the 50/50 waffle you stated here,,, 'As to whether my mind transcends my brain right now, as I live, it’s possible. I give it a 50-50 chance.' daveS, regardless of what you may think about the possibility of life after death, the fact of the matter is that we have far more observational evidence for the reality of life after death than we do for the validity of neo-Darwinian evolution.
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
Of related note: '90 minutes in Heaven' is due to be released in theaters Sept. 11, 2015
90 Minutes In Heaven - trailer http://90minutesinheaventhemovie.com/ "More real than anything I've experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death." - Don Piper - "90 Minutes in Heaven," 10 Years Later - video (2:54 minute mark) https://youtu.be/3LyZoNlKnMM?t=173
bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

'Axel, I don’t disagree with ‘integrated and coordinated personal worlds’. It also accords with the Talmud, BA. I'd read it simply as the saying of a Jewish Kabalist: 'When a man dies, a whole world dies with him.'Axel_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

I once saw a demon, Dave, as I was lying in my pit. It appeared as a dull, dirty, yellowish glow, like you might in an oil slick, I believe, and indeterminate shape, smaller than a fist - rather like a patch, I suppose. It moved from my body, having presumably tried to gain access to my heart, and passed over my wife's body without pausing. Now, the interesting think is that it seemed to move in a straight line - a feature of the angels in Ezekiel. Moreover, I'd recently seen a TV programme in which the lady owner of a haunted house, recounted a similar glow moving up the staircase in her house 'in a straight line'. The staircase might have given me a clue about the straight line. Why would an angel heavenly or fallen, i.e. a demon, not move in a straight line. I think the answer lies in the nature of the way in which we walk, trot or run. The fact is, we pitch and roll as we do so, but we factor these movements of living creatures into our perception of them, subliminally discounting them as being of no consequence. And therein, I think, is the explanation of the strange sense of straight, forward movement, we would experience, if the person or creature were to merely glide along, as if on a conveyor belt. I can't prove it to you, but I'm giving you 'the good oil', so be grateful!Axel_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, so you do believe in a mind that is transcendent of the material brain?
It's an unsolved problem. No one knows (I'm sure that won't stop you though). Clearly the brain has something to do with the mind, as we both agree (since you referred to mind-altering drugs above). Alzheimer's disease exists, unfortunately. I don't think my mind will survive my death. As to whether my mind transcends my brain right now, as I live, it's possible. I give it a 50-50 chance. I actually was semi-serious in #23. If someone wrote up a self-contained proof of God's existence via integer arithmetic, I would read it.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Box,
We share a disbelief in Lucifer. Demons … I have met them, the human version that is. Ghosts … I have communicated with them. I have witnessed several miracles — but haven’t we all?
Interesting. Well, all I can say is that I'd pay money to see evidence of demons, ghosts, or miracles, and so far, no dice.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Aleta claims:
"There is a difference between the biological self,,, and the metaphysical self"
So do you believe that you are your brain or do you believe that 'you' are your whole body? If I cut off your arm will you still be 'you'? How about your legs? Will you still be 'you'? Will 'you' bite my knee?
Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno Nicholas James Vujicic No arms..No legs.. No worries! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zeb-k-XzaI
What if I removed half your brain Aleta, would you still be 'you'? If the mind of a person were merely the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of a brain were removed then a 'person' should only be ‘half the person’, or at least somewhat less of a 'person', as they were before, but that is not the case. The ‘whole person’ stays intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment:
Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies - Dr. Ben Carson - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zBrY77mBNg Dr. Gary Mathern - What Can You Do With Half A Brain? - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrKijBx_hAw Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: - 1997 Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining,, Dr. John Freeman, the director of the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Epilepsy Center, said he was dumbfounded at the ability of children to regain speech after losing the half of the brain that is supposedly central to language processing. ''It's fascinating,'' Dr. Freeman said. ''The classic lore is that you can't change language after the age of 2 or 3.'' But Dr. Freeman's group has now removed diseased left hemispheres in more than 20 patients, including three 13-year-olds whose ability to speak transferred to the right side of the brain in much the way that Alex's did.,,, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html
In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study:
"Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One - May 2007 Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,, Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman says. Of course, the operation has its downside: "You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost," Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole
bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

daveS, so you do believe in a mind that is transcendent of the material brain? Or are you just being purposely foggy so as to avoid dealing honestly with the inherent failings of your atheistic worldview?bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

daveS: I don’t believe in any gods, Lucifer, ghosts, demons, and so forth, (...)
We share a disbelief in Lucifer. Demons ... I have met them, the human version that is. Ghosts ... I have communicated with them. I have witnessed several miracles — but haven't we all?Box_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

There is a difference between the biological self - the whole system which acts for the well-being of the organism as a whole, and the metaphysical self, which does not exist. All this talk about whether "I" does or doesn't exist isn't being very clear about what is actually being talked about.Aleta_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

you don't believe in a conscious mind that is transcendent of the material brain
?? Where did you get that from? I don't recall saying that.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

daveS,
"I’m sure "I" have mentioned this before",,,
and again, since you do not believe in a conscious mind that is transcendent of the material brain, who exactly is this fictitious person of "I" that you keep referring to in your sentences? i.e. Do 'you' always speak of illusions as if they are real? i.e. Are 'you' on mind altering drugs that make 'you' think the imaginary thing of 'you' is real?
"that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994 “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
"consciousness is an illusion"
A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins
”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. Dawkins vs Williams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
at 37:51 minute mark of following video, according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not exist as a person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed) i.e. ironically, in atheists denying that God really exists, they end up denying that they themselves really exist as real persons.
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
How many inconsistencies can 'you' spot in the following sentence daveS?
"What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 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 (MN). 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, however, 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.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
“You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t open 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 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 at a college, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm,,
The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xVByFjV0qlE#t=746s
What should be needless to say daveS, since simply freely raising an arm when a person chooses to do so is enough to twist your supposedly ‘scientific’ worldview of atheistic materialism/naturalism into contortions, then perhaps it is time for 'you' to seriously consider getting a new scientific worldview? (assuming of course there really is a 'you' to consider the choice)
David Chalmers on Consciousness - philosophical zombies and the hard problem of consciousness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmZaA_xoJiM
bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

The detached perspective of “I” to notice any rate of change from “I” simply is an unavailable perspective given materialism.
I'm sure I have mentioned this before, but I'm not a materialist.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

"I contend that my self underwent only minute changes over that interval, so that I am practically the same person." And from whence comes the detached perspective of "I" that noticed that 'I am practically the same person'? The detached perspective of "I" to notice any rate of change from "I" simply is an unavailable perspective given materialism. see "The Mind and its Now" Jakibornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Box, One thing I do agree with Rosenberg on is that the self changes over time (so is not identical from one day to the next). However, I just took a 10-minute walk with my wife, and I contend that my self underwent only minute changes over that interval, so that I am practically the same person. I don't believe in any gods, Lucifer, ghosts, demons, and so forth, and am therefore a naturalist to that extent, but I don't see how that would force me to believe "I do not endure for two moments of time", as the quote stated.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

BA77,
MMM, sorry I don’t take suggestions from figments of imagination.
Too bad, the world will be poorer without it. :-)daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

daveS
you should write up and publish a paper demonstrating in detail that because we can (sometimes) distinguish between true and false integer arithmetical statements, atheism is false.
MMM, sorry I don't take suggestions from figments of imagination. And who is this 'we' you are referring to in your sentence? Remember to stay consistent within your atheism. There is only me, you don't exist. So 'we' is not the proper word for 'you' (if there were a 'you') to use. Moreover:
"Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine." Kurt Gödel As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13 "In an elegant mathematical proof, introduced to the world by the great mathematician and computer scientist John von Neumann in September 1930, Gödel demonstrated that mathematics was intrinsically incomplete. Gödel was reportedly concerned that he might have inadvertently proved the existence of God, a faux pas in his Viennese and Princeton circle. It was one of the famously paranoid Gödel's more reasonable fears." George Gilder, in Knowledge and Power : The Information Theory of Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World (2013), Ch. 10: Romer's Recipes and Their Limits
bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Box, Thanks for that quote. I have to run now, but I'll read through it more carefully later. Needless to say, I disagree with Rosenberg, and I suspect I'm not alone, even among atheists.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

daveS: Is this some kind of joke? Naturalism says that I do not endure for two moments?
No joke! That is exactly what naturalism claims ...
There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again. (...) So, the fiction of the enduring self is almost certainly a side effect of a highly effective way of keeping the human body out of harm’s way. It is a by-product of whatever selected for bodies—human and nonhuman—to take pains now that make things better for themselves later. For a long time now, Mother Nature has been filtering for bodies to postpone consumption in the present as investment for the body’s future. It looks a lot like planning. Even squirrels do it, storing nuts for the winter. Does this require each squirrel to have a single real enduring self through time? No. If not, then why take introspection’s word for it when it has a track record of being wrong about things like this, when the self just looks like part of the same illusions and is supposed to have features that physics tells us nothing real can have. [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10]
Box_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Anyway BA77, you should write up and publish a paper demonstrating in detail that because we can (sometimes) distinguish between true and false integer arithmetical statements, atheism is false.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Is this some kind of joke?
7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.
Naturalism says that I do not endure for two moments? And I thought Dr Hunter's statement was ridiculous.daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

daveS, It is not me that denies you are a real person and that 'you' can therefore 'understand' and 'distinguish between true and false', it is your atheistic philosophy that denies that. The fact that you can 'understand' and 'distinguish between true and false', is in fact rock solid proof that atheism is false! Metaphysical Naturalism is reducto ad absurdum on (at least) these eight following points that Dr. Craig pulled from atheist Dr. Rosenburg's own book on atheism. In other words, Dr. Craig used Dr. Rosenburg's own 8 conclusions about atheism, which Dr Rosenburg had reasoned out himself in his book, against him in the debate:
1.) Argument from intentionality 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2. I am thinking about naturalism. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 3.) The argument from truth 1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2. Premise (1) is true. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 5.) Argument from freedom 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 6.) The argument from purpose 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight's debate. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 8.) The argument from personal existence 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2. I do exist! 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.
I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation of the 8 points to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist's) position actually is.
Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ Is Faith in God Reasonable? FULL DEBATE with William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84&feature=player_detailpage#t=3641s
bornagain77_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

BA77, These bare assertions don't become more convincing with repetition. Hunter claims that "[Under atheism] there is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth". Do you think that atheists cannot distinguish between true and false statements in integer arithmetic? You surely agree that 2 + 2 = 4 is true while 3 + 5 = 7 is false. Why do you think atheists cannot make the same determination?daveS_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

BA77 (to DaveS): Thus, for the sake of honesty and clarity, will you please stop referring to yourself as a real person and from now forward start your sentences with qualifiers such as the following “the illusion of “I” has difficultly believing.”
While daveS is at it, maybe it is not too much to ask to end his posts with a qualifier such as "these thoughts are not about stuff".
The brain’s neural states, like the states of the semiconductor circuits in a Mac or PC (or in Watson for that matter), are not by themselves intrinsically about anything at all. What you have got is a lot of neural architecture geared up to respond with exquisite appropriateness to external and internal stimuli. Its responses produce characteristically human behavior—for example, making noise with your throat, tongue, teeth, and breath (that is, speaking). In addition to the many other effects inside the body that these neural activities produce, they also produce the illusion that the thoughts in there, in the brain, are really about the world. This is such a powerful illusion that it has been with us forever, or at least for a couple of hundred thousand years. [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide to Reality, ch.8]
Box_{September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply