Marvin Olasky on theistic atheism – oops, I meant theistic evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 19, 2010

theistic evolution}

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

Today’s three great cultural flashpoints are abortion, same-sex marriage, and evolution. We can hedge on them and justify our hedging: Playing it cool here will help me gain for Christ people who would otherwise walk away.

I’m not knocking such considerations. Nor am I assuming that anyone who tries to meld eternal truth and contemporary trends lacks courage: Some do so on evangelistic principle, others because they believe what they’re saying is true. But attempts to unify antitheses generally defy logic.

Over the past 15 years I’ve tried to explain some of the problems of Darwinism. Last year I raised questions about the “theistic evolution” that Francis Collins espouses, but didn’t offer answers—and several WORLD readers have pressed me for more (see “Theistic evolutionist,” July 10, 2009).

Darn. He’s on to the story of the century, and I thought I had it all to myself. He continues,

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.”

Right, exactly, that is the project of “theistic” evolution, so far as I can see. Helping theists get used to a world run by atheists and their values, while still hollering fer Jesus irrelevantly somewhere.

Comments

@bornagain77 (#237) You wrote:
what you think the conclusion is from your interpretation of the “incomplete” quantum computation evidence is a wildly supernatural conclusion that is not justified in the least.
Born, Again, quantum factorization of a 265 digit number isn't any more "incomplete" than classical factorization of a 265 digit number using existing computers, as both have yet to be accomplished. Is factoring a 265 digit number using classical means a "wildly supernatural conclusion that is not justified in the least?" Second, the individual logical operators required for Shor's algorithm have been demonstrated in the lab. They really do perform the logical operations necessary. And we have actually combined them to factor a 2 digit number in which quantum entanglement has been observed. The paper you quoted from describes it. Simply repeating a claim which you clearly do not understand does not make it true. Now, you might suggest that that QC does not collaborative to the MWI of quantum mechanics, which is a different claim. However, I'll illustrated several times that, as the best a hard to vary explanation, it actually does collaborate the theory. Again, if God is your explanation, then how do we convince him to factor an integer any time we please? You have yet to respond to this at all. The MWI says Shor’s algorithm only acts on universes that are initially identical to each other and causes them to differentiate only within the context of the factorization engine. That is only the universes that are close enough were the corresponding researchers are also factoring the same number interfere in ways that effect the results.veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

@nullasalus (#230) You wrote:
No, many are not “in direct contradiction”. Specific claims are. There are many conflicting accounts of Abraham Lincoln’s life and beliefs. ‘Well, then he probably didn’t exist’ doesn’t become a reasonable option.
Nullasalus, Even if we remain within Christianity we can contrast Calvinism and Arminianism. Would you suggest a being that would create other sentient beings with the explicit intent to torture them for an eternity could remotely be the same being that loves us all perfectly, equally, and wants each and every one of us to be saved to the extent he send his only son and suffers with us? That one or the other is true would have massive implications regarding said begins nature. Note that I'm not suggesting that these difference could not be reconciled under the umbrella of Christianity via theology, as clearly they have. instead, I'm suggesting that the resulting beings they each refer to has a radically different nature. Or we can refer back to the original article the original post. Olasky, and apparently StephanB, cannot reconcile TE with Christianly because the particular being they believe in would never use it to create life. Acceptance would result in a being be so foreign to them that I'm guessing he would likely cease to be 'God' from their perspective.
But I know better than to believe that, say… a YEC’s view is “falsified”. They can maintain that God created the world 6000 years ago, and all appearances to the contrary are mistakes or outright lies.
You'd have to assume that God is intentionally trying to fool us by planing false evidence. Again, this suggests a God that would intentionally present falsehoods that could ultimately cause a massive number of people not to believe he exists and be lost. Would a perfect being do this? How do you define a perfect being?
You believe in a humongous, possibly infinite, number of parallel universes that zip into existence day to day, and that these alternate universe people help us solve problems on quantum computers.
According to MWI, parallel universes do not " zip into existence day to day." They start out with identical conditions in the initial conditions of the qubits that well perform the calculations. Please see the links provided to Bornagain77
Read your David Deutsch. He believes in Tipler’s Omega Point, in no small part due to MWI. He just doesn’t think an omniscient, omnipotent world-creating entity should be called God.
If you had actually read David Deutsch, you'd know this is a gross misrepresentation of his views. Deutsch points out that much of Tipler's conclusions are dependent on making broad assumptions regarding future history leading up to the omega point. He also ignores significant differences between religious views we hold today. For example, the Omega Point is a singularity. Until it is actually reached, a collective will exist which is not all knowing or all powerful. However, God is assumed to have existed before anything was created with ability and knowledge already present. Nor does he change. The inhabitancies of the omega point will not have created the universe or the laws of physics. Nor could the violate them if they wanted to. Instead, they are harnessed to perform computations. They may be able to detect prayers from today as faint signals, but could not communicate with us to answer them or work miracles on our behalf. They are unlikely to exhibit a desire to be worshiped. In other words, the vast collective intelligence that exists at the omega point will not just be utilized to control the collapse of the universe, it will also be used to make decisions about what will or will not happen, including those regarding morality. That Tipler knows the vast intelligence at the Omega Point will resurrect us in a environment similar to our own, but lacking hunger, displeasure, pain, etc. (Heaven) because it would be possible to do so appears speculative. As with Deutsch, I'd rather be acclimated to their environment instead. Furthermore, we no longer think the universe will end in a big crutch. Tippler has supposedly revised his theory to support a big rip, but it's unclear if these conditions provide an equally strong correlation to assume Deutsch's acceptance.
I repeat: A strong agnostic commits that the answer to the question “Is there a God?” is undecidable, regardless of proof. That means no probability estimates.
The term strong agnostic, as I'm using it, is part of the commonly used series that runs from strong atheism, atheism, weak atheism, strong agnosticism, agnosticism, weak agnosticism, etc. Even if we leave the strong ambitious as to whether it suggests more or less likelihood, it still qualifies agnosticism in one direction or another.
The only thing that really made Darwin’s theory distinct WAS his metaphysics.
I think you're confusing the conclusions Darwin reached (how things evolved) with the way that he reached those conclusions. Furthermore, Darwinism is not social Darwinism.
Depends on the theology we’re talking about,
Again, If you assume only God existed in the beginning, then you have a boundary regardless of how you define either God or the universe. Other theologies could be concocted, as I illustrated. We could could be part of God's collective consciousness, etc.
Those models are gone, upended. Now “physical” is obnoxiously wide-open.
The gaps in our knowledge are uncontroversial, which makes your continued repetition "obnoxious." Again, I'd suggest you watch the online quantum computing lectures, which addresses many of these issues.veilsofmaya_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

@Gaz -"Sorry, I don’t recognise these laws you mention – law of identity, law of causality. Never heard of them, nor where they came from, nor where they are used nor the bounds on them." The reason you probably never heard of them is because most of the primary principles that the scientific enterprize was built on are now hidden (mostly involuntary) or embeded in other axioms and assumptions that serve as the phenomenal starting point of what we call the sciences. This becomes startingly clear with a little bit of linguistic analysis and linguistic historicism. At any rate, what Stephen gpuccio and others are saying cannot be rejected without leading to a form of reductio ad absurdum. QM does not undermine the law of causality. All it does is bring deterministic assumptions regarding reality into question.above_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Gaz, In that case ...I suppose you can use any excuse to get out of the discussion. I did not invoke Christ as part of my argument. You leave some critical questions about your position unanswered.mullerpr_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

nullasalus @ 205; Your cites are very interesting and reminded me of this video: BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 1-10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90
In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant mathematicians - Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing - whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
nullasalus as you can see, somewhat from the video, an actual infinity can only be dealt with effectively, and satisfactorily, by "transcendent information" and not by any materialistic postulation no matter how many infinities (MWI) are postulated for the material since you must always assume, as Godel elucidated, that there is always a larger infinity that you must assume to be true but cannot prove to be true in order for mathematics to remain consistent. To put it simply, Mathematics cannot be "true" unless this assumption for a highest infinity is true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God: Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.” http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/ further notes: Hilbert’s Hotel and Infinity – William Lane Craig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lobeX6ft6PA The "infinite" problem of joining relativity and quantum mechanics: The Physics Of The Large And Small: What Is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: This, (the unification of General Relativity and the laws of Quantum Mechanics), would also have practical advantages in the application of quantum ideas to subjects like biology - in which one does not have the clean distinction between a quantum system and its classical measuring apparatus that our present formalism requires. In my opinion, moreover, this revolution is needed if we are ever to make significant headway towards a genuine scientific understanding of the mysterious but very fundamental phenomena of conscious mentality. http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf Yet, this "unification" between what is in essence the "infinite world of Quantum Mechanics" and the "finite 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: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/ The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 - William Dembski 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/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf further note When taking into consideration the quantum wave state of a photon we find that a photon is "made" of infinite specified information: Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdfbornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Gaz as for you to be able truly say there is absolutely no law of causality for radioactive decay then there would have to be no way for us to write an equation for the second law which governs all physical systems in the universe, which is clearly not the case. You are looking at it from the wrong angle. Instead of saying I can't predict exactly when the atom will decay therefore I say it has no direct causality, you should be asking "from whence does this law of decay arise?"bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Gaz as to your quip about a Nobel prize for postulating transcendent information as foundational to reality. I am far from the first to do so and in fact that particular postulation goes back at least 2000 years: John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. Maybe you can talk the Nobel committee into giving the Nobel post-posthumously to John the apostle! 8)bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

nullasalus here is a condensed version of notes from the paper (I will work on organizing it bit better): Transcendent Information Is Foundational to Reality http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_54hd65s5fb Don't be intimidated by the length, the first part roughly deals with how transcendent information deals with cosmology and quantum mechanics whereas the second part gets into the "encoded" information we find in life. (It would be interesting to do a Rolf Landauer experiment in biology by the way)bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

It looks as if this is just going to end up with us agreeing to disagree - mullerpr has invoked Christ so the discussion has gone beyond science. Thanks guys, it's been a blast...Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

gpuccio/Phaedros, Again, I find myself in agreement with what you say. In terms of QM terms, we wouldn't be the first to have disagreements and we certainly won't be the last, although we probably aren't that far apart. My disagreement is with StephenB, who appears to be trying to raise identity, causality and non-contradiction to the levels of laws, when in reality they are tools that we use, rather than laws, and whose utility is constrained in certain circumstances (e..g the quantum realm). Hence he insists that there is a cause to radioactivity based on the law of causality, when there is certainly no evident cause and no other reason to think there is any. That is what I object to.Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @245, I agree that states produced by causes when we study them are very interesting and when we encounter something like QM, things get very interesting, but it actually is not a property of causality. Causality does not have properties apart from the entity that had a beginning. From my previous post it should be clear that when I talk about "a beginning" I am not mentioning an event isolated to our space-time continuum. I am talking about an entity with "a beginning" in any possible reality. In that sense it is obvious that QM entities has a cause. P.S. In a deterministic space time continuum it is possible to trace causality and the link between the QM and CM worlds is clear for all to see. Beyond that our minds need to use logic to investigate, because we might be able to trace causality beyond QM and come up with some wonderful technologies for everyday application. I think this because, even if it does not seem necessary to trace observed reality back to the original Cause, it sure will be fun to keep finding new things for ...an eternity.mullerpr_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio- You certainly made the argument better thab I did. Mullerpr- I was going to make a similar argument. I was going to point out that we could posit these events as necessary or first causes or causeless, but one would have to then say, I think, that they explain or constitute the base of reality and indeed why there is a reality or existence in the first place. I don't think that that is the case and indeed the opposite is more likely the case. That is, they are contingent entities requiring existence or reality in order to occur, therefore they are effects of something prior and therefore they are caused.Phaedros_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Gaz: "I’m not saying that – I am saying that StephenB’s comments about a “law of causality” do not apply as a universal law, because in the quantum realm we know there are events that do not have an evident cause (e.g. radioactive decay). ..." We know no such thing. What we know is that we do not know what, if anything, causes this radioactive atom, as opposed to that atom, to decay. To turn that into an assertion that the “if anything” is the pertinent clause of the sentence is wholly unwarranted. This is one of the things that really ticks me off about quantum-claims -- note: my ticked-offedness is not directed at Gaz, but at the irrational/illogical scientists who make the assertions he echoes.Ilion_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Gaz, If you don't say that your argument's conclusion is that causality ONLY applies to deterministic entities, then what other entities does causality applies to, and how do you decide? It still looks as if you think causality does not apply to the QM world, just because it is indeterministic from a human observer's perspective. Do you really want to maintain this position? Because then we can start to talk about the consequences of your position. The only thing that I know of that logically does not need a cause is a thing that does not have a beginning in ANY possible reality. From which it logically follow that all actual realities (...including QM) would have such a being as the origin. I am very certain that I know Him (...said being) to be the Triune God revealed to us through the Living Word Jesus Christ and sustaining our entire consciousness.mullerpr_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

It seems as thought the only thing that animates Gaz is to win a debating point from Stephen. And, he/she seems willing to trash the logical foundations of discovery in a failed attempt to make it.Upright BiPed_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

StephenB (240), I take from this that you accept there is no law of causality, nor a law of non-contradiction, given that they don't necessarily apply in the quantum realm?Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Phaedros: I see we have made more or less the same argument at the same time :)gpuccio_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Gaz: the law of identity, or the similar principle of non contradiction, are not empirical laws of empirical science. They are, anyway, axioms of logics (I am not speaking rigorously here, so if there is any logician here, please bear with me). You say: Sorry, I don’t recognise these laws you mention – law of identity, law of causality. Never heard of them, nor where they came from, nor where they are used nor the bounds on them. That's a strange statement. It is not a question of "recognizing" anything. All human deductive knowledge is based on those logical principles, so without them no scientific knowledge would be possible, least of all QM. You know that any mathemathical system cannot admit any internal contradiction, IOW it needs to be consistent. And all physical theories, including QM, are based on mathemathical models. You say: If reason says one thing and the evidence another, then I’m afraid it’s reason that’s at fault (as long as the evidence is valid, of course). I think you are equivocating a little about the role of "reason" (logicomathemathical models) in empirical sciences. It is perfectly true that we build logico-mathemathical explanatory models to explain what we observe, and it is obvious that, if our model in on conflict with facts, it's the model which should be discarded, not the facts. SWe obviously agre on that. And yet, if our model does not explain well our facts, that does not mean that "reason says one thing and the evidence another". That's a misrepresantation. The only correct interpretation is that the reasonable model we have built is not the right model for that evidence. The only correct behaviour is not to discard reason and just stay with unexaplained evidence, buit rather to build a new rational model, if necessary assisted by the collection of new facts, to explain the evidence in a better way. And, as you know, no explanation is necessarily final. So, I don't see any conflict between reason and evidence. There may be a conflict between some specific rational models and evidence. But reason is always necessary to give any meaning to evidence. Otherwise, it will not be evidence of anything, but just anecdotical collection of events.gpuccio_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

As far as radioactive decay goes, it doesn't have anything to do with the loss of energy or entropy?Phaedros_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Gaz- I don't think that the Michelson-Morley experiment showed anything like you're saying it did. It was a very primitive experiment looking for something probably only 21st century scientists, if that, will really be able to delve into. Not only that, but reason doesn't break down because someone made a reasonable conjecture and it didn't lead down the right path necessarily. You just make other reasonable conjectures and hypotheses. What you're saying is that because "reason" may have led Michelson and Morley astray in one experiment therefore we throw out reason, with logic and mathematics while you're at it.Phaedros_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

gpuccio you are right in that a transcendent mathematical law is found to be over the "random" events of quantum mechanics, yet this is not explainable from a materialistic viewpoint as illustrated in this exchange: God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein In response Niels Bohr said, Do not presume to tell God what to do. Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD. further notes: The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 It seems even the "exotic" virtual photons, which fleetingly pop into and out of existence like the virtual particles, may be tied directly to the anthropic principle through the 1 in 10^120 cosmological constant for dark energy: ELECTROMAGNETIC DARK ENERGY Abstract: We introduce a new model for dark energy in the Universe in which a small cosmological constant is generated by ordinary electromagnetic vacuum energy. The corresponding virtual photons exist at all frequencies but switch from a gravitationally active phase at low frequencies to a gravitationally inactive phase at higher frequencies via a Ginzburg–Landau type of phase transition. Only virtual photons in the gravitationally active state contribute to the cosmological constant. A small vacuum energy density, consistent with astronomical observations, is naturally generated in this model. We propose possible laboratory tests for such a scenario based on phase synchronization in superconductors. http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpd/17/1701/S0218271808011870.htmlbornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

mullerpr (242), I'm not saying that - I am saying that StephenB's comments about a "law of causality" do not apply as a universal law, because in the quantum realm we know there are events that do not have an evident cause (e.g. radioactive decay). That is different from saying that only deterministic events need a cause (which I'm not saying).Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

mullerpr (#242): You are absolutely right. The point is that probabilistic laws are laws just the same. And quantum probability is, most likely, intrinsic probability, and not a "hidden variables" effect. So, probabilistic causality should be viewed more like a different form of causality, and not as a true breakdown of causality. But there is no doubt that it is different, sometimes very different, and that's what makes QM truly interesting, both scientifically and philosophically. I really think that, if we all stop a moment, we could find some agreement on this point, and go on with the discussion from there.gpuccio_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

StephenB (239), Sorry, I don't recognise these laws you mention - law of identity, law of causality. Never heard of them, nor where they came from, nor where they are used nor the bounds on them. "To sum up, we do not learn about reason’s rules by studying evidence. We study evidence in the light of reason’s rules. If we compromise those rules, we cannot interpret evidence reasonably." Again, I do not agree with you. If reason says one thing and the evidence another, then I'm afraid it's reason that's at fault (as long as the evidence is valid, of course). Another example: reason led 19th-century scientists to conclude that there must be a medium - luminiferous aether - through which light waves propagated, on the reasonable ground that all other waves were known to need a medium to propagate. Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment to find details of the aether (e.g, did it move in relation to the Earth?). But their experiment demonstrated, very elegantly, that there was no aether, and scientists had to conclude - on the basis of the evidence - that their earlier reasoning was faulty.Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

---Gaz: [what if causality breaks down in other contexts] "It’s not an issue because if it breaks down then we will see effects with no cause (e.g. radioactive decay). If it doesn’t then we see effects with a cause. There is no problem." So, it is your contention that causality could break down in other contexts, which would mean that the micro events that you characterize as being so dramatically different from macro events may not be unusual at all. For you, it would not harm science in the least if effects without causes pop up all over the place. Has it ever occurred to you that the only way you can deduce whether or not an effect has occurred without a cause is to use deductive principles, in this case the law of causality? Put another way, if causality is not a law, you cannot use it to make scientific deductions.StephenB_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Gaz said:
"I’d also agree that particles obey QM laws, but we need to recognise that those laws tend to give probabilistic results rather than deterministic (as in classical physics), hence the breakdown in causality"
What is your argument to support your position that ONLY deterministic events need a cause?mullerpr_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 (238), It sounds above my capabilties to understand - but if you can supply the mechanism by which transcendent information manifests itself as physical phenomena then I'm sure I and others would be very interested (and if you have something useful you can expect a Nobel prize!).Gaz_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

---Gaz: "My problem with StephenB’s comments – and he does this often – is that he takes classical reason and logic and thinks it can be applied at the quantum level as a general rule. So if I talk about QM he disagrees on the basis that I wouldn’t say the same thing about Jupiter. He doesn’t appreciate – or doesn’t want to appreciate – that the physics that applies to Jupiter is different to the physics that applies to the quantum realm." You really need to get a grip. My question about Jupiter was made to another blogger in a totally different context. The purpose of asking whether Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time was to dramatize the self-evident nature of the law of non-contradiction. I made no references to "quantum mechanics" and Jupiter. On the contrary, it was you who lept into that discussion with the daring claim that the answer to the question about Jupiter was "easy" inasmuch as the evidence from quantum mechanics exposes the contradiction.StephenB_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

---Gaz: "It’s certainly reason and logic that determines whether Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time, but that reason and logic is based on scientific understanding of the classical universe." Reason and logic are not based on our understanding of the classical universe nor can we learn anything about them by observing the quantum world. One can say that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist only on the strength of the law of identity [a thing cannot be and not be]. If there were exceptions to the law, it wouldn't be a law. Quantum mechanics has nothing to say about it. The law of causality [nothing can begin to exist without a cause] is derived from the law of identity and is equally necessary for science. As is the case with the law of identity, Quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the law of causality. Quantum events are unpredictable, but that does not mean that they are uncaused. It just means that we do not yet know what those causal conditions are. To sum up, we do not learn about reason's rules by studying evidence. We study evidence in the light of reason's rules. If we compromise those rules, we cannot interpret evidence reasonably.StephenB_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Gaz but why do you not look for a transcendent cause (active transcendent information) that is sufficient to explain effects that defy time and space instead of just saying causality breaks down?bornagain77_{June 29, 2010
June
06
Jun
29
29
2010
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply