120 Replies to “Philip Cunningham argues: Jesus Christ is the correct Theory of Everything

  1. 1
    mike1962 says:

    Come on. This is just dumb.
    There are very good reason to have various beliefs, but this video is borderline retarded.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Mike1962 states,

    Come on. This is just dumb.
    There are very good reason to have various beliefs, but this video is borderline retarded.

    Now Mike, without knowing the specific reason why you think “this video is borderline retarded” I can only assume that you hold that the entire premise of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead providing the correct solution to the theory of everything is what is “borderline retarded”.

    And indeed such a proposition, at first glance, should invoke such a response of being ‘borderline retarded’.

    It is indeed an extraordinary claim,,, and as the often misused mantra states, ‘extraordinary claims’ demand extraordinary evidence’.

    But that ‘extraordinary evidence’ is precisely what I provided in the video.

    For instance, in the video I made the extraordinary claim that the Copernican principle, and/or the principle of mediocrity, (which is widely accepted as unquestionably true), has been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

    Is that extraordinary claim what you find “borderline retarded’ Mike?

    If so, it is the scientific evidence itself that you are finding to be “borderline retarded’. i.e. It is the scientific evidence that you have a problem with not with my claim.

    In other words, in science, in order to refute a claim that you find to be ”borderline retarded’ you cannot just say that you find it to be ‘borderline retarded’ but you must instead present the actual scientific evidence that empirically demonstrates that it is in fact a false claim.

    And you simply don’t have the empirical evidence to refute my ‘borderline retarded’ claim.

    As George Ellis himself stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”

    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
    – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

    Moreover, in the interest of time, in the video I excluded some evidence that further drives this ‘borderline retarded’ point home.

    For instance, there are ‘anomalies’ that are now found in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’ (CMBR) that are found to strangely line up with the earth and solar system.

    What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? – February 17, 2015
    The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations.
    When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking.
    Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea.
    (Youtube clip on site)
    In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles.
    The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle.
    http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/

    At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system

    “Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832

    Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains all of these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR in an easy to understand manner.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013?
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.?
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf ?

    And with the Ashok K. Singal paper, it is now the large scale structures of the universe, on top of the CMBR anomalies, which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a ‘preferred’ position in the universe.

    As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

    “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

    What is interesting about these large scale structures of the universe, i.e. quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, (i.e. distributions that reveal a “surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”), is that the tiny temperature variations (in the CMBR) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation.
    And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across.
    The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today.
    But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,,
    Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
    In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

    Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of randomness as they presuppose in their ‘inflation’ model, the temperature variations in the CMBR correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”. Moreover, we were only able to discover this correlation between the tiny temperature variation in the CMB and the largest scale structures in the universe via the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being fine-tuned to at least 1 in 10^57 flatness.

    In other words, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, to the largest scale structures in the universe itself, reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth from the start. ,,, The earth, and our solar system, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed.

    The scientific evidence for a ‘privileged’ earth is what it is no matter how ‘borderline retarded’ some people may believe the finding to be.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    And Mike, as I further pointed out in the video which you found to be ‘borderline retarded’, besides general relativity overturning the Copernican principle, quantum mechanics itself also now overturns the Copernican principle.

    Although, in the video, I listed several evidences from quantum mechanics to drive this point home, for me personally, the strongest evidence from quantum mechanics that overturns the Copernican principle is the closing of the ‘setting independence’ and/or ‘free will’ loop hole.

    Although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Moreover, with human observers, via their free will, now being brought into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level, and with the overturning of the Copernican principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, then it now becomes, at least, theoretically plausible for God, via his son Jesus Christ, to bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

    John 6:38
    because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.

    And as I further argued in the video, when we rightly the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company, then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    And Mike, as I further pointed out in the ‘borderline retarded’ video, the Shroud of Turin itself gives us empirical evidence that both gravity and quantum mechanics were dealt with.

    So a key piece of evidence for establishing the validity of the ‘borderline retarded’ claim that I made in the video is the Shroud of Turin itself.

    So in order for you to ‘easily’ refute my ‘borderline retarded’ argument you can simply show that the Shroud of Turin is a fake.

    Good luck with that. The Shroud of Turin simply refuses to be refuted despite numerous attempts to refute its authenticity.

    In fact, the evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing stronger in spite of numerous attempts that tried to prove it was merely a medieval forgery.

    Here is a timeline of facts that supports the Shroud’s authenticity:

    What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault – November 08, 2019
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

    And I hold that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the ‘extraordinary evidence’ that is required to meet the demand of the ‘extraordinary claim’ that I made in the video that Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead does indeed provide us with the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    Basically, we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photography was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about. Moreover, even with our present day technology, we still cannot replicated the image in all its detail.
    My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please pray tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention mastery of laser holography? Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments that he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical mad genius!

    As Silver Asiatic commented,

    These are big questions to deal with. I’ve never seen any of the shroud-skeptics address this.
    We see claims that “the shroud is a forgery” and then the discussion ends with that. It seems obvious to me that the skeptics are afraid to go any further and are just relieved that they “silenced” the shroud.
    But wait – yes, who was this forger? We have 3-D, photographic image of amazing subtlety and refinement. Yes, it’s something that transcends the genius of Leonardo DaVinci. We continue to use 21st century technology just to try to reproduce it.
    But nobody knows the name or origin of this artistic genius? There is no evidence of a workshop or artistic guild where this innovative creation was designed? Nobody from history ever mentioned this person? This genius-artist only produced this one masterpiece work – a holographic image on a cloth (containing pollen traceable to Jerusalem)? It was not framed or put on display. Not sold to anyone. The artist got nothing from creating it. Even the name of the genius artist disappeared. He never influenced any other artists. No family, friends, artistic community – not even the parish church – ever knew or said who he was?
    Amazingly, we only discovered the true power of the image when we took a photo negative of it in the 20th century. Yes, where are the medieval instruments used to create it? Everything was just accidentally lost?
    – Silver Asiatic

    Thus Mike, you may personally find the proposition that Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides us with the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ to be a ‘borderline retarded’ proposition but, aside from your initial gut reaction, you simply have not provided any actual scientific evidence as to why the proposition should, in fact, be considered ‘borderline retarded.’

    Are we just suppose to take your personal opinion that it is ‘borderline retarded’?

    Mike, that simply is not how science works!

    After all, with the overturning of Copernican Principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and with the overturning of the ‘free will’ loop hole in quantum mechanics, then it now becomes, at least, theoretically plausible for God, via his son Jesus Christ, to bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

    John 6:38
    because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.

    So again Mike, aside from your initial gut reaction of the proposition being ‘borderline retarded’, you simply have not presented any scientific evidence that would refute the VERY scientifically plausible claim that I have laid out in the video.

    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
    – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes

  4. 4

    The arrangement of the evidence you provide, BA, is not necessarily and exclusively evidence that the being and spiritual cosmology derived thereof for the “god” of the Bible is actually “God.”

    I call this the “Talking Tiger” problem. If I meet a tiger that can talk, claims to be God, predicts events before they happen or are known, and can generate all sorts of marvelous, inexplicable events that look like magic … should I believe him? Should I adhere to what the talking tiger says are my spiritual rules and adopt his metaphysical perspective?

    The only way to “prove” that the only reality that exists is the one described by the Bible is to show, logically, that it is the only possible world, and we both know there isn’t a chance of that. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one’s perspective,) if we go by logic, every possible world necessarily exists, and the one described by the Bible would, generally speaking, just be one of an infinite number.

    But then, that’s why faith is necessary in that perspective, right?

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    To tell you the truth WJM, I have no idea what you are going on about.

    The empirical evidence is what it is. I laid out my case for Jesus Christ providing the correct solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ from the empirical evidence itself. i.e. The empirical evidence that we currently have in hand for this universe, is what supports my claim, not the non existence of empirical evidence for any other ‘possible’ universe.

    To go beyond what the empirical evidence itself allows you to claim is, clearly, to engage in unfounded philosophical speculations. Amusing, perhaps even educational, but it is not science.

    Again, to go beyond the empirical evidence itself and engage in rampant speculation about other undetectable universes is simply not how science works!

    The empirical evidence itself is what has the final say in science. At least, that is the way that it is suppose to be. And that is what I have appealed to in my argument.

    If you want to engage in philosophical speculations about other ‘possible worlds’, I suggest you write for, or look up, Dr William Lane Craig writings. I’ve seen him engage in that sort of argument fairly knowledgeably.

  6. 6

    BA said:

    The empirical evidence that we currently have in hand for this universe, is what supports my claim, not the non existence of empirical evidence for any other ‘possible’ universe.

    Other than the fact I, and countless others, have actually, empirically experienced some of those other “possible” universes, okay.

  7. 7
    MikeW says:

    I don’t know about TOE, but Tom Brady is the Super-GOAT!

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Brady looked like a chump in the 2nd half. The defense saved him.

  9. 9
    MikeW says:

    ET, yes exactly! Brady inspired them with his performance and leadership. Kinda like how JC and the HS inspired the apostles.

  10. 10
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Mike1962 “ Come on. This is just dumb.
    There are very good reason to have various beliefs, but this video is borderline retarded.

    Just borderline? 🙂

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Steve Alten2, since Mike1962 did not reply to my response to him, and you have apparently joined with him in condemning the video as being ‘retarded’, perhaps you like to state, (presuming you even bothered to watch the video before condemning it), the exact reason why you personally find the argument(s) made in the video to be ‘retarded’.

    Or is it beneath your dignity to even give Christ’s resurrection from the dead serious consideration as to being a plausible explanation for the quote unquote ‘theory of everything’? i.e. As a plausible explanation for the main. purpose for why the entire universe even exists in the first place?

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

    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.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmmm, since Mike and Steve resorted to mocking the video instead of engaging the arguments put forth in the video, I think this is a fitting response for them:

    Atheistic Sky Daddy
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQonaTsyc1Y

  13. 13
    bill cole says:

    Hi BA 77
    This model sounds interesting. I hope you will continue to develop it.

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77,

    you have certainly put on the table a collection of exotic food for thought that is not the sort of stuff we commonly read in headlines or chyrons scrolling across TV screens. That is in itself a service, starting with yup there is a String Theory For Dummies out there that goes beyond say Wikipedia.

    I am reminded of the challenge of bounded rationality. We are finite, fallible, morally and intellectually struggling, too often ill-willed and downright cruel. At our best, “we see through a glass darkly.” (In the case of telescopes, fairly literally; on the micro side, that’s a pretty good analogy.)

    Physics and Mathematics are likely the number one and number two test cases. There is reason to believe the Wigner problem of astonishment at relevance of Math to Physics and its power in summary and accurate prediction, even giving the tools to think about what is on our collective plates is quite remarkable. Astonishingly, the cosmos and its contents are amenable to mathematical modelling, which can be astonishingly reliable. As a partial answer, as you know, I have suggested — pivoting on the quantitative implications for the distinct identity of any possible world W with some aspect A that marks it apart from a near neighbour W’ that we can recognise W = {A|~A} and onward see 0,1,2 immediately and from that extend to N by von Neumann succession, thence N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc as necessary framework to any W — that a certain core of Math is universally valid across actualities and possibilities; giving high confidence in applicability of Math. Math, here being understood as [the study of] the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. an exposition of logic of being, with a core as identified in part being necessary, world framework entities partly constitutive of any W. Necessary entities are of course eternal, there is no W in which say 2 began to exist at some point, or can cease from being constitutive fabric threaded through W and all its constituents. Never mind its abstract, non active causal nature, it is part of the logic of possibilities that universally and eternally constrains being.

    Such is shocking, a shock that forces us to contemplate the infinite, the eternal, necessity of being, root of reality. Indeed, in what sense, can such abstract entities hold being at all much less pervasive eternal reality? We are aware of debates among Mathematicians, all the way from platonic realism to utter fictionalism of mind games played with an apparatus of increasingly esoteric symbols on the tax payer or endowment dollar that somehow by strange coincidence happen to be often effective at least for things of interest.

    We have on the table, a reason to see why abstract logic model worlds spun out from historic extensions of tally sticks and land surveys of Nile-flooded land then greatly extended once Algebra, Coordinate Geometry and Calculus opened up worlds of applications and once we saw that Euclid’s space wasn’t the only possibility, will be in some cases universal and in others good enough to guide us in our particular in-common actuality.

    Turning to the puzzle-filled depths of modern physics and the attempts to synthesise a grand, synoptic view of the very large and the very small, actuality and possibility, it is perhaps unsurprising that we keep on running into conundrums. The map is not equal to the territory is, after all proverbial. Theoretical frameworks are in the end models and as Lakatos modified Kuhn, theories are born, live and die with “refuted” character. That is, big enough theories bristle with puzzles and anomalies. We are humbled into competing research programmes duly dressed up in sophisticated mathematical apparatus, but on the pessimistic induction, none of them rise to moral certainty, much less fact-uality. They would not be allowed to convict a defendant in court.

    We see through a glass darkly, we know in part, we prophesy in part.

    So, another helping of humble pie, please.

    As for Logos, there is no good reason to reject that our astonishingly mathematically ordered, fine tuned world with finite, fallible creatures capable of the freedom to reason and do Math and Physics, is akin to a mathematically ordered model, instantiated. So, that we would sometimes be able to think some of God’s simpler thoughts after him, hearing an echo of Eternal Mind, is in the end reasonable and responsible. Where, fact one is our own conscious, rational selves in a partly intelligible to us world.

    I am not about to delve on the Shroud, but before we even look at such, there is pretty good reason to ponder a creation coming from powerful mind and of course that Mind would be root reality, World Zero so to speak.

    W_0 being, a necessary world framework, eternal being with power to create worlds, including at least one inhabited by creatures with sufficient freedom to be rational and responsible, embodied beings governed by the oughtness of first duties of reason, not by mere cause-effect chains of initial conditions, signals and codes playing out blindly in some computational substrate.

    Where, such moral government of a responsible, rational creature further constrains W_0. After Hume’s surprise at seeing arguments post W_0, which go is-is then inexplicably leap to ought, and after Socrates’ argument on the Euthyphro dilemma, we see that W_0 must non-arbitrarily bridge the is-ought gap. That requires that W_0 exhibits inherent goodness fused with thoroughgoing utter wisdom, rendering deceitful talking tigers detectable on failing that test and pointing to the sole serious candidate to be W_0, i.e. we have a bill of requisites for the God of Ethical Theism.

    The objector is invited to put up a coherent, adequate alternative _______
    prediction, pretty hard to do.

    KF

    Mathematics confronts

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks for the feedback Bill Cole and KF.

    To put another reason on the table as to why I find the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to be a VERY plausible solution that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that separates General Relativity from Quantum Mechanics,,,

    Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
    We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
    Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
    In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
    The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
    Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

    ,,, to bridge that infinite mathematical divide between the two theories, it is interesting to note how each theory handles entropy.

    Both theories handle entropy in, essentially, completely different ways. In Quantum information theory we now find that, “an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”

    In the following 2011 paper, “researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,,
    The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    ,, “quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    Whereas in General Relativity we find that entropy is a property of the system, not of the observer who describes the system.

    In fact, in General Relativity we find that ‘supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy.’

    Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010
    Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated.
    https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2010/05/10/entropy-of-the-universe

    As Penrose himself stated, “the singularities in black holes would be expected to be totally chaotic”,,,

    How Special Was The Big Bang?
    “But why was the big bang so precisely organized (to 1 in 10^10^123 for the initial entropy), whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”
    Roger Penrose – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 copyright 1989, Penguin Books)
    http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/

    Just how entropically destructive black holes actually are in touched upon in the following quote by Kip Thorne,

    “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
    Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false
    Kip Thorne and Charles Misner, and John Wheeler wrote Gravitation (1973), considered a definitive textbook on general relativity.

    And since ‘spacetime ceases to exist’, then the ‘eternity’ that is found at a black hole can rightly be called an ‘eternity of decay, death, and destruction’.

    Needless to say, to those of us who are of, shall we say, a spiritually minded persuasion, this finding of an eternity of death, decay, and destruction at the singularity of the black-hole should be a fairly sobering realization.

    Moreover, to point out the obvious implication in all this, in order to successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity then the ‘infinitely destructive’ entropy associated with General Relativity, via black holes, must be successfully dealt with, And I would also hold that, since mathematics is at a dead end as to bridging the infinite mathematical divide between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, then the ‘infinite death and destruction’ that is intimately associated with General Relativity must necessarily be dealt with by the ‘observer who describes the system’ in Quantum Mechanics.

    And, of course, as a Christian I would hold that that ‘Observer’ describing the system is exactly what we have in Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead by God.

    Acts 2:24
    But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

    In regards to gravity being dealt with, and to quote from Isabel Piczek, a particle physicist who has studied the Shroud of Turin in detail,

    “When you look at the image of the shroud, the two bodies next to each other, you feel that it is a flat image. But if you create, for instance, a three dimensional object, as I did, the real body, then you realize that there is a strange dividing element. An interface from which the image is projected up and the image is projected down. The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity. Other strange you discover is that the image is absolutely undistorted. Now if you imagine the clothe was wrinkled, tied, wrapped around the body, and all of the sudden you see a perfect image, which is impossible unless the shroud was made absolutely taut, rigidly taut.”
    Isabel Piczek –
    Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains the ‘event horizon’ on the Shroud of Turin) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Ru3_TWuiY

    It is such consistent findings like these, findings that pull together seemingly irreconcilable facts,,,, it is such consistent findings like these that continually pulls me back to postulating Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead as the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    Like the proverbial missing piece of a puzzle that is finally found, Christ’s resurrection from the dead fits a little too perfectly into the final hole of the puzzle to bring the puzzle to a satisfactory completion, whereas all other pieces offered as a correct solution have failed miserably to fill that final hole in the puzzle.

  16. 16
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bornagain77 “ Hmmm, since Mike and Steve resorted to mocking the video instead of engaging the arguments put forth in the video, I think this is a fitting response for them:

    Sorry, there were serious arguments made in the video? I must not have noticed them. Perhaps you can present the best argument in less than a hundred words. I won’t hold my breath.

  17. 17
  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Steve Alten2

    So nothing, absolutely nothing, in the video is worthy of your attention? And is only worthy of your ridicule?

    Well, thank you so much for blessing us with your towering scientific intellect. An intellect that is so far superior than ours that your decree is enough to render all counter arguments moot.

    But then again, others not so enamored with your intellect, (like everyone else save for yourself), may question just how solid your scientific decrees are, especially given that you believe that unguided Darwinian evolution can produce a human brain

    The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution – DONALD DeMARCO – 02/06/2015
    Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates.
    Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies!
    A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another.
    Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers.
    The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project.
    http://www.ncregister.com/dail.....evolution/

    Imagine you would be the most genius inventor of all time – 2017
    Excerpt: – The human brain (86 billion neurons) at 10^8,342 bits exceeding the bit capacity of the entire universe at 10^120 bits upon which a maximum of 10^90 bits could have been operated on in the last 14 billion years. In order to put such numbers into perspective, realize that the number of elementary particles (protons, neutron, electrons) in the physical universe is only 10^80. I have serious doubts—based on these numbers—that any input fails to be encoded in some way; but with what computer would we track all of that? position this more simply in terms of the fact that the storage capacity on just one human brain is equivalent to 10^8,419 modern computers. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1-liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power
    It houses 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.
    http://reasonandscience.heaven.....f-all-time

  19. 19
    Viola Lee says:

    BA posted the text version of his video at a link on the video page. It is just a long version of the kind of things he posts here all the time, full of quotes. The basic idea is that he believes John 1:1 is the heart of the matter, and he thinks quantum mechanics prove that God and Jesus are behind it all. There is nothing new in the video that we all haven’t scrolled by before.

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, I cannot but notice how twice you have scrolled by direct responses to cases. First, in a previous thread you said how I could not address divorce [even though I had long ago done so in your presence], then when I explicitly did so again you went poof. As this was your talking point to side track the value and relevance of first duties of reason, that speaks and not in your favour. Above, I took time to recognise some very useful references BA77 has raised, that have standing whatever you may give his arguments — I didn’t know there is a for dummies on string theory, it seems the series has broadened out well beyond how to do web sites and use various programmes. That is noteworthy. BA77 quite often has food for thought clips and links well worth pondering, but calculated rhetorical dismissiveness — and yes, that is how you begin to come across –will miss such.One does not have to agree with BA77 to recognise that he has raised fairly serious matters across time and should be treated with the modicum of courtesy that News has accorded him. I further took time above to speak to themes being debated by Mathematicians, as News has been highlighting and to which in part BA77 is addressing, i/l/o the Wigner issue on applicability of Math, something that is dealt with in more detail in a linked paper. It turns out that those issues tie to fairly serious world roots questions. Perhaps, those can be looked at. KF

    PS: On Jn 1:1, the idea that communicative reason himself is the root of reality is not something to be brushed aside as though it is to be tagged as Christian/religious and sidelined as if that were automatically unserious. I would suggest that a fine tuned cosmos set up at an operating point conducive to C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life should give pause. Especially when we find alphanumeric code and molecular nanotech execution machinery in said cells. As Crick realised by March 19, 1953 in his letter to his son Michael. Code — language; algorithms — goal-directed and purposive. All built on what the fine tuned cosmos is set up to deliver. The old apostle has a serious point. At least for those not inclined to indulge Monod-Lewontin a priori materialistic question begging or fellow traveller assertions.

  21. 21
    Viola Lee says:

    KF, as I recall your post on divorce, most of what you posted was from the Bible, which isn’t an argument, or referenced “natural law”, which just another judgment call. Also, although you didn’t say it directly and clearly, your position seemed to be that divorce just because people didn’t want to be married to each other was immoral.

    But you actually missed the whole point of my question, which was not whether divorce was moral or not, but rather how do we deal with the fact that people have different opinions. As I recall, your answer to that was some people reason well, and some don’t.

    One of the frustrating things about you and BA is that you can’t answer in a clear, succinct paragraph or two, and your long, repetitive, rambling, quote and injections filled posts are not conducive to discussion.

    Here’s a test case. Do you believe there is one objectively correct answer to this question: Is it immoral for two people to get divorced when they don’t feel like they want to be married to each other?

    Can you just answer that question in a sentence?

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Viola Lee dismisses John 1:1 and insinuates that John 1:1 has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.,,, (he has ‘scrolled past’ the argument before so it is OK for him to ignore it now,,, is how he is apparently reasoning)

    Yet Anton Zeilinger, who’s experimentalist shoes Viola Lee, nor I, are worthy to tie, begs to differ with Viola Lee’s assessment that Quantum Mechanics has nothing whatsoever to do with John !:!

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum mechanics
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

    48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw

    49:28 mark: “This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,,
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
    https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969

    And here are a couple of more quotes that are very friendly to Zeilinger’s overall point,

    “I, like other searchers, attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues and here present a wider overview, taking for working hypothesis the most effective one that has survived this winnowing: It from Bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.
    It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
    – John Archibald Wheeler

    “I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950’s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons.
    I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself.
    Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory.”
    – J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64.

    And here is a quote that I am particularly fond of,

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    The only thing I see that quote directly contradicting is the reductive materialistic philosophy that undergirds Darwinian thought.

    And I certainly don’t see any substantial contradiction with John 1:1

    Perhaps Viola Lee would like to point out exactly how that quote is substantially different from what we read at the beginning of John:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and 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. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  23. 23
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Viola Lee “ There is nothing new in the video that we all haven’t scrolled by before.

    Be honest. How fast can you scroll past them? I can do it in 2 to 3 seconds on my iPhone, but I have worn a groove into the screen doing so. 🙂

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, my comment specifically annotated and drew out a natural law argument made by Jesus [itself something that is noteworthy on the overall discussion], your dismissiveness is therefore duly noted as indicating lack of serious engagement. I add, especially as the specific challenge you repeatedly put up dismissively was that I was unable to articulate from general first duties to particular cases, divorce being introduced as a less toxic example. That is, on fair comment you were simply trying to score dismissve rhetorical points. As for oh people have diverse views, they have diverse views on any number of subjects, that is why warrant — an aspect of prudence — informed by issues of truth and right reason becomes vital. Including that the suggested relativism is self-referentially incoherent: to claim there are no objective moral truths or truths in general is to make a truth claim and if it is focussed on morality, a moral truth claim, which is immediately self-defeating. KF

  25. 25
    Viola Lee says:

    Kf: Do you believe there is one objectively correct answer to this question: Is it immoral for two people to get divorced when they don’t feel like they want to be married to each other?

    Can you just answer that question in a sentence?

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Steve Alten2 thinks he is being clever and humorous,

    Be honest. How fast can you scroll past them? I can do it in 2 to 3 seconds on my iPhone, but I have worn a groove into the screen doing so. 🙂

    Yet willful blindness in neither clever nor humorous, but is, in reality, sad.

    Matthew 13:15
    For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

  27. 27
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bornagain77 “ Steve Alten2 thinks he is being clever and humorous,

    Nope. Just observant.

  28. 28
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bornagain77, I have one question. Does your God believe in informed consent? Or does he believe that those with power have the right to impose their will?

    OK, maybe it is two questions. 🙂

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Steve, I am more than confident that unbiased readers can clearly see whom is being fair and who is flippant.

  30. 30
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bornagain77, really? Then how do you defend your God impregnating a woman who was in awe of him, in spite of her being engaged to another man?

    Did she feel that she had a choice? I don’t think so.

    Maybe we should have a discussion about a being of power using his position of authority to impregnate a teenage girl.

    I realize how this sounds. My main point is that the morals of 2000+ years ago are different than they are today. Modern morality would never condone the Christ narrative if it involved our daughters. We would be calling the police.

  31. 31
    BobRyan says:

    Steve Alten2

    You use morals as if you believe they exist. You cannot believe in morality without freewill, which evolutionists deny even exists. Without freewill, there is no conscious choice to do right or wrong, which means there is no right or wrong. There is only what is determined by action and reaction with no mind involved, since the mind is an illusion.

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, it is obvious that in your mind you have redefined what marriage is into an essentially temporary cohabitation contract with a unilateral reserve short-notice walkaway clause. That is manifestly ruinous for family, for child nurture, for sound community and for civilisation; as is currently playing out under colour of law. The main issue, however was not debating such redefinitions, it was your attempt to claim that in effect first duties are so abstract that I would prove unable to articulate to specific matters. You ignored case after case of my showing how they are inescapably embedded in argument, even objections. You have also obviously sidelined the fact that there are entire connected bodies of knowledge complete with state papers pivotal to the rise of modern liberty and constitutional democratic self-government. Which, speaks for itself. I will content myself with noting how you run afoul of Locke in a pivotal passage that directly undergirds the relevant state papers of 1776 and 1787 – 9. Your problem, at root is not with me, it is with the line from Duplessis-Mornay, to William the Silent of Orange and the dutch declarants of 1581, with Rutherford and Lex Rex, with Locke (with Hooker and all the way back to Aristotle, with Justinian’s Corpus Juris along the way), with Cicero and those behind him, with Alfred the Great and his Witans in The Book of Dooms (foundational to the Common Law System), with Archbishop Samuel Langton in Magna Carta, with Blackstone’s 1765 articulation of the Common Law system, with Jefferson, the drafting committee and the rest of the 56 declarants of 1776; and many more, including now often unacknowledged founding figures of our civilisation, Paul of Tarsus, Jesus of Nazareth, Moses of the Nile. I could again point to Copi as my favourite intro to logic text and any number of other works on related subjects, etc etc etc. But that would only be detail, the core point was clear from the beginning. KF

    PS: Locke and Hooker, with Aristotle, on duty to neighbour:

    [2nd Treatise on Civil Gov’t, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: “14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . “ and 13: “9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . “ Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, the dismissive incoherence and village atheist level crudities speak for themselves. You have run away from the focal issues laid out by BA in his onward linked, not to mention my supplement in 14 above (regarding focal themes), through distractive joking on disrespectful scroll past. That is trollish disrespectfulness. I will append Plato on your manifest attitude. KF

    PS: Plato in the opening remarks from The Laws, Bk 10, on matters foundational to civilisation . . . and BTW in that context he makes the first discussion on follies of evolutionary materialism and on the design inference on record:

    Ath. Well, then; what shall we say or do? [in answer to hyperskepticism] -Shall we assume that some one is accusing us among unholy men, who are trying to escape from the effect of our legislation; and that they say of us-How dreadful that you should legislate on the supposition that there are Gods! Shall we make a defence of ourselves? or shall we leave them and return to our laws, lest the prelude should become longer than the law? For the discourse will certainly extend to great length, if we are to treat the impiously disposed as they desire, partly demonstrating to them at some length the things of which they demand an explanation, partly making them afraid or dissatisfied, and then proceed to the requisite enactments.

    Cle. Yes, Stranger; but then how often have we repeated already that on the present occasion there is no reason why brevity should be preferred to length; who is “at our heels”?-as the saying goes, and it would be paltry and ridiculous to prefer the shorter to the better. It is a matter of no small consequence, in some way or other to prove that there are Gods, and that they are good, and regard justice more than men do. The demonstration of this would be the best and noblest prelude of all our laws. And therefore, without impatience, and without hurry, let us unreservedly consider the whole matter, summoning up all the power of persuasion which we possess.

    Words worth pondering. Are we serious or are we fundamentally un-serious, imagining we already know and can impose a priori evolutionary materialism, dismissing those who have another opinion. Then, eventually stigmatising, scapegoating, slandering and censoring them . . . the ugly path now emerging as a McFaul Colour Revolution continues before our appalled faces.

    PPS: On your slanderous caricature of the incarnation (implying indictment of God as Adulterer), suffice to note that this was not an “impregnation.” Your crude, hostile caricature suffices to expose a fundamentally ill willed ignorance and disdainful trollish disrespect. I suggest, you take this as due warning that you are headed in the wrong direction.

    PPPS: On elaborating a worldview on comparative difficulties, addressing a wide range of considerations at 101 level, kindly cf here on in context.

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPPS: Plato’s warning to the ages, as has been highlighted many times here at UD over the years, but which of course is studiously ignored by those only too eager to rush over the cliffs being sign-posted:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

    I need not point onwards to the further warning in Ship of State.

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    BR, prezactly. However, the elaboration — as I already linked in 17 above (but was predictably ignored on) — is necessary too. KF

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Steve Alten2, Viola Lee and Mike1962 have condemned the video referenced in the OP as being ‘retarded’ and/or ‘borderline retarded’ without giving a specific reason as to why they find it to be as such.

    Yet if they were given to reason, instead of to cheap rhetoric, then it might be possible to have a fruitful discussion with them on the matter.

    But alas, they feel no need to state their reasoning for thinking the video is ‘retarded’ and/or ‘borderline retarded’.

    So I am left to guess as to what their supposedly reasonable objections to the video might be.

    Perhaps, like David Hume, they feel that a man rising from the dead is impossible and therefore that is what is to be considered ‘retarded’ and/or ‘borderline retarded’ in the video.

    “Nothing is counted as a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature. When a man who seems to be in good health suddenly dies, this isn’t a miracle; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet often been observed to happen. But a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle, because that has never been observed in any age or country.”
    – David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748

    The reason why David Hume held that a man rising from the dead would be impossible is because it would be a violation of the laws of nature.

    “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and because firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the case against a miracle is—just because it is a miracle—as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined to be.”
    – David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748

    Yet Hume made that argument about a miracle being a violation of the laws of nature back in the 1700’s when it was (wrongly) assumed that the universe has always existed. But we now know that that assumption of his is wrong. It is now known that the entire universe came into being approx. 14 billion years ago.

    Evidence Supporting the Big Bang
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

    And the Big Bang represents the biggest violation of the laws of nature imaginable. Namely, all of the laws of nature themselves, along with all the energy and the mass of the universe, as far as we can tell, suddenly came into existence.

    If fact, so distasteful is the idea of an absolute beginning to the universe for atheists that atheists are left in the rather awkward position of trying to deny that the Big Bang represented an absolute beginning of the entire universe:

    Denyse O’Leary has an excellent condensed history of this ‘Big Bang denialism’ by atheistic scientists:

    Big Bang Exterminator Wanted, Will Train – Denyse O’Leary – October 20, 2013
    Excerpt: “Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.”?
    – Cosmologist Christopher Isham?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77961.html

    Moreover, David Hume simply had no right to assume that the laws of nature were completely ‘natural’ in the first place.

    In 2007 Paul Davies stated, “,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,”

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.
    ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    Atheists, with their ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations, simply have no clue why there should even be universal laws that govern the universe in the first place:

    “There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations.
    Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws.
    Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.”
    Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.”
    – Origenes – UD blogger

    Eugene Wigner himself considered ‘the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them’ to be ‘two miracles’,

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    Thus for David Hume to self-servingly presuppose that the laws of nature were completely natural and that the laws of nature therefore preclude the possibility of any further miracles from even being possible, was, intellectually speaking, a severely disingenuous and dishonest thing for him to do.

    Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Hume’s thesis that a miracle would be a violation of the laws of nature, in quantum mechanics, (and as I mentioned in my ‘borderline retarded’ video), humans, via their free will, are now brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level.

    As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, states in the following article, ‘In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,’

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    Although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago,

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Moreover, with human observers, via their free will, now being brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level then it now becomes, at least, theoretically plausible for God, contrary to what Hume assumed, to miraculously bring a ‘dead man’ to life, i.e. to resurrect Jesus Christ’s sinless body from the dead.

    LUKE 22:42
    saying, “Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Thine be done.”

    And as I also touched upon in my video, indeed it was the main thesis of my video, is that God resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead also happens to provide us with a VERY plausible reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead, and as evidenced by the Shroud of Turin, apparently bridges the infinite mathematical divide that separates the two theories,

    Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite’ mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “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.”

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    And as I stated previously in this thread,, “It is such consistent findings like these, findings that pull together seemingly irreconcilable facts,,,, it is such consistent findings like these that continually pulls me back to postulating Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead as the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    Like the proverbial missing piece of a puzzle that is finally found, Christ’s resurrection from the dead fits a little too perfectly into the final hole in the puzzle to bring the puzzle to a satisfactory completion, whereas all other pieces that have been offered thus far as a correct solution have failed miserably to fill that final hole in the puzzle.”

    Matthew 21:42
    Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
    “‘The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone;
    the Lord has done this,
    and it is marvelous in our eyes’?

  37. 37
    Viola Lee says:

    At 25, I wrote,

    Kf: Do you believe there is one objectively correct answer to this question: Is it immoral for two people to get divorced when they don’t feel like they want to be married to each other?

    Can you just answer that question in a sentence?

    In response, I got KF’s reply at 32. I will have to translate:

    KF, can you just answer that question in a sentence? Answer: “No, I can’t”

    KF, Do you believe there is one objectively correct answer to the question about the morality of divorce?

    Answer: He doesn’t clearly answer that question, although he seems to be saying that “Yes”, he does believe there is an objectively correct answer.

    It is clear that he thinks divorce is bad for society: “That is manifestly ruinous for family, for child nurture, for sound community and for civilisation; as is currently playing out under colour of law.”

    But stating that is not the same as answering the question about there being an objectively correct answer. It is his, and others, opinion, but there are others who believe that there are counterbalancing positive reasons for allowing divorce, so telling me his opinion does address the man question of how we decide when different people make different more judgments.

    He also supplies a long list of references that show what??? That there are first duties to reason? I accept that.

    That still doesn’t address the questions I’ve asked.

    Also, KF writes, “VL, it is obvious that in your mind you have redefined what marriage is into an essentially temporary cohabitation contract with a unilateral reserve short-notice walkaway clause.”

    Three things about that sentence:

    1. I have not stated a position, as I’ve made it clear that the I’m interested in the meta-question of our we decide when different people have different moral judgments.

    2. There are a large number of “definitions of marriage” throughout different cultures and different time periods. Assuming, as KF seems to be doing, that the definition of “til death do us part” is the definition of marriage is just another example of his thinking that the correct moral answer is the one provided by him and the cultural traditions that he inhabits.

    3. I note without further comment how loaded he describes the position of consensual divorce.

  38. 38
    Viola Lee says:

    At 36, BA writes, “Steve Alten2, Viola Lee and Mike1962 have condemned the video referenced in the OP as being ‘retarded’ and/or ‘borderline retarded’ without giving a specific reason as to why they find it to be as such.”

    No, I have not done that: I have not “condemned” the video nor been a part of the discussion calling it retarded. I just said that it was just a long version of the kind of things he posts here all the time, full of quotes, and that there was nothing new in it.

  39. 39
    Viola Lee says:

    Oops: too late to edit. In 37 above, it should read “so telling me his opinion does not address the main [not “man”] question.

  40. 40
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ SA2, the dismissive incoherence and village atheist level crudities speak for themselves.

    What incoherence? In 2021 it is considered completely inappropriate, if not illegal, for a person in a position of authority to take advantage of a young woman under his command. Is God exempt from this? Or is our current ideas of abuse of power wrong?

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    Sorry Viola Lee, but I still fail to see how ‘scrolling past’ my video and my responses is to be considered, in any way, a serious response on your part. Steve and Mike called the video ‘retarded’ and/or ‘borderline retarded’, and you say there is ‘nothing new to see here’, yet you apparently fail to realize that simply stating that ‘there is nothing new to see here’ is not an actual reason as to why you find the argument(s) not worthy of your attention.

    In other words,. Ignoring the arguments before, and ignoring the arguments now, is not a response to the arguments. It is sticking your head in the sand and hoping that the arguments go away.

    As to the one issue that you did raise about John 1:1 and quantum mechanics, I did address that concern of yours, and yet you ignored it also.
    https://uncommondescent.com/theory-of-everything/philip-cunningham-argues-jesus-christ-is-the-correct-theory-of-everything/#comment-723360
    I also note that you have instead tried to take this thread off on trivial unrelated tangents about morality.

    I find it highly disingenuous on your part that you will devote so much time on a thread dedicated to my video discussing trivial issues that have nothing to do with my video,,, but ignore the meatier issues that I have laid on the table with my video.

    If you are going to do as such, I suggest you find a new thread to carry on your unrelated discussion.

  42. 42
    Viola Lee says:

    BA writes, “Sorry Viola Lee, but I still fail to see how ‘scrolling past’ my video and my responses is to be considered, in any way, a serious response on your part.”

    No, it was not a serious response. I just wasn’t someone involved in calling it retarded.

    BA writes, “I find it highly disingenuous on your part that you will devote so much time on a thread dedicated to my video discussing trivial issues that have nothing to do with my video.”

    KF brought it up and directly addressed me at 20, and I responded to him, and he responded back. Often threads do not stay on one track. And the question of whether there are objectively correct positions on moral issues is not trivial.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    Since KF has posting privileges, and since you want to completely ignore the video without even dignifying it with a serious response, and since what you guys are talking about has nothing to do with the video directly, then I suggest that you two take your off topic discussion to a new thread.

  44. 44
    suckerspawn says:

    SA2, Why do you assume Mary was impregnated against her will?

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    VL (& attn BA77), you have continued to set up and knock over strawmen, which explains easily what you did to BA77 and what would happen were I ill advised enough to try to give in effect a one liner answer to a substantial issue. I note for record that I stand by my response at 24 above and as onward linked, where I again note that an issue pivoting on implications of our morally governed human nature will be settled coeval with that nature. The direct relevance to this thread is we see a habitual pattern of rhetoric by way of strawman fallacy. It is sadly predictable that issues of significance from BA77’s remarks, or from my own comments towards it will never get a responsible response on such rhetorical patterns. Therefore, I will now turn to the substantial matters which the OP points to or suggests. Those who resort to scroll by, distract, belittle and dismiss have thereby already conceded that they have nothing to contribute of substance. That is now settled, we may proceed substantially. KF

  46. 46
    Viola Lee says:

    I stand dismissed.

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77,

    As I noted in 14 above, simply a link to String Theory for Dummies is a substantial contribution, as have been many of your clips and links over the years. That is worth noting.

    As regards the Shroud of Turin, my key cross check is that there is a matching sudarion of Oviedo, with a separate history from C8 on and a plausible back-trace to being evacuated from ME ahead of conquest. This tends to undermine dismissals on oh there was a C14 date, which was done on reworked parts of the cloth. Which suffered fires etc. The pollen types give it provenance and so it is a remarkable object in its own right.

    While I am not sure on claims regarding image formation, I am fairly confident no one else is certain either. So, while a speculative construction is interesting, that remains a subject for future resolution.

    When it comes to grand unification theories, we are still in a world of speculation. The math is beautiful but not definitive, on these theories. Empirical support lags, still. We await evidence.

    That said, the power of Mathematics speaks, as does the significance of cosmological fine tuning and the discovery of alphanumeric and partly algorithmic code in the cell, heart of biological life.

    That convergence does suggest personal unification at the root of worlds.

    Which is of course anathema to those locked into a priori evolutionary materialistic schemes and their fellow travellers. Where we separately, strongly, know these schemes are self-referentially incoherent and necessarily false.

    More can be said but these are key to seeing through the matter.

    KF

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, for substantial, sad cause. KF

  49. 49
    Viola Lee says:

    Yes, I am sad, along with other emotions and opinions, but for different reasons than you are, KF.

    But, I accept that I have been dismissed. However, I’ll point out that once you dismiss someone it’s contradictory to keep calling them back with further comments.

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: It seems to me we need to take a bite on string theory, so, let’s start with Wiki as a first summary:

    In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. [–> a point mass is of course an infinite density object, so going strings that on bird’s eye scales are 1-d but from the view of an ant crawling on it has curled up higher dimensions in the topology of a cylinder gives a first look-in] String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other. On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string looks just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string. [–> the note being sounded] In string theory, one of the many vibrational states of the string corresponds to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries gravitational force. Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity. [–> strings have discrete natural vibrational modes so will be naturally quantised]

    String theory is a broad and varied subject that attempts to address a number of deep questions of fundamental physics. String theory has contributed a number of advances to mathematical physics, which have been applied to a variety of problems in black hole physics, early universe cosmology, nuclear physics, and condensed matter physics, and it has stimulated a number of major developments in pure mathematics. Because string theory potentially provides a unified description of gravity and particle physics, it is a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. Despite much work on these problems, it is not known to what extent string theory describes the real world or how much freedom the theory allows in the choice of its details.

    String theory was first studied in the late 1960s as a theory of the strong nuclear force, before being abandoned in favor of quantum chromodynamics. Subsequently, it was realized that the very properties that made string theory unsuitable as a theory of nuclear physics made it a promising candidate for a quantum theory of gravity. The earliest version of string theory, bosonic string theory, incorporated only the class of particles known as bosons. It later developed into superstring theory, which posits a connection called supersymmetry between bosons and the class of particles called fermions. Five consistent versions of superstring theory were developed before it was conjectured in the mid-1990s that they were all different limiting cases of a single theory in 11 dimensions known as M-theory. In late 1997, theorists discovered an important relationship called the AdS/CFT correspondence, which relates string theory to another type of physical theory called a quantum field theory.

    One of the challenges of string theory is that the full theory does not have a satisfactory definition in all circumstances. Another issue is that the theory is thought to describe an enormous landscape of possible universes, which has complicated efforts to develop theories of particle physics based on string theory. These issues have led some in the community to criticize these approaches to physics, and to question the value of continued research on string theory unification.

    Linked, are branes:

    A point particle can be viewed as a brane of dimension zero, while a string can be viewed as a brane of dimension one.

    In addition to point particles and strings, it is possible to consider higher-dimensional branes. A p-dimensional brane is generally called “p-brane”.

    The term “p-brane” was coined by M. J. Duff et al. in 1988;[1] “brane” comes from the word “membrane” which refers to a two-dimensional brane.[2]

    A p-brane sweeps out a (p+1)-dimensional volume in spacetime called its worldvolume. Physicists often study fields analogous to the electromagnetic field, which live on the worldvolume of a brane.[3]

    In string theory, a string may be open (forming a segment with two endpoints) or closed (forming a closed loop). D-branes are an important class of branes that arise when one considers open strings. As an open string propagates through spacetime, its endpoints are required to lie on a D-brane. The letter “D” in D-brane refers to the Dirichlet boundary condition, which the D-brane satisfies.[4]

    One crucial point about D-branes is that the dynamics on the D-brane worldvolume is described by a gauge theory, a kind of highly symmetric physical theory which is also used to describe the behavior of elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics. This connection has led to important insights into gauge theory and quantum field theory. For example, it led to the discovery of the AdS/CFT correspondence, a theoretical tool that physicists use to translate difficult problems in gauge theory into more mathematically tractable problems in string theory.[5]

    We have crossed over into a new wonderland and need to get some footing on basic concepts. This is only a bare start. Next read, here https://astrogeekzco.com/2018/08/06/string-theory-explained-in-simple-words/ and here https://www.space.com/17594-string-theory.html

    KF

  51. 51
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, you were asked to respond for record. You had your opportunity. I wish it had been used differently on your part. Now, back to wonderland. KF

  52. 52
  53. 53
    Viola Lee says:

    KF, I did respond. Look back at 21 and 37. You just don’t like my responses, which is different than not responding.

    And if you don’t want to talk about it anymore, why don’t you quit talking about it???

  54. 54
    bornagain77 says:

    KF at 47 you state,

    When it comes to grand unification theories, we are still in a world of speculation. The math is beautiful but not definitive, on these theories. Empirical support lags, still. We await evidence.

    Actually there are quite a few points to unpack here. As to the claim that “The math is beautiful”, it just so happens that the subtitle of Sabine Hossenfelder’s book is “How Beauty Leads Physics Astray”

    Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray
    Description: Sabine Hossenfelder argues, we have not seen a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for more than four decades.
    The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these “too good to not be true” theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.
    https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/1541646762/ref=sr_1_1

    Moreover, although I am very sympathetic to the idea that mathematically beautiful theories are far more likely to be correct mathematical descriptions of physical reality than ‘ugly’ mathematical theories are, there is, none-the-less, a strong case to be made that String Theory is certainly not to be considered a beautiful mathematical theory.

    The part of the book (‘The Trouble With Physics’) I found most interesting was the part which tells how the string theorists were scammed by Nature (or Mathematics). Of course, Smolin doesn’t put it exactly like this, but imagine the following conversation.———
    String theorists: We’ve got the Standard Model, and it works great, but it doesn’t include gravity, and it doesn’t explain lots of other stuff, like why all the elementary particles have the masses they do. We need a new, broader theory.
    Nature: Here’s a great new theory I can sell you. It combines quantum field theory and gravity, and there’s only one adjustable parameter in it, so all you have to do is find the right value of that parameter, and the Standard Model will pop right out.
    String theorists: We’ll take it.
    String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, our new theory won’t fit into our driveway. String theory has ten dimensions, and our driveway only has four.
    Nature: I can sell you a Calabi-Yau manifold. These are really neat gadgets, and they’ll fold up string theory into four dimensions, no problem.
    String theorists: We’ll take one of those as well, please.
    Nature: Happy to help.
    String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there’s too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one.
    Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you’ll be all set.
    String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now!
    Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly.
    String theorists: It does?
    Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you’ll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests.
    String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory. ———-
    Okay, I’ve taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin’s book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it’s hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your effort.
    http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H7GVX4BUQQ68/?

    And Sabine Hossenfelder weighs in here on the ‘ugly duct tape’ that is now holding together the supposedly ‘beautiful’ mathematical theory of String Theory:

    Dear Dr B: Should I study string theory? – Hossenfelder – May 11, 2018
    Excerpt: Superstring theory also comes with many side-effects which all too often go unnoticed. To begin with, the “super” isn’t there to emphasize the theory is awesome, but to indicate it’s supersymmetric. Supersymmetry, to remind you, is a symmetry that postulates all particles of the standard model have a partner particle. These partner particles were not found. This doesn’t rule out supersymmetry because the particles might only be produced at energies higher than what we have tested. But it does mean we have no evidence that supersymmetry is realized in nature.
    Worse, if you make the standard model supersymmetric, the resulting theory conflicts with experiment. The reason is that doing so enables flavor changing neutral currents which have not been seen. This became clear in the mid 1990s, sufficiently long ago so that it’s now one of the “well known problems” that nobody ever mentions. To save both supersymmetry and superstrings, theorists postulated an additional symmetry, called “R-parity” that simply forbids the worrisome processes.
    Another side-effect of superstrings is that they require additional dimensions of space, nine in total. Since we haven’t seen more than the usual three, the other six have to be rolled up or “compactified” as the terminology has it. There are many ways to do this compactification and that’s what eventually gives rise to the “landscape” of string theory: The vast number of different theories that supposedly all exist somewhere in the multiverse.
    The problems don’t stop there. Superstring theory does contain gravity, yes, but not the normal type of gravity. It is gravity plus a large number of additional fields, the so-called moduli fields. These fields are potentially observable, but we haven’t seen them. Hence, if you want to continue believing in superstrings you have to prevent these fields from making trouble. There are ways to do that, and that adds a further layer of complexity.
    Then there’s the issue with the cosmological constant. Superstring theory works best in a space-time with a cosmological constant that is negative, the so-called “Anti de Sitter spaces.” Unfortunately, we don’t live in such a space. For all we presently know the cosmological constant in our universe is positive. When astrophysicists measured the cosmological constant and found it to be positive, string theorists cooked up another fix for their theory to get the right sign. Even among string-theorists this fix isn’t popular, and in any case it’s yet another ad-hoc construction that must be added to make the theory work.
    Finally, there is the question how much the requirement of mathematical consistency can possibly tell you about the real world to begin with. Even if superstring theory is a way to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, it’s not the only way, and without experimental test we won’t know which one is the right way.
    http://backreaction.blogspot.c.....heory.html

    So much for the claim that String Theory is a ‘beautiful’ mathematical theory.

    KF, as to your claim that “Empirical support lags, still. We await evidence (for string theory).”

    Actually, it is not only that “Empirical support lags”, it is that the empirical evidence that we now have in hand directly contradicts what the theory predicted.

    As the following 2019 article explains, “If supersymmetry (SUSY) is the solution to the hierarchy problem, then the lightest superpartners should definitely be accessible by Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The fact that it hasn’t found any, thus far, is enough to eliminate virtually all models of SUSY that solve the very problem it was designed to solve.”

    Why Supersymmetry May Be The Greatest Failed Prediction In Particle Physics History – Feb. 2019
    Excerpt: In theory, SUSY is a possible solution to this puzzle, where practically no other known solutions remain viable. However, just because it offers a possible solution doesn’t mean it’s correct. In fact, each of the predictions of SUSY are extremely problematic for physics.
    1. If SUSY is the solution to the hierarchy problem, then the lightest superpartners should definitely be accessible by the LHC. The fact that it hasn’t found any, thus far, is enough to eliminate virtually all models of SUSY that solve the very problem it was designed to solve.
    2. The strong force may not unify with the other forces. There’s no evidence for unification in our Universe so far, as proton decay experiments have come up empty. The initial motivation is flimsy here as well: If you put any three curves on a log-log scale and zoom out far enough, they will always look like a triangle where the three lines just barely miss coming together at a single point.
    3. If dark matter is truly made of the lightest SUSY particle, then experiments designed to see it such as CDMS, XENON, Edelweiss and more should have detected it. Furthermore, SUSY dark matter should annihilate in a very particular way which hasn’t been seen.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/12/why-supersymmetry-may-be-the-greatest-failed-prediction-in-particle-physics-history/?sh=374cb27669e6

    And as Sabine Hossenfelder pointed out in the following 2019 video, because the Large Hadron Collider has failed to detect any of the many particles that were predicted to exist by String Theory, via Supersymmetry, then String Theory should now rightly be classified as a highly dubious, if not an outright falsified, scientific theory.

    How Beauty Leads Physics Astray – Hossenfelder – video (failed predictions of String Theory – 47:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/Q1KFTPqc0nQ?t=2820

    Moreover, as the following 2021 article points out, ‘After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.’ And the article even goes on to state that “Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.”

    Where are all the squarks and gluinos?
    The future of supersymmetry is in serious doubt. – Jan 2021
    Excerpt: The ATLAS collaboration, made up of hundreds of scientists from around the world, have released their latest findings in their search for supersymmetry in a paper appearing in the preprint journal arXiv.
    And their results? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
    After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.
    While supersymmetry has enjoyed widespread support from theorists for decades (who often portrayed it as the obvious next step in advancing our understanding of the universe), the theory has been on thin ice ever since the LHC turned on. But despite those initial doubtful results, theorists had hoped that some model of tuning of the theory would produce a positive result inside the collider experiment.
    While not every possible model of supersymmetry has been ruled out, the future of the theory is in serious doubt. And since physicists have invested so much time and energy into supersymmetry for years, there aren’t a lot of compelling alternatives.
    Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.
    https://www.livescience.com/no-signs-supersymmetry-large-hadron-collider.html

    Thus, String Theory, (via the falsification of supersymmetric particles that should have been readily accessible to the Large Hadron Collider if string theory were actually true), is found to be, basically, purely a mathematical fantasy with no detectable connection to the real world.

    In short, String Theory, for all practical purposes, and as far as experimental science itself is concerned, is now considered to be dead as far as being a viable candidate for that hypothetical mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’.

  55. 55
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, ever since Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was on the table and was put to use cosmologically, there has been a challenge to unify the large and the small scales; the latter shaped by the quantum revolution. Over the past fifty years, string theory has become the candidate to beat. It is challenged but there is no other strong contender on the table; a current issue is, are there matched bosons and fermions, some of which should be in reach of the LHC. The strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces are on the table as the observed types. Electromagnetic already shows a unification, from C19. In C20, there was electroweak, and BTW along the way magnetic forces can be seen as relativistic terms on electric forces where charges are in relative motion. The big question is unification with gravitation. So, we see a struggle. KF

  56. 56
    bornagain77 says:

    KF states:

    ever since Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was on the table and was put to use cosmologically, there has been a challenge to unify the large and the small scales; the latter shaped by the quantum revolution.

    And as I mentioned in the video, Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics has now been extended into quantum physics itself, in that it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    As should be needless to say, we can now be extremely confident that, mathematically speaking, the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity.

    To repeat, the ‘incompleteness’ and/or the insurmountable difficulty ‘lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    With the bringing in of Godel’s incompleteness into quantum mechanics, this is NOT just some esoteric point about the philosophy of mathematics but is a concrete statement about physical reality and, more particularly, about the inability of mathematics to ever bridge the gap from a ‘complete’ microscopic description from quantum mechanics to a macroscopic description of General Relativity.. (and please note that this ‘insurmountable difficulty’ also applies to the inability of the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution to account for the macroscopic structures of biological form.)

    KF then states:

    Over the past fifty years, string theory has become the candidate to beat. It is challenged but there is no other strong contender on the table;

    And my contention is that string theory, far from being merely ‘challenged’, and as far as empirical science itself is concerned, is simply a mathematical fantasy with ZERO observable connection to the real world. To repeat Hossenfelder’s 2019 lecture video, as Sabine Hossenfelder pointed out in the following 2019 video, because the Large Hadron Collider has failed to detect any of the many particles that were predicted to exist by String Theory, via Supersymmetry, then String Theory should now rightly be classified as a highly dubious, if not an outright falsified, scientific theory.

    How Beauty Leads Physics Astray – Hossenfelder – video (failed predictions of String Theory – 47:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/Q1KFTPqc0nQ?t=2820

    That is how science is suppose to work. If a theory predicts something and its predictions are confirmed to be true by empirical testing, then the theory gets to live to fight another day. If its predictions are falsified, (as the predictions of string theory have now been falsified in so far as we have been able to test those predictions), then the theory is SUPPOSE to die a ignoble death and be tossed onto the heap of falsified scientific theories.

    As Feynman himself, the main founder of Quantum Electrodynamics, noted, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

    “In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
    If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman
    https://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2014/04/richard-feynman-on-the-scientific-method-in-1-minute.html

    KF you stated “It is challenged but there is no other strong contender on the table”, but that is precisely my point. My precise point is that only Christ’s resurrection from the dead, not some hypothetical mathematical theory, successfully bridges the infinite mathematical divide between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

    KF you go on to mention the success that has thus far been had in unifying special relativity with electromagnetism and/or what is commonly known as Quantum Electrodynamics.

    Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity
    Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.
    In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to.
    If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity (i.e. General Relativity).
    http://www.infoplease.com/cig/.....ivity.html

    After nearly two decades of work, it only became possible to unify Special relativity and Quantum Mechanics when the “infinite results” between the two theories were dealt with by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman referred to this mathematical sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”

    THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe
    Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
    http://www.americanscientist.o.....g-infinity

    In the following video, Feynman rightly expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug.”,,, Specifically he stated, “Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”

    “It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”
    – Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics)
    Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw

    And while that ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ is certainly provocative enough, what is often overlooked in their ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ , when they unified Quantum Mechanics with Special Relativity, is that when they ‘brushed infinity under the rug’ they also ended up brushing ‘quantum measurement’ itself under the rug in the process.

    Not So Real – Sheldon Lee Glashow – Oct. 2018
    Review of: “What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics”
    by Adam Becker
    Excerpt: Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and their contemporaries knew well that the theory they devised could not be made compatible with Einstein’s special theory of relativity. First order in time, but second order in space, Schrödinger’s equation is nonrelativistic. Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.
    https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real

    That is to say, although they unified special relativity and quantum mechanics together in QED by “brushing infinity under the rug”, this unification between special relativity and quantum mechanics into Quantum Electrodynamics has left the entire enigma of Quantum Measurement on the cutting room floor.

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    Yet quantum measurement is precisely where conscious observation makes its presense fully known in quantum mechanics. As the following researcher stated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it.”

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’?
    The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

    As should be needless to say, conscious observation is a rather important detail to be left on the cutting room floor in that particular renormalization of infinity. And since consciousness itself is indeed something very important that needs to be explained, (i.e. indeed science would not even be possible for us if conscious observation did not first exist for us), then any purported theory of everything that tosses our conscious observation by the wayside, in its attempt to find the final ‘theory of everything’, necessarily cannot be the right first step in that direction.

    Such an endeavor to claim a ‘theory of everything’ whist completely ignoring conscious observation can be classified as a misguided endeavor at best.

    And one wonders what else would be tossed by the wayside if someone were ever able to find a way to renormalize the ‘infinite infinities’ that divide quantum mechanics from General Relativity.

    As the following theoretical physicist noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”

    Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
    We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
    Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
    In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
    The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
    Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

    Moreover, if theoretical physicists, in QED, can’t even get the first step right in their quest to find a final ‘theory of everything’ it would seem that all our efforts to find that ‘final theory’ of everything thus far have been in vain.

    But all hope is not lost. As touched upon in the video, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company, then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    As was also mentioned in the video, the Shroud of Turin does indeed give us empirical evidence that both quantum mechanics and gravity were indeed dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Thus KF, to repeat what I said earlier, “It is such consistent findings like these, findings that pull together seemingly irreconcilable facts,,,, it is such consistent findings like these that continually pulls me back to postulating Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead as the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    Like the proverbial missing piece of a puzzle that is finally found, Christ’s resurrection from the dead fits a little too perfectly into the final hole in the puzzle to bring the puzzle to a satisfactory completion, whereas all other pieces that have been offered thus far as a correct solution have failed miserably to fill that final hole in the puzzle.”

    Matthew 21:42
    Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
    “‘The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone;
    the Lord has done this,
    and it is marvelous in our eyes’

  58. 58
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Suckerspawn “ SA2, Why do you assume Mary was impregnated against her will?

    I didn’t say it was done against her will. The Bible clearly states that she accepted it. My point is that if a God fearing person is told that the vengeful God she worships wishes to impregnate her, would she really feel that she had much choice in the matter?

  59. 59
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, there you go again, with demonising, belittling projections. And that in a context that is clearly toxically distractive. Thanks for telling us attitude, onward intent is therefore inferred prudentially. KF

  60. 60
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, the key point is, we are not seeing an imposition. There has been an exploration, there is a unification, one with challenges. There is an ongoing test inasmuch as that the energy levels at stake in the LHC at CERN are now where some suggested particles should begin to pop up. So far, elusive, but then it took 40+ years for our friendly little “God particle” — the Higgs Boson — to come pose for pictures. KF

    PS: Speaking of which, per Wikipedia:

    The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics produced by the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[8][9] one of the fields in particle physics theory.[9] It is named after physicist Peter Higgs who in 1964 along with five other scientists proposed the Higgs mechanism to explain why some particles have mass. (Particles acquire mass in several ways, but a full explanation for all particles had been extremely difficult). This mechanism required that a spinless particle known as a boson should exist with properties as described by the Higgs Mechanism theory. This particle was called the Higgs boson. A subatomic particle with the expected properties was discovered in 2012 by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland. The new particle was subsequently confirmed to match the expected properties of a Higgs boson.

    On 10 December 2013, two of the physicists, Peter Higgs and François Englert, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their theoretical predictions. Although Higgs’s name has come to be associated with this theory (the Higgs mechanism), several researchers between about 1960 and 1972 independently developed different parts of it.

    In the mainstream media, the Higgs boson has often been called the “God particle” from the 1993 book The God Particle by Leon Lederman,[10] although the nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, including Higgs himself, who regard it as sensationalism.[11][12] . . . .

    The Standard Model includes a field of the kind needed to “break” electroweak symmetry and give particles their correct mass. This field, called the “Higgs Field”, exists throughout space, and it breaks some symmetry laws of the electroweak interaction, triggering the Higgs mechanism. It therefore causes the W and Z gauge bosons of the weak force to be massive at all temperatures below an extreme high value.[e] When the weak force bosons acquire mass, this affects the distance they can freely travel, which becomes very small, also matching experimental findings.[f] Furthermore, it was later realised that the same field would also explain, in a different way, why other fundamental constituents of matter (including electrons and quarks) have mass.

    Unlike all other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, the Higgs field is a scalar field, and has a non-zero constant value in vacuum.
    The “central problem”

    There was not yet any direct evidence that the Higgs field existed, but even without proof of the field, the accuracy of its predictions led scientists to believe the theory might be true. By the 1980s the question of whether the Higgs field existed, and therefore whether the entire Standard Model was correct, had come to be regarded as one of the most important unanswered questions in particle physics.

    For many decades, scientists had no way to determine whether the Higgs field existed, because the technology needed for its detection did not exist at that time. If the Higgs field did exist, then it would be unlike any other known fundamental field, but it also was possible that these key ideas, or even the entire Standard Model, were somehow incorrect.[g]

    The hypothesised Higgs mechanism made several accurate predictions.[d][17]:22 One crucial prediction was that a matching particle called the “Higgs boson” should also exist. Proving the existence of the Higgs boson could prove whether the Higgs field existed, and therefore finally prove whether the Standard Model’s explanation was correct. Therefore, there was an extensive search for the Higgs boson, as a way to prove the Higgs field itself existed.[8][9]

    The existence of the Higgs field became the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics, and for several decades was considered “the central problem in particle physics”.[18][19]
    Search and discovery

    Although the Higgs field exists everywhere, proving its existence was far from easy. In principle, it can be proved to exist by detecting its excitations, which manifest as Higgs particles (the Higgs boson), but these are extremely difficult to produce and detect, due to the energy required to produce them and their very rare production even if the energy is sufficient. It was therefore several decades before the first evidence of the Higgs boson was found. Particle colliders, detectors, and computers capable of looking for Higgs bosons took more than 30 years (c. 1980–2010) to develop.

    The importance of this fundamental question led to a 40-year search, and the construction of one of the world’s most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, CERN’s Large Hadron Collider,[20] in an attempt to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study. On 4 July 2012, the discovery of a new particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2 was announced; physicists suspected that it was the Higgs boson.[21][22][23] Since then, the particle has been shown to behave, interact, and decay in many of the ways predicted for Higgs particles by the Standard Model, as well as having even parity and zero spin,[6][7] two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson. This also means it is the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature.[24]

    By March 2013, the existence of the Higgs boson was confirmed, and therefore, the concept of some type of Higgs field throughout space is strongly supported.[21][23][6]

    The presence of the field, now confirmed by experimental investigation, explains why some fundamental particles have mass, despite the symmetries controlling their interactions implying that they should be massless. It also resolves several other long-standing puzzles, such as the reason for the extremely short distance travelled by the weak force bosons, and therefore the weak force’s extremely short range.

    As of 2018, in-depth research shows the particle continuing to behave in line with predictions for the Standard Model Higgs boson. More studies are needed to verify with higher precision that the discovered particle has all of the properties predicted, or whether, as described by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons [–> five it seems] exist.[25]

    The nature and properties of this field are now being investigated further, using more data collected at the LHC.[1]

    What honest Science looks and sounds like. Honest reporting, too.

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    KF ignores the fact that many of the predictions of String Theory now have been experimentally falsified and repeats his claim that string theory is merely being ‘challenged’

    So to repeat, the following 2021 article points out that, ‘After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.’ And the article even goes on to state that “Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.”

    Where are all the squarks and gluinos?
    The future of supersymmetry is in serious doubt. – Jan 2021
    Excerpt: The ATLAS collaboration, made up of hundreds of scientists from around the world, have released their latest findings in their search for supersymmetry in a paper appearing in the preprint journal arXiv.
    And their results? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
    After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.
    While supersymmetry has enjoyed widespread support from theorists for decades (who often portrayed it as the obvious next step in advancing our understanding of the universe), the theory has been on thin ice ever since the LHC turned on. But despite those initial doubtful results, theorists had hoped that some model of tuning of the theory would produce a positive result inside the collider experiment.
    While not every possible model of supersymmetry has been ruled out, the future of the theory is in serious doubt. And since physicists have invested so much time and energy into supersymmetry for years, there aren’t a lot of compelling alternatives.
    Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.
    https://www.livescience.com/no-signs-supersymmetry-large-hadron-collider.html

    Scientifically speaking, that is simply devastating to a scientific theory and certainly does not speak of a scientific theory that is merely being ‘challenged’,,

    But anyways, KF goes on to hope that String Theory might yet be saved because of the verification of the existence of the Higgs boson. Yet, as Sabine Hossenfelder pointed out in her lecture that I referenced, the Higg’s boson was not a prediction of String Theory, nor was it a prediction of the Standard model. Indeed, the prediction of the Higgs boson was a prediction that was made before the standard model was even finalized.

    “But the only new particle that we indeed have seen was the Higgs boson which was predicted already before the completion of the standard model in the 1970s. And I have to emphasize that the prediction of the Higgs boson was not a prediction based on an argument from beauty. The Higgs boson was an entirely different kind of prediction. based on an argument from inconsistency. This was an old fashioned good prediction that turned out to work. Whereas all those ‘beauty based predictions’ (of String Theory) did not work.”
    – How Beauty Leads Physics Astray – Hossenfelder – video (failed predictions of String Theory – 47:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/Q1KFTPqc0nQ?t=2820

    Moreover, besides the Higgs boson not being a prediction of String Theory, nor being a prediction of the Standard Model, the Higg’s boson also presents its own ‘fine-tuning’ problems that defy explanations from string theory,

    The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics – Jan. 14, 2016
    Excerpt: Dangerous No. 1: The strength of the Higgs field,,,
    there’s something mysterious about the Higgs field that continues to perturb physicists like Cliff.
    According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics — the two theories in physics that drive our understanding of the cosmos on incredibly large and extremely small scales — the Higgs field should be performing one of two tasks, says Cliff.
    Either it should be turned off, meaning it would have a strength value of zero and wouldn’t be working to give particles mass, or it should be turned on, and, as the theory goes, this “on value” is “absolutely enormous,” Cliff says. But neither of those two scenarios are what physicists observe.
    “In reality, the Higgs field is just slightly on,” says Cliff. “It’s not zero, but it’s ten-thousand-trillion times weaker than it’s fully on value — a bit like a light switch that got stuck just before the ‘off’ position. And this value is crucial. If it were a tiny bit different, then there would be no physical structure in the universe.”
    Why the strength of the Higgs field is so ridiculously weak defies understanding.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....57366.html
    Of note, Harry Cliff is a particle physicist who works on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN

    In fact, as Hossenfelder goes on to note, the prediction(s) from String Theory for the existence of new particles was a ‘prediction’ that was made in order to avoid the implications of the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Specifically she said, “new particles must appear” in an energy range of about a TeV (ie accessible at the LHC) “to avoid finetuning.”
    … This was the argument why the LHC should see something new: To avoid finetuning and to preserve naturalness.
    I explained many times previously why the conclusions based on naturalness were not predictions, but merely pleas for the laws of nature to be pretty.”,,,

    “I must have sat through hundreds of seminars in which naturalness arguments were repeated. Let me just flash you a representative slide from a 2007 talk by Michelangelo L. Mangano (full pdf here), so you get the idea. The punchline is at the very top: “new particles must appear” in an energy range of about a TeV (ie accessible at the LHC) “to avoid finetuning.”
    … This was the argument why the LHC should see something new: To avoid finetuning and to preserve naturalness.
    I explained many times previously why the conclusions based on naturalness were not predictions, but merely pleas for the laws of nature to be pretty. Luckily I no longer have to repeat these warnings, because the data agree that naturalness isn’t a good argument.
    (“Pretty” as in ‘not-fine-tuned’?)
    My disbelief in naturalness used to be a fringe opinion and it’s gotten me funny looks on more than one occasion. But the world refused to be as particle physicists expected, naturalness rapidly loses popularity, and now it’s my turn to practice funny looks. The cube, it’s balancing on a tip and nobody knows why. In desperation they throw up their hands and say “anthropic principle”. Then they continue to produce scatter plots. …
    The naturalness arguments are eventually based on the idea that whatever a fundamental theory looks like, it does conform to this ideal: There’s one or only a few parameters. They are neither fine-tuned nor appear in unreasonably large ratios. We, the stuff we are made of, and our universe, is somehow “natural,” “average” or “mediocre.” However, if you continue to ask “why” at this point you’ll notice how the scientific basis crumbles away under your feet. Why should this be? Because very small parameters make you feel uneasy? Because you don’t find many parameters a satisfactory explanation? Because it’s not pretty? Because it smells like intelligent design?”
    – Sabine Hossenfelder – PhD Physics
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/after-the-multiverse-the-multiworse/#comment-653926

    Thus, the Higgs boson, instead of bringing resolution to the ‘fine-tuning problem’ that String Theorists were, and are, trying to ‘explain away’, actually exasperated the ‘fine-tuning problem’ for them.

    Of course, the fine-tuning of the laws of nature directly implies the existence of a ‘fine-tuner’, i.e. of God, and, needless to say, predicting the existence of new particles simply because you don’t like the implications of the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, and because you want to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, is not to be considered a scientific prediction in the least, but is to be considered merely a philosophical prediction based on atheistic predispositions. Atheistic predispositions that wish to see the universe as being ‘undesigned’ rather than as being designed.

    Moreover, as Luke Barnes explained about extreme fine-tuning within the standard model itself, “Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants (laws of nature), describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles,,,, ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,,”

    The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws – Luke A. Barnes – Fall 2015
    Excerpt: Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.
    These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics.
    Many have tried and failed. ,,,
    Tweaking the Constants
    Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves.
    You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are.
    However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe.
    With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever.
    ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,,
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....tures-laws

    As should be needless to say, that is a rather gargantuan problem of fine-tuning that the laws of nature present to particle physicists, who are given to atheistic predispositions, to try to ‘explain away’ by merely postulating the existence of new ‘natural’ particles in String Theory.

    Moreover, as was pointed out previously, it simply makes no sense whatsoever to believe that a ‘bottom up’ explanation from particle physics will ever be capable of giving an adequate explanation for the laws of nature, much less ever be capable of giving an adequate explanation why the laws of nature are finely tuned.

    “There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations.
    Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws.
    Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.”
    Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.”
    – Origenes
    – pre uncommon descent

    String theorists simply lack the proper footing to ever be able explain the laws of nature. As the old joke goes, ‘you can’t get there from here’.

    And as the previously cited extension of Godel’s incompleteness into quantum physics stated, it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    To repeat, and as should be needless to say, we can now be extremely confident that, mathematically speaking, the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics (and/or the standard model) will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity (and/or of the laws of nature).

    To repeat, the ‘incompleteness’ and/or the insurmountable difficulty ‘lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    With the bringing in of Godel’s incompleteness into quantum mechanics, this is NOT just some esoteric point about the philosophy of mathematics but is a concrete statement about physical reality and, more particularly, about the inability of mathematics to ever bridge the gap from a ‘complete’ microscopic description from quantum mechanics to a macroscopic description of General Relativity..

    In short, the quest for a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ via String Theory is nothing less that a Alice in Wonderland pipe dream that belongs squarely in the fairy tale section at the library.

    Here are s few supplemental notes as to the ‘top-down’ explanations of Design advocates vs. the ‘bottom-up’ explanations of atheistic materialists, i.e. “bottom-up explanations which seek to avoid any implications of intelligent design.

    Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis
    Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view:?Definition 1: Causal Effect
    If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y.?Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,,?Definition 2: Existence
    If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter).?This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,,
    ,,,However there are many topics that one cannot understand by assuming this one-way flow of causation. The flourishing subject of social neuroscience makes clear how social influences act down on individual brain structure[2]; studies in physiology demonstrate that downward causation is necessary in understanding the heart, where this form of causation can be represented as the influences of initial and boundary conditions on the solutions of the differential equations used to represent the lower level processes[3]; epigenetic studies demonstrate that biological development is crucially shaped by the environment[4]
    What about physics? In this essay I will make the case that top-down causation is also prevalent in physics, even though this is not often recognised as such. This does not occur by violating physical laws; on the contrary, it occurs through the laws of physics, by setting constraints on lower level interactions.
    Excerpt: page 5: A:
    Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities:
    Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored.
    The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.
    Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, for example state vector preparation, where top-down constraints allow non-unitary behaviour at the lower levels. It may well play a key role in the quantum measurement problem (the dual of state vector preparation) [5]. One can bear in mind here that wherever equivalence classes of entities play a key role, such as in Crutchfield’s computational mechanics [29], this is an indication that top-down causation is at play.,,,
    Life and the brain: living systems are highly structured modular hierarchical systems, and there are many similarities to the digital computer case, even though they are not digital computers. The lower level interactions are constrained by network connections, thereby creating possibilities of truly complex behaviour. Top-down causation is prevalent at all levels in the brain: for example it is crucial to vision [24,25] as well as the relation of the individual brain to society [2]. The hardware (the brain) can do nothing without the excitations that animate it: indeed this is the difference between life and death. The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.
    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-con.....s_2012.pdf ?

    How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? – September 29, 2013
    Excerpt: To get an handle on how top-down causation works, Ellis focuses on what’s in front of all us so much of the time: the computer. Computers are structured systems. They are built as a hierarchy of layers, extending from the wires in the transistors all the way up to the fully assembled machine, gleaming metal case and all.
    Because of this layering, what happens at the uppermost levels — like you hitting the escape key — flows downward. This action determines the behavior of the lowest levels — like the flow of electrons through the wires — in ways that simply could not be predicted by just knowing the laws of electrons. As Ellis puts it:
    “Structured systems such as a computer constrain lower level interactions, and thereby paradoxically create new possibilities of complex behavior.”
    Ellis likes to emphasize how the hierarchy of structure — from fully assembled machine through logic gates, down to transistors — changes everything for the lowly electrons. In particular, it “breaks the symmetry” of their possible behavior since their movements in the computer hardware are very different from what would occur if they were just floating around in a plasma blob in space.
    But the hardware, of course, is just one piece of the puzzle. This is where things get interesting. As Ellis explains:
    “Hardware is only causally effective because of the software which animates it: by itself hardware can do nothing. Both hardware and software are hierarchically structured with the higher level logic driving the lower level events.”
    In other words, it’s software at the top level of structure that determines how the electrons at the bottom level flow. Hitting escape while running Word moves the electrons in the wires in different ways than hitting escape does when running Photoshop. This is causation flowing from top to bottom.
    For Ellis, anything producing causes is real in the most basic sense of the word. Thus the software, which is not physical like the electrons, is just as real as those electrons. As Ellis puts it:
    “Hence, although they are the ultimate in algorithmic causation as characterized so precisely by Turing, digital computers embody and demonstrate the causal efficacy of non-physical entities. The physics allows this; it does not control what takes place. Computers exemplify the emergence of new kinds of causation out of the underlying physics, not implied by physics but rather by the logic of higher-level possibilities. … A combination of bottom-up causation and contextual affects (top-down influences) enables their complex functioning.”
    The consequences of this perspective for our view of the mind are straightforward and radical:
    “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.”
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.....-bottom-up

  62. 62
    ET says:

    Acartia Stevie:

    My point is that if a God fearing person is told that the vengeful God she worships wishes to impregnate her, would she really feel that she had much choice in the matter?

    Your “point” is a strawman.

  63. 63
    kairosfocus says:

    TEST — log in issues

  64. 64
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, at this point, the issue is to identify then refuse to feed the troll. That is a sad place to be but with now insistent resort to village atheist rhetoric that seems to be where we are with AS2. KF

  65. 65
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, my point of concern is that the Higgs Boson popped up after 40 years. With that on the table, I am not about to dismiss the String theory framework. I will also say that from my early days in 6th form, I saw the anomies connected to a point particle and felt this was idealisation. A string naturally has size and vibration modes that are quantised, with room for rolled up dimensions. I can see why it is appealing even before we go into the ways it ties together particles and space; I can live with a multiverse of some kind. I want to see a definite thick stake through the heart first before I rule it dead. Challenged, but not dead yet. KF

  66. 66
    bornagain77 says:

    KF, again, the Higgs prediction DID NOT arise from the String Framework. And to pretend as if it lends credence to the String framework is misguided at best.

    In fact, as I pointed out, the extreme fine-tuning of the Higgs boson itself created more problems than it solved for those who are beholden to String Theory.

    I am more than comfortable that I have stated my case clearly in post 61.

    Much like Darwinian evolution, if String Theory were a normal science instead of basically being a belief system, it would, because of its many failed predictions, now be considered falsified.

  67. 67
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, commenting is open to me again, so I note. The issue with Higgs is not directly about strings but about pace of experimental discoveries in modern high energy physics. Billions have to be mobilised it seems and there is now one test site. KF

  68. 68
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @36,

    Steve Alten2, Viola Lee and Mike1962 have condemned the video referenced in the OP as being ‘retarded’ and/or ‘borderline retarded’ without giving a specific reason as to why they find it to be as such.

    That’s because they did not watch more than three minutes the video before rejecting it on ideological grounds. It’s acknowledged that Viola Lee is actually focused on the ethics of divorce.

    While Dr. Cunningham speaks slowly and stumbles over words, most of the video consists of quotes from physicists. If you’re impatient as I sometimes am, a transcript is located here:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LgOgrJuWLXqgIAr6Au3MkfIilyV7-MDEz9dy5WniEHw/edit

    My first question is which of the quoted physicists are they willing to identify as “borderline retarded” or making “nothing new” assertions?

    My second is do they object to applying Kurt Gödel’s theorems to mathematical incompatibility between ETR and QM?

    Waiting with baited breath . . .

    -Q

  69. 69
    bornagain77 says:

    KF states:

    The issue with Higgs is not directly about strings,,,

    Well I guess that is about as much of a concession from you that I will ever get that String Theory has failed miserably as the much hyped ‘theory of everything’.

    Which has been precisely my point all along, i.e. “Like the proverbial missing piece of a puzzle that is finally found, whereas all other pieces that have been offered thus far as a correct solution for the ‘theory of everything’, i.e. string theory etc.., have failed miserably to fill that final hole in the puzzle. Christ’s resurrection from the dead fits a little too perfectly into the final hole of the puzzle to bring the puzzle to a satisfactory completion,

    KF, you go on to note that even though the Higgs is not about string theory per se, but is,,

    ,, about pace of experimental discoveries in modern high energy physics. Billions have to be mobilised it seems and there is now one test site.

    Actually, I believe Smolin, Woit, and Hossenfelder are all on record as to questioning the wisdom of throwing good money after bad. They hold that the overall amount of money dedicated for scientific research is limited and far too much money is being spent chasing this particular rabbit down the hole. They hold that the money could be spent far more wisely in other areas of research that hold much more promise.

    From what I have seen from the minuscule returns from the LHC, despite the enormous expenditures, I agree with their sentiment.

    For me the problem is not about breaking particles into smaller and smaller pieces, i.e. pushing Humpty Dumpty off the wall harder and harder, but is about the fact that all the King’s horses and all the King’s men can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. i.e. It is about people recognizing the fact that string theory has failed miserably as that hoped for overarching mathematical ‘theory of everything’.

    That a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’, in which God is completely neglected, would fail should not be all that surprising. (Remember, as Hossenfelder pointed out, String Theory was suppose to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the laws of nature.).

    Modern science, (as far as any mathematics that might describe this universe are concerned), has apparently completely forgotten its Christian roots in which any math that might describe this universe were held to be the ‘thoughts of God’, and has regressed back into the determinism of the Ancient Greeks in which math is held to have a necessary “Platonic” existence and that math does not have a contingent existence,, i.e. an existence that depends on the Mind of God.

    As Paul Davies noted, “Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists (today) think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.”

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.
    ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists (today) think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    Philosophically speaking, this is a major step backwards for modern physicist to take. Modern science was only, and finally, able to gain a foothold in medieval Christian Europe with the quote-unquote “outlawing” of the deterministic and/or necessitarian view of the universe that had dominated the philosophical thought of the ancient Greeks.

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010?
    Excerpt: If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.?http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    In fact, in ancient Greek thought, and apparently in the thought of the majority of present day theoretical physicists, “the mathematical realm is (seen as) a rival to God rather than a path to him.”

    As Edward Fesser recently explained, “There is also a very different answer, in which the mathematical realm is a rival to God rather than a path to him. According to this view, mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the ­material world, but also independently of any mind, including the divine mind.”

    KEEP IT SIMPLE by Edward Feser – April 2020
    Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    There is also a very different answer, in which the mathematical realm is a rival to God rather than a path to him. According to this view, mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the ­material world, but also independently of any mind, including the divine mind. They occupy a “third realm” of their own, the realm famously described in Plato’s Theory of Forms. God used this third realm as a blueprint when creating the physical world, but he did not create the realm itself and it exists outside of him. This position is usually called Platonism since it is commonly thought to have been ­Plato’s own view, as distinct from that of his Neoplatonic followers who relocated mathematical objects and other Forms into the divine mind. (I put to one side for present purposes the question of how historically accurate this standard narrative is.)
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

    Perhaps the most succinct quote on how the early Christian founders of modern science actually viewed any mathematics that might describe this universe is the following quote by Kepler which he made shortly after he discovered the mathematical laws of planetary motion.

    “O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!”
    – Johannes Kepler – 1619

    In fact, so foreign is the concept, now-a-days, that any mathematics that might describe this universe are the thoughts of God, that more than a few feathers were ruffled when Wigner, (and Einstein), stated that the applicability of mathematics to the universe was a ‘miracle’, (Einstein even disparaged ‘professional atheists’ in the process of calling it a miracle),,

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 ?Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,?It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,?The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    Thus in conclusion, String Theory not only is a failed scientific theory because it predictions, in so far as we have been able to test them, have been falsified, but it also is a failed scientific theory because it has regressed back into the philosophical dead end of the Ancient Greeks in which math is seen, as Feser put it, as a rival to God rather than a path to him.

    Might it be too obvious to point out the fact that my quote-unquote ‘theory’ of Jesus Christ providing the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ does not suffer the from Feser’s pointed criticism of being “a rival to God rather than a path to him”?

    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.

  70. 70
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius thanks for the support in face a such hostility. Although I have to correct the fact that I am not a Dr. in that I do not have a PhD. Which is perhaps a very good thing since, (since I don’t have the respect that goes with having a PhD.), I have to be very careful to reference my facts very carefully.

    As you pointed out, “which of the quoted physicists are they willing to identify as “borderline retarded” or making “nothing new” assertions?”

    And I also like the second very important point that you pointed out, “My second is do they object to applying Kurt Gödel’s theorems to mathematical incompatibility between ETR and QM?”

    That development of bringing Godel’s incompleteness theorems into quantum physics is certainly far more devastating to finding a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ than, apparently, most theoretical physicists have yet realized.

  71. 71
    Viola Lee says:

    70
    Hi Q. I’d like to clear some things up.

    First, I had nothing to do with calling BA’s video retarded. Among other things, I’ve worked with handicapped children, and that is a slur that I would never use about anyone.

    Second, without any supporting evidence, you wrote, “That’s because they did not watch more than three minutes the video before rejecting it on ideological grounds.” It is true that I didn’t watch it because I don’t like videos in general. Instead I read over the notes accompanying the video, so it is wrong to imply that I just summarily rejected it on ideological grounds.

    As to your comment, “It’s acknowledged that Viola Lee is actually focused on the ethics of divorce”: that is because KF brought the subject up from another thread, and so I responded and we pursued the subject for a while. Threads often go off on tangents, but I didn’t initiate the tangent.

    What I did say was that the video wasn’t worth my time. The reason is that it was almost all repeats of quotes and points that he has made countless times before.

    For, instance, he has quoted Feynman about “brushing infinity under the rug” many times, and draws conclusions about the significance about that that I think are false. He often refers to Godel’s incompleteness theorem but again finds significance in physics that I don’t think applies. He’s talked about the Copernican principle many times. He takes one particular view of the measurement that questioned by many eminent physicists, he’s quoted Wienberg multiple time, he’s quoted Zeilinger about the Word of God multiple times (and I’ve watched that video and it’s not the endorsement BA wants it to be), he makes unfounded significance, I think of the “free will” test of Bell’s theorem, and of course there is a long part about how the Shroud of Turin, which has appeared countless times in his posts, is both true and significant.

    I’m not about to wade into that morass. But I’ll emphasize that it is all repetitive – there was nothing new there, and that is why I dismissed it.

    Ironically, you say we “rejected it on ideological grounds”. But the heart of BA’s argument is his imposition of Christian ideology on the physics, Many physicists of different religions grapple with some of the issues he discusses, including the theory of everything. I can assure you that an explanation that involves the agent causality of God, John 1:1, and all the other religious trappings, held together by Jesus and the Shroud of Turin, would never make a dint in the world of real physics.

    And last, you write, “My second is do they object to applying Kurt Gödel’s theorems to mathematical incompatibility between ETR and QM?”

    Godel’s theorem is a sophisticated argument involving sets of sets in pure mathematics that is about the natural number system. I don’t think it automatically transfers over to whether we can find some overriding mathematical theory that ties ETR and QM together. Just invoking Godel’s theorem as an arguments that a reconciliation is impossible, therefore Jesus, is ideology trumping facts at its finest.

    P.S.
    At 70, BA says, “That development of bringing Godel’s incompleteness theorems into quantum physics is certainly far more devastating to finding a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ than, apparently, most theoretical physicists have yet realized.”

    Maybe that is because most theoretical physicists, if they are even aware of the issue, are unpersuaded that it means no unifying math for ETR and QM will be found, much less that the solution is acknowledging God and Jesus as the foundation of all science.

  72. 72
    Seversky says:

    I am not a theoretical physicist and neither, so far as know, is anyone else here. If this is true then it is also highly unlikely that anyone here is able to grasp the finer details of the esoteric mathematics from which relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory are constructed. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

    If the above is true then any comments or criticisms of these theories made here are based on highly simplified versions created in attempts to make them accessible to some extent to a lay audience.

    That being the case, pontificating on the strengths and weaknesses of the theories, their predictive power or lack thereof, their alleged over-reliance on the notion of beauty of mathematical constructs is highly presumptuous. Especially so when these theories are being judged by the extent to which they lend support to the religious presuppositions of some.

    If you are actually interested in the science then by all means quote the criticisms of Sabine Hossenfelder or Peter Woit, for example, but you should also give the proponents of the theories being criticized equal time to explain and defend their positions.

    Otherwise, listing cherry-picked quotes which do not necessarily reflect the considered opinions of the authors and leaping wildly across the many gaps in our understanding to unwarranted inferences of support for religious beliefs may be comforting personally but it is not scientific.

  73. 73
    Viola Lee says:

    Good post, Sev. I like this particularly:

    Otherwise, listing cherry-picked quotes which do not necessarily reflect the considered opinions of the authors and leaping wildly across the many gaps in our understanding to unwarranted inferences of support for religious beliefs may be comforting personally but it is not scientific.

  74. 74
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, while, yes it is very expensive, high energy physics is our best bet at understanding the fundamental components of the physical world and reducing them to a coherent view of the whole. To be a Science, there is need for experiment, which requires a rather large high vacuum, with accelerators of particles. Such often use superconducting coils for magnets and of course there is attached a huge concentration of computing power; it is no longer a matter of stacks of photo plates sent up by balloon to capture natural high energy events and the days of a table top two- D’s based cyclotron are long past. The energy bill alone is monstrous and the army of technicians and scientists will come with a serious payroll. It is no accident that the basic WWW technology came from a physicist there developing a means to share papers. That spin off alone probably justifies the accumulated cost; similar to the payoffs from the Moon Landing programme. The cost is big enough that in the ’80’s the US Gov’t balked at funding a competing site, the super conducting super collider. The 40+ year effort that brought the Higgs boson to pose for the cameras is a high water mark, but one that tells us that this stuff now moves on a decadal scale. In that context the exposition of string theory since the 60’s — requiring comparatively small change to pay for the metaphorical chalk and chalk boards — has put on the table a controversial and empirical support challenged theory, but one that is the candidate to beat. To date, we still await a stout stake through the heart. KF

  75. 75
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev (attn VL):

    The first reality is, that string theory lacks empirical warrant and has run into trouble with runaway infinities that stymie the renormalisations that rescued earlier conundrums. That is a matter of public knowledge, not a distortion of what may be said by particular spokesmen. Further to this, the dominance of a controversial theory on budgets for empirical work and the decades of so far fruitless effort point to a potentially degenerative research programme.

    The trick of suggesting out of context, religiously motivated quotes to dismiss such concerns is a strawman fallacy.

    Next, there is on the table, at 14 above, another set of considerations that link to the nature of reality through the lens of foundations of mathematics i/l/o another key public fact, Wigner’s astonishment at the uncanny effectiveness of Mathematics. The result of that is to draw out aspects of logic of being amenable to study through the logic of structure and quantity [= math] informed by the principle of distinct identity, core of logic and right reason. We see that there are indeed necessary world framework beings or entities that will extend to every actual or possible world, at the heart of Mathematics, starting with N,Z,Q,R,C,R*. That is a key result with deep import for not only why major aspects of Math are universal but also they establish by concrete example that necessary eternal entities that are framework to any world are real.

    That goes far beyond math, as it points to a finitely remote root world I labelled W_0 above, which is source for other worlds such as we inhabit. Finitely remote as a stepwise, finite stage successive causal sequence of periods cannot traverse an actually transfinite span. That world obviously has dynamical capability to source and sustain contingent [~14 BYA] worlds such as ours.

    Where, the evident fine tuning of our world fitted to C-chemistry aqueous medium cell based life, the alphanumeric and algorithmic code in such life, further elaboration of information rich functionally specific structures and more point to world-building powerful intelligence as core to the necessary being eternal entity at heart of W_0.

    This is then multiplied by the presence in our local world W_L, of inescapably morally governed creatures with first duties of right reason. Duties that appear in your attempted dismissals above: to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too to fairness and justice etc. Such Cicero-nian first duties are inescapable (even objections are forced to rely on them implicitly to have any persuasive traction), so too, inescapably true and self evident. Root reality has to account for that too, on pain of incoherence in the heart of our rational ensouled life. (Rational animality.)

    There is a bill of requisites in the root of reality to account for such moral government: inherent goodness inextricably entangled with utter wisdom.

    So, regardless of ideologies to the contrary, it is quite reasonable to identify the heart of W_0 as the God of ethical theism. Yes, beyond math into logic of being [= ontology] and metaphysics [= the philosophical study of reality and its core components], but not any particular theology or religion. Albeit, amenable to the Judaeo-Christian framework that has been so pivotal to our civilisation.

    In that context, there is nothing particularly reprehensible in examining a curious artifact of Antiquity, the Shroud of Turin. Given the Sudarion of Oviedo, the presence of reworked cloth and the presence of pollen and dirt tracing to Jerusalem, there is no particular implausibility in such being the cloth burial shroud for one certain Jesus of Nazareth. One whose death is surrounded by a mystery attested to by 500+ unbreakable witnesses, the resurrection of the dead. While the Shroud is not necessary evidence, it is reasonable evidence and the image on it does have remarkable properties. That a high energy event accounts for such, is not to be dismissed out of hand. Though, such is also challenging to duplicate, e.g. 3-d, x-ray like image formation with superficial degeneration of surface fibres. Presence of coins on eyes, flowers, blood and wounds consistent with an all too familiar history and the like.

    I do not stake my faith or the Christian faith on it, but it is a remarkable object, one that may indeed reflect a high energy event.

    So, I suggest a little less obviously ideologically convenient dismissiveness.

    KF

  76. 76
    Querius says:

    Viola Lee @70,

    Um, I tried to acknowledge that you were not immediately dismissive of the video, but that you were actually focused on the ethics of divorce. Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear.

    On your point that all the arguments have been touted before and thus are (apparently) boring to you doesn’t make them irrelevant–but at least if you have an open mind.

    This presentation is actually the first time that I’ve seen Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems applied by respected physicists to the problems reconciling the mathematics of ETR and QM . I found that part of the presentation particularly interesting.

    Coincidentally, I had an informal discussion on this topic about a year ago with a mathematician who suggested the application of Gödel’s theorems to the nature of Reality purely as a speculation and we left it there as such. Frankly, I’ve never read such a proposal in any of the books I’ve read on QM.

    Do you have any references that I could follow up on?

    There’s very little crossover between the scientific method and concluding God as the agent of why anything exists at all versus non-existence. The reason is simple. All science is based on a methodical analysis of causality from things that can be measured. However, “Nothing” (i.e. non-existence) cannot be the Cause of Everything in the universe: space-time, mass-energy, probability, dark matter, dark energy, the laws of physics and so on. This is not possible because a cause is Something and not Nothing.

    Thus, a causal agent must exist outside of this universe–just as proponents of the multiverse speculation have been asserting for many years. But even they don’t know whether this is a multiverse spawning universes or a cosmic turtle laying eggs. Or a sentient God.

    However, the causal agent cannot be defined scientifically by its effects alone, only that it must exist outside our universe and that there must ultimately be the first cause. That the agent for our existence might actually be the Son of God is a conclusion based on a relatively reasonable faith.

    Why do I consider it reasonable?

    As a Hebrew named Johanan wrote almost 2,000 years ago, “In the beginning was the Logos . . .” which we understand as the concept of logic, communication, and information. And this sentient Logos personified created and sustains everything. And this is where some of the quotes in the presentation about QM and the nature of reality come into focus.

    -Q

  77. 77
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, communicative reason himself. KF

  78. 78
    bornagain77 says:

    Finally Viola Lee states some of the exact reasons why he doesn’t think the video is worth his time.

    He states:

    “For, instance, he has quoted Feynman about “brushing infinity under the rug” many times, and draws conclusions about the significance about that that I think are false.”

    HUH? But wait a minute, Exactly WHY does Viola Lee think that it is false? Are we suppose to just take Viola Lee’s word for it that he personally finds it false and therefore we can rest assured, on his authority alone, that it is a false conclusion? Sorry Viola Lee but that is not how it works. You have to give your specific reasoning as to why you think it is false.

    In the video, I quoted Feynman directly on his uneasiness with ‘brushing infinity under the rug’, i.e. ““Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”, and then I simply noted that, personally, I find it interesting that Richard Feynman, an atheist, would have been so bothered by his “brushing infinity under the rug.” (since) As for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:

    The reason why I find it rather comforting is because of John 1:1, which says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ‘The Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic.

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    of note: ‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic
    http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

    So that it would take an infinite amount of logic to know what a tiny bit of spacetime is going to do is pretty much exactly what one should expect to see under Christian presuppositions.

    Thus my reasoning in the video is straight forward.

    Feynman, an atheist, was uneasy that it took an “infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do”, and I merely pointed out that, for a Christian Theist via John 1:1, it is to be, pretty much, expected that is should take ““infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do”.

    Nothing strained or forced in my resining. It is all straight forward.

    But hey, Viola Lee personally thinks my reasoning is false without stating his exact reason for why he personally thinks it is false. I guess that means it is case closed, right? Oh Well,,,
    But alas, others not so enamored with Viola Lee’s towering intellect may not be so impressed with Viola Lee’s personal assurance that there is ‘nothing to see here’ and want to know exactly why the Christian should not take comfort in the fact that it takes ““infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do”.

    After that hand waving dismissal, Viola Lee goes on and states this ‘reason’ for why his dismissed my video,

    “He often refers to Godel’s incompleteness theorem but again finds significance in physics that I don’t think applies.”

    HUH? So again we are just suppose to Viola Lee’s word for it that Godel’s incompleteness theorem does not apply to physics?

    For crying out loud Viola Lee, But WHY do you personally think it does not apply to physics? i.e. What is your exact reasoning?

    In the video, I listed my exact reasons for why I think Godel’s incompleteness theorem does apply to physics. Specifically Godel’s incompleteness theorem, contrary to what you believe, HAS now, in fact, been extended to quantum physics.

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Shoot, even Stephen Hawking himself reluctantly admitted that Godel’s incompleteness had direct implications for the quote-unquote ‘theory of everything’

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “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”.
    – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    But hey, Viola Lee personally does not think Godel’s incompleteness applies to physics and so I guess we can just rest assured that the matter is settled??? But then again, others not so enamored with Viola Lee’s towering intellect may not be so impressed with Viola Lee’s personal assurance that there is ‘nothing to see here’.

    Viola Lee lays out more of his ‘reasoning’ for dismissing my video,

    “He’s talked about the Copernican principle many times.”

    Yeah? And so what? That the Copernican principle is overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is not a matter of opinion but is a matter of fact. A fact which I referenced in my video. Simply mentioning that I talked about the Copernican principle in my video and then saying nothing else is CERTAINLY NOT a refutation of my position in the video. Again, it might be very helpful for you to realize that others are nearly as enamored with your intellect as you seem to be.

    Viola Lee goes on,

    “He takes one particular view of (quantum) measurement that questioned by many eminent physicists,”

    Hey,, now we are finally getting somewhere, but alas we are left completely in the dark as to who is doing the questioning and why they are questioning it. i.e. are they objecting for empirical or philosophical reasons? or etc.. etc..?

    Oh well so much for that supposed refutation of my video,,,, Viola Lee then goes on,

    “he’s quoted Wienberg multiple time,”

    Yeah, and so what? I am particularly fond of Weinberg’s paper entitled ‘The trouble with quantum mechanics’ because, number 1, Weinberg is brilliant and, number 2, because he is brutally honest. Which happens to be a lethal combination for his atheistic worldview.

    Viola goes on,

    “he’s quoted Zeilinger about the Word of God multiple times (and I’ve watched that video and it’s not the endorsement BA wants it to be),”

    Hey, what do you know,,, Viola Lee finally refers to something other than his own authority to decide if something is significant or not. But alas for Viola Lee, it is my video that he references and I have the exact quote handy, Here is the quote in full context,,

    49:28 mark: “This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,,
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
    https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969

    Sure Zeilinger’s quote is measured, but the quote is what it is and he does indeed mention John 1:1 in a favorable light.,, Considering it is Zeilinger himself stating it, I will take that ‘endorsement’ anytime!

    Viola Lee goes on

    “he makes unfounded significance, I think of the “free will” test of Bell’s theorem,”

    Actually atheists are the ones who have adamantly tried to claim that free will is merely an illusion. So finding that our free will choices are indeed a integral part of the measurement process is not a minor development. Zeilinger himself, in one of his interviews, (I can’t recall which one right now), mentioned that he thought this particularly experiment was very significant experiment. Hossenfelder herself was so disturbed by the implications of this particular experiment that she ended up postulating ‘superdeterminism’, (where it is held that all of our choices were somehow ‘super determined’ prior to the Big Bang), to try to get around the implications of the experiment.

    Apparently they strongly disagree with Viola Lee’s assessment that the test has “unfounded significance”.

    Viola Lee goes on,

    “and of course there is a long part about how the Shroud of Turin, which has appeared countless times in his posts, is both true and significant.
    I’m not about to wade into that morass. But I’ll emphasize that it is all repetitive – there was nothing new there, and that is why I dismissed it.”

    Again, HUH?? WHAT?? For crying out loud, you have waded into nothing. You entire post thus far has been nothing but a tour de force of hand-waving dismissiveness. NO reasons whatsoever have been given for why you personally find any of my arguments unpersuasive. You just state that you find them personally unpersuasive and expect your own personal opinion to carry the weight of making your case for you. That simply is not how it works Viola Lee. No matter how impressed with your own intellect you may be.

    Viola Lee goes on,

    “Ironically, you say we “rejected it on ideological grounds”. But the heart of BA’s argument is his imposition of Christian ideology on the physics, Many physicists of different religions grapple with some of the issues he discusses, including the theory of everything. I can assure you that an explanation that involves the agent causality of God, John 1:1, and all the other religious trappings, held together by Jesus and the Shroud of Turin, would never make a dint in the world of real physics.”

    Well actually Viola Lee has already openly stated his hostility towards ‘Christian ideology’ in this thread when he got into a discussion with KF about divorce, so it hardly surprising that he would try to oppose Christianity at every turn,,,, but anyways, despite his severe animosity towards Christianity, modern physics, i.e. the world of ‘real physics’, just so happened to be born out of Christian metaphysics in medieval Christian Europe, thus it is not so much that I am ‘imposing’ Christian ideology onto physics as I am showing that the ‘Christian ideology’ from which modern physics originally sprang, is also very favorable to the ultimate resolution of modern physics by providing a VERY plausible resolution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    Contrary to what Viola Lee believes, ‘Christian ideology’ and modern physics have a very intimate and entangled history together.

    Viola lee goes on

    “And last, you write, “My second is do they object to applying Kurt Gödel’s theorems to mathematical incompatibility between ETR and QM?”
    Godel’s theorem is a sophisticated argument involving sets of sets in pure mathematics that is about the natural number system. I don’t think it automatically transfers over to whether we can find some overriding mathematical theory that ties ETR and QM together. Just invoking Godel’s theorem as an arguments that a reconciliation is impossible, therefore Jesus, is ideology trumping facts at its finest.”

    Again, Viola Lee apparently completely ignores the fact that Godel’s incompleteness theorem has now, in fact, been brought into quantum physics.

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Viola Lee goes on

    “P.S.
    At 70, BA says, “That development of bringing Godel’s incompleteness theorems into quantum physics is certainly far more devastating to finding a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ than, apparently, most theoretical physicists have yet realized.”
    Maybe that is because most theoretical physicists, if they are even aware of the issue, are unpersuaded that it means no unifying math for ETR and QM will be found, much less that the solution is acknowledging God and Jesus as the foundation of all science.”

    Oh goody, now not only is Viola Lee, with out any reference, stating his own personal opinion as authoritative, but apparently Viola Lee has now mastered the art of mind reading and has deduced the exact reasoning for why any theoretical physicist may accept or reject bringing Godel’s incompleteness theorems into quantum physics.

    As I stated before, Viola Lee’s entire post has been nothing but a tour de force of hand-waving dismissiveness.

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    At 73 Viola Lee finally appeals to somebody other that himself. Unfortunately for him. he appeals to our own resident atheist Seversky as an authority,

    VL_ Good post, Sev. I like this particularly:

    Otherwise, listing cherry-picked quotes which do not necessarily reflect the considered opinions of the authors and leaping wildly across the many gaps in our understanding to unwarranted inferences of support for religious beliefs may be comforting personally but it is not scientific.

    Viola Lee, despite how enamored you may be by Seversky’s quote since it agrees with your own anti-Christian bias, the fact of the matter is that science is not based upon Seversky’s materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, but science, every nook and cranny of it, is instead based upon the presupposition of Intelligent Design.

    Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Moreover, presupposing methodological naturalism, instead of Intelligent Design, as the starting presupposition for ‘doing science’ actually drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  80. 80
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Viola Lee @ 73, I agree.

  81. 81
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @77,

    Q, communicative reason himself. KF

    Yes, and logic, wisdom, and information. And likely conscious free will choices as noted by contemporary researchers in quantum mechanics.

    The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena. – Vlatko Vedralis a professor of Physics at the University of Oxford who specializes in quantum theory

    The reason I keep posting this quote is because the people cannot recognize their their ideological attachments are also willing to simply brush off the most intensely tested and experimentally verified branch of the most exact science known to mankind. This is a pity.

    -Q

  82. 82
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @78,

    What you’re pointing out is that the “modern” way of thinking assumes that unsupported assertions refutes ALL other logic, experimental science, expertise, and any logic. I’ve mentioned before that a bot could easily be programmed to respond to any subject with similar spectacular refutations (lol) such as

    This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

    We’ve all heard this before.

    (i.e. “We” as in “me and my tapeworm.”)

    People like you always come up with that lame argument.

    “Professing themselves to be wise, they became . . . ” – Paul of Tarsus

    -Q

  83. 83
    Viola Lee says:

    Q writes, “… willing to simply brush off the most intensely tested and experimentally verified branch of the most exact science known to mankind.”

    I guess I don’t see this. Who is brushing off quantum mechanics? There are very large issues about interpreting what we know of quantum events as to they pertain to metaphysical questions about the nature of reality, but I don’t see people “brushing it off.” I’ve read a number of books by different people on the subject, and they all take the reality (pun intended) of QM events quite seriously.

  84. 84
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Otherwise, listing cherry-picked quotes which do not necessarily reflect the considered opinions of the authors and leaping wildly across the many gaps in our understanding to unwarranted inferences of support for religious beliefs may be comforting personally but it is not scientific.

    You just described materialists and evolutionists. Nicely done

  85. 85
    bornagain77 says:

    Viola Lee states that,

    There are very large issues about interpreting what we know of quantum events as to they pertain to metaphysical questions about the nature of reality,

    That reminds me of this following interview with Anton Zeilinger in which he states at the 9:00 min mark:,,, “the main issue (with quantum mechanics) is interpretation. What does it mean for our view of the world.,,, “emotional” fights happen over what it means,,,”

    Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics – video – 2018
    (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA
    40 sec: Every object has to be in a definite place is not true anymore.,,,
    The thought that a particle can be at two places at the same time is (also) not good language.
    The good language it that there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is. (and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don’t know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is). This “nonexistence” is an objective feature of reality.,,,
    5:10 min:,,, superposition is not limited to small systems,,,
    7:35 min:,,, I have given lectures on quantum physics to children, 6 and 7 years old, and they understand the basic concepts of quantum physics if you tell them the right way.,,,
    9:00 min:,,, the main issue (with quantum mechanics) is interpretation. What does it mean for our view of the world.,,, “emotional” fights happen over what it means,,,
    15:45 min:,,, the fact that some of the brightest minds in physics have been working on this issue, (i.e. The unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), for 80 years now at least, and have not found a solution means that the solution will be extremely deep. It will be extremely significant if somebody found it, and it will probably be in a direction where nobody expected it.,,,
    16:55:,,, Dark matter and Dark energy smell a little bit like the (fictitious) ether in the old electrodynamic theory.,,,
    17:30:,,, In quantum mechanics we have the measurement paradox (i.e. measurement problem),,, I think it (the measurement paradox) tells us something about the role of observation in the world. And the role of information.,, Maybe there are situations where we have to reconsider the “Cartesian cut”*,,,
    *Cartesian Cut
    The Cartesian cut is a metaphorical notion alluding to Decartes’ distinction of res cogitans (thinking substance) and res extensa (extended substance). It plays a crucial role in the long history of the problem of the relationship between mind and matter and is constitutive for the natural sciences of today. While the elements of res cogitans are mental (non-material) entities like ideas, models, or concepts, the elements of res extensa are material facts, events, or data. The conventional referents of all natural sciences belong to the latter regime.
    http://see.library.utoronto.ca.....utdef.html

    I also really, really like Zeilinger’s observation at the 15:45 min mark since it fits in so well with my video in the OP:,,, specifically Zeilinger states, “the fact that some of the brightest minds in physics have been working on this issue, (i.e. The unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), for 80 years now at least, and have not found a solution means that the solution will be extremely deep. It will be extremely significant if somebody found it, and it will probably be in a direction where nobody expected it.,,,”

    🙂

    But anyways let’s leave that particular quote to the side for now and get back to ‘interpreting’ quantum mechanics,,,, why in the world are there ’emotional fights’ over such a seemingly innocuous thing as interpreting what the experiments of quantum mechanics are telling us?

    Well, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is the same exact reason why so many atheists get so angry when you point out the fact that life gives us abundant evidence of having been intelligently designed. Indeed, it is why so many atheists devote hours upon hours on the internet trying to defend the completely scientifically bankrupt idea that is Darwinian evolution. They simply don’t the world to be like that. EVER, PERIOD!

    Thomas Nagel,,, a prominent American Philosopher who is an atheist, and who honestly confessed that, “the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False”,,,

    Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False
    https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755

    Thomas Nagel, an atheist and prominent American Philosopher, referred to this irrational ’emotional’ response by him, and other atheists, to resisting the idea that God is behind life and the universe, as the “cosmic authority problem”, and he even states, “I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

    “I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.”
    – Thomas Nagel

    What in the world does ‘wanting’ the universe to be a certain way have to do with being scientifically honest enough to accept the way the universe actually is?

    But anyway Querius, that is quite the telling quote from Nagel and nicely sums up what we are actually dealing with in our dealings with atheists. Rebellion against God, plain and simple!

    Thus Querius it is not so much that the ‘modern way’ of thinking makes atheists so irrational, but it is the simply the age old problem of rebellion against God that makes them so impervious to reasoned argumentation. The Old Testament (and even the New Testament) is literally chock full of examples of rebellion against God.

    And as the famed mathematician Leonard Euler noted way back in 1747, “If these people (atheists) maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible.”

    A DEFENSE OF THE (Divine) REVELATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF FREETHINKERS, BY MR. (Leonard) EULER?Excerpt: “The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible.”
    http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/.....2trans.pdf

    Yes indeed, if only atheist would be reasonable then “it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors;”

    Verse:

    Isaiah 1:18
    “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

  86. 86
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77,

    Wow, what a fascinating quote from Euler! Thank you. This is reassuring in a negative sort of way.

    It also reminds me of several modest discoveries that I thought I made One in particular, I posted online for comment and was strongly criticized until someone found that it had been previously discovered and published. No apologies were forthcoming, of course. Just silence.

    Sadly, humanity’s natural inclination is to keep our eyes tightly shut, our mouths wide open with blah blah blah, and our ears plugged. Then, when we get overwhelmed with guilt, stress, and complexity, we turn to . . . drugs, denial, and despair. It’s always ABC: Anything But Christ. And yet, somewhere deep inside there’s a tiny yearning.

    “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.” – Jesus, Revelation 3:20 (NASB)

    -Q

  87. 87
    Querius says:

    Viola Lee,

    The question that I asked you in @76 was not rhetorical.

    This presentation is actually the first time that I’ve seen Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems applied by respected physicists to the problems reconciling the mathematics of ETR and QM . I found that part of the presentation particularly interesting . . . Frankly, I’ve never read such a proposal in any of the books I’ve read on QM. Do you have any references that I could follow up on?

    I’m asking since you indicated familiarity with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems with regard to QM.

    Thanks,
    -Q

  88. 88
    Viola Lee says:

    Q, you write, “Viola Lee, the question that I asked you in @76 was not rhetorical… I’m asking since you indicated familiarity with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems with regard to QM.”

    Hmmmm, I said I wasn’t familiar with that. What I said about Godel was “Godel’s theorem is a sophisticated argument involving sets of sets in pure mathematics that is about the natural number system. I don’t think it automatically transfers over to whether we can find some overriding mathematical theory that ties ETR and QM together.”

    I agree with you that I have never seen anything about Godel and QM (although I am just a casual educated layperson, IANAP). What I understand about Godel’s theorem is that it says in any axiomatic system there will be true statements within the system that nevertheless can’t be proved within the system. That is, it is about purely mathematical systems, so I don’t think that it automatically becomes true about mathematical descriptions about the real world, such as some possible unification of QM and general relativity.

    Sort of like QM itself, people tend to apply Godels’ ideas to things beyond the bounds of what they applies to.

  89. 89
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Pierre d’Arcis “The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore.”

    “This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter.”

    “For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.”

    “Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of the law, seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year.”

  90. 90
    Querius says:

    Viola Lee,

    I guess I misunderstood when you said in 19,

    There is nothing new in the video that we all haven’t scrolled by before.

    Apparently, you weren’t thinking of Gödel’s theorems, which as I said was quite surprising to me that they were actually being considered by a serious physicist in terms of the incompatibility of ETR and QM.

    Since Reality seems to be mathematical–the wavefunction is nothing tangible, only interacting probabilities until observed, it’s not implausible that Gödel’s theorems could apply to to these as well as the mathematics underlying ETR. Of course, Gödel’s theorems apply to systems of counting numbers, but it’s not really a stretch to apply the same concepts to whole numbers and even rational numbers, perhaps followed by irrational, imaginary, and other types of numbers.

    Are you familiar with any work extending Gödel’s theorems to any of these other number systems?

    -Q

  91. 91
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, by their projections (and cognitive dissonance) shall ye know them. KF

  92. 92
    kairosfocus says:

    Q (attn VL),

    Godel is about irreducible complexity of axiomatisations of mathematical systems, using counting numbers and arithmetic as yardstick. As the chain of sets N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc is constructable from N, which in turn builds up from {} –> 0 via von Neumann succession of sets, thee result on N logically pervades Mathematics and its extensions.

    We should note that most mathematical operations are extended from those of arithmetic, perhaps with an injection of structures [e.g. matrices etc], limits involving series and sequences of partial sums etc.

    Meanwhile, distinct identity and its provision of 0,1,2 in any possible world brings the chain in in any reasonable logic model world, including those intended to provide physical models of our world (and the many forks on many worlds interpretations.)

    The key point is, we have good reason to accept and acknowledge that

    [a] once a mathematical or computational system is tolerably complex beyond demonstration of coherence by direct inspection,

    [b] we have reason to expect that axiomatisations that entail all true results will be incoherent, likewise,

    [c] that true results are likely to be beyond reach of our axiomatisations (undecidable), and

    [d] that there will be no constructive procedure to generate known coherent axiomatisations.

    The grand result is that faith as responsible confidence in the face of irreducible Johnson uncertainty is embedded in all significant mathematics and logic pervaded disciplines. In Rumsfeld’s terms, we have a known known that there will be known unknowns and likely unknown unknowns.

    This is a context in which I take significant cognisance of the Euler identity, stated in the full traditional form that explicitly joins together the five key numbers in our systems of Mathematics, to known infinitely fine precision:

    0 = 1 + e^(i*pi)

    The four number form is often presented as just the same, to trivialise; certainly, that has been seen here at UD. That simply reflects failure to distinguish an algebraic transformation from the epistemic significance of a key result. Here, that five key numbers reflecting entire domains of mathematics with extensions to vast provinces of sci-tech, are locked together coherently to infinitely precise convergence.

    That lends confidence to working in practical mathematics, that we have no material reason to dismiss coherence, regardless of abstract possibilities.

    KF

  93. 93
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, your suggestion of fraud fails, by way of undesigned coincidence of artifacts with geographically and administratively separate histories. Start with, how did these two entities happen to have the same unusual blood type [and matching patterns], centuries before such was known? The Shroud is not a main offer of proof of the Christian faith, but it deserves a more responsible discussion than we too often see. Selective hyperskepticism, is ever and irretrievably a fallacy. KF

  94. 94
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: SEP, on Godel:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

    >>Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems
    First published Mon Nov 11, 2013; substantive revision Thu Apr 2, 2020

    Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most important results in modern logic, and have deep implications for various issues. They concern the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F
    within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic. There have been attempts to apply the results also in other areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these attempted applications are more controversial . . . .

    In order to understand Gödel’s theorems, one must first explain the key concepts essential to it, such as “formal system”, “consistency”, and “completeness”. Roughly, a formal system is a system of axioms equipped with rules of inference, which allow one to generate new theorems. The set of axioms is required to be finite or at least decidable, i.e., there must be an algorithm (an effective method) which enables one to mechanically decide whether a given statement is an axiom or not. If this condition is satisfied, the theory is called “recursively axiomatizable”, or, simply, “axiomatizable”. The rules of inference (of a formal system) are also effective operations, such that it can always be mechanically decided whether one has a legitimate application of a rule of inference at hand. Consequently, it is also possible to decide for any given finite sequence of formulas, whether it constitutes a genuine derivation, or a proof, in the system—given the axioms and the rules of inference of the system.

    A formal system is complete if for every statement of the language of the system, either the statement or its negation can be derived (i.e., proved) in the system. A formal system is consistent if there is no statement such that the statement itself and its negation are both derivable in the system. Only consistent systems are of any interest in this context, for it is an elementary fact of logic that in an inconsistent formal system every statement is derivable, and consequently, such a system is trivially complete.

    Gödel established two different though related incompleteness theorems, usually called the first incompleteness theorem and the second incompleteness theorem. “Gödel’s theorem” is sometimes used to refer to the conjunction of these two, but may refer to either—usually the first—separately. Accommodating an improvement due to J. Barkley Rosser in 1936, the first theorem can be stated, roughly, as follows:

    First incompleteness theorem
    Any consistent formal system F
    within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F

    .

    Gödel’s theorem does not merely claim that such statements exist: the method of Gödel’s proof explicitly produces a particular sentence that is neither provable nor refutable in F
    ; the “undecidable” statement can be found mechanically from a specification of F

    . The sentence in question is a relatively simple statement of number theory, a purely universal arithmetical sentence.

    A common misunderstanding is to interpret Gödel’s first theorem as showing that there are truths that cannot be proved. This is, however, incorrect, for the incompleteness theorem does not deal with provability in any absolute sense, but only concerns derivability in some particular formal system or another. For any statement A
    unprovable in a particular formal system F, there are, trivially, other formal systems in which A is provable (take A

    as an axiom). On the other hand, there is the extremely powerful standard axiom system of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (denoted as ZF, or, with the axiom of choice, ZFC; see the section on the axioms of ZFC in the entry on set theory), which is more than sufficient for the derivation of all ordinary mathematics. Now there are, by Gödel’s first theorem, arithmetical truths that are not provable even in ZFC. Proving them would thus require a formal system that incorporates methods going beyond ZFC. There is thus a sense in which such truths are not provable using today’s “ordinary” mathematical methods and axioms, nor can they be proved in a way that mathematicians would today regard as unproblematic and conclusive.

    Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem concerns the limits of consistency proofs. A rough statement is:

    Second incompleteness theorem
    For any consistent system F
    within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F cannot be proved in F

    itself.

    In the case of the second theorem, F
    must contain a little bit more arithmetic than in the case of the first theorem, which holds under very weak conditions. It is important to note that this result, like the first incompleteness theorem, is a theorem about formal provability, or derivability (which is always relative to some formal system; in this case, to F itself). It does not say anything about whether, for a particular theory T satisfying the conditions of the theorem, the statement “T is consistent” can be proved in the sense of being shown to be true by a conclusive argument, or by a proof generally acceptable for mathematicians. For many theories, this is perfectly possible. >>

    KF

  95. 95
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N, trivially, principle of explosion applies, where [A AND ~A] => any claim, C. From falsity or incoherence, anything. The implication is, axiomatisations that capture all true claims do so by this means, incoherence. KF

  96. 96
    bornagain77 says:

    Since the conversation has turned to Godel, and since Godel’s proof is a large part of my argument that there will never be a mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that bridges, i.e. ‘renormalizes’, the ‘infinite infinities’ that separate the macroscopic descriptions of general relativity from the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics, i.e. “the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”

    Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
    We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
    Excerpt:,,, the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
    Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

    Since Godel’s proof is a large part of that, I will clip the Nature abstract from which the physorg article that I cited is based:

    Undecidability of the spectral gap – Toby S. Cubitt, David Perez-Garcia & Michael M. Wolf – 09 December 2015
    Abstract
    The spectral gap—the energy difference between the ground state and first excited state of a system—is central to quantum many-body physics. Many challenging open problems, such as the Haldane conjecture, the question of the existence of gapped topological spin liquid phases, and the Yang–Mills gap conjecture, concern spectral gaps. These and other problems are particular cases of the general spectral gap problem: given the Hamiltonian of a quantum many-body system, is it gapped or gapless? Here we prove that this is an undecidable problem. Specifically, we construct families of quantum spin systems on a two-dimensional lattice with translationally invariant, nearest-neighbour interactions, for which the spectral gap problem is undecidable. This result extends to undecidability of other low-energy properties, such as the existence of algebraically decaying ground-state correlations. The proof combines Hamiltonian complexity techniques with aperiodic tilings, to construct a Hamiltonian whose ground state encodes the evolution of a quantum phase-estimation algorithm followed by a universal Turing machine. The spectral gap depends on the outcome of the corresponding ‘halting problem’. Our result implies that there exists no algorithm to determine whether an arbitrary model is gapped or gapless, and that there exist models for which the presence or absence of a spectral gap is independent of the axioms of mathematics.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16059

    Again, the implications of this proof are clearly laid out in the physorg article by Professor Michael Wolf. Specifically, “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    https://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html

    Again this finding is simply devastating to any mathematical theory, such as sting theory and/or M-theory, that hopes to bridge the ‘infinite infinities’ that separate the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics from the macroscopic descriptions of general relativity, to become the quote unquote final ‘theory of everything’.

    Of related sidenote, It is interesting to note how this plays into the ancient dichotomy between forms, and/or essences, with ‘sensible things’ i.e. Sensible bodies are in constant flux and imperfect and hence, by Plato’s reckoning, less real than the Forms which are eternal,

    Essence
    Ontological status
    In his dialogues Plato suggests that concrete beings acquire their essence through their relations to “Forms”—abstract universals logically or ontologically separate from the objects of sense perception. These Forms are often put forth as the models or paradigms of which sensible things are “copies”. When used in this sense, the word form is often capitalized.[6] Sensible bodies are in constant flux and imperfect and hence, by Plato’s reckoning, less real than the Forms which are eternal,unchanging and complete. Typical examples of Forms given by Plato are largeness, smallness, equality, unity, goodness, beauty and justice.
    Aristotle moves the Forms of Plato to the nucleus of the individual thing, which is called ousia or substance. Essence is the ti of the thing, the to ti en einai. Essence corresponds to the ousia’s definition; essence is a real and physical aspect of the ousia (Aristotle, Metaphysics, I).,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence#Philosophy

    Darwinists deny the reality of forms and or essences. As Egnor explains,

    NOMINALISM: THE STUBBLE LEFT BY OCKHAM’S RAZOR
    Ockham was a methodological minimalist, not a philosophical minimalist
    MICHAEL EGNOR
    Excerpt: The opposite of nominalism is realism. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato (429?–347 B.C.E.) was the archetypal realist. Plato believed that abstract categories such as “mankind” are real. They really exist in the realm of Forms. In fact, Plato believed that the Forms were the ultimate reality, of which particulars merely participate in a shadowy way.
    One noteworthy kind of Platonic realism was that of Augustine (354-430 C.E., left), who proposed that Platonic Forms are Ideas in the mind of God. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) held to another form of realism, called semi-realism; he held that universals are real but that they exist in nature and in things, not independently in a separate realm.
    Nominalists deny all of this. They propose that universals are mere categories created in the human mind, without any extra-mental reality of their own. “Mankind” is, in the nominalist view, just a way that we organize ideas in our minds.
    https://mindmatters.ai/2020/06/nominalism-the-stubble-left-by-ockhams-razor/

    With their denial of true forms and/or essences, Darwinists lose the ability to even define what a species actually and truly is

    Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas
    The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage
    Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.
    Denial of True Species
    Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,,
    The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
    What About Man?
    Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,,
    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

    I point all this out since it has been known since ancient times that the ‘sensible bodies’ which are in ‘constant flux’ can never give rise to the forms and/or essences which are the true objects of our knowledge.

    Likewise, I hold that it is also obvious that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics, which describe the ‘constant flux’ of elementary particles, can never give rise to the macrscopic ‘form’ of General relativity.

    In short, the impossibility of ‘bottom-up explanations for ‘form’ has been known about since ancient times.

    Hence, God, and only God, “was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities.”

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.?http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

  97. 97
    kairosfocus says:

    Undecidability is a key word in the context of Godel.

  98. 98
    Viola Lee says:

    re 90, to Q:

    When I said, “There is nothing new in the video that we all haven’t scrolled by before.”, you replied, “Apparently, you weren’t thinking of Gödel’s theorems, which as I said was quite surprising to me that they were actually being considered by a serious physicist in terms of the incompatibility of ETR and QM.”

    I think BA has mentioned Godel many times, but maybe you hadn’t seen previous statements of his.

    Then you say, “it’s not implausible that Gödel’s theorems could apply to to these as well as the mathematics underlying ETR. Of course, Gödel’s theorems apply to systems of counting numbers, but it’s not really a stretch to apply the same concepts to whole numbers and even rational numbers, perhaps followed by irrational, imaginary, and other types of numbers.”

    I don’t think lack of plausibility is in itself a very strong argument for anything. I’m not an expert at all on this topic, but from what I’ve read Godels’ proofs apply to axiomatic mathematical systems, not real world mathematical descriptions. As KF points out, Godel’s proofs are about the natural numbers, but it seems reasonable to assume that the undecidability features extends to other axiomatic extensions of the natural numbers. However, I don’t know (and don’t think I would know, as that is pretty esoteric) what mathematical work might have been done on broader extensions beyond the natural numbers.

    But I read the article tha BA quoted about spectral gaps. It seems to me that the quote he offers is an example of something I mentioned in 88: ” people tend to apply Godel’s ideas to things beyond the bounds of what they apply to.” It is very speculative and offers no evidence that some argument similar to Godel’s is actually related to the real-world problem they are studying. There are large differences between pure and applied mathematics: between pure axiomatic and logical systems vs. mathematical descriptions of the world that have, among other things, elements of probability and chaos theory which contribute to undecidability.

  99. 99
    JVL says:

    Oh, gosh, now it seems I can reply to this thread. I shall do so in the future when I have something to say. In general I agree with Viola Lee in that: Godel’s theorems apply to very narrowly defined axiomatic systems so unless you can put physics (or any other system) on that kind of footing then Godel’s work does NOT apply. Sorry.

  100. 100
    Viola Lee says:

    Interesting. I just saw JVL posts on the Loeb thread, saying what I just said here, but now I can post here but can’t over there. Weird.

  101. 101
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ SA2, your suggestion of fraud fails, by way of undesigned coincidence of artifacts with geographically and administratively separate histories. Start with, how did these two entities happen to have the same unusual blood type [and matching patterns], centuries before such was known?

    Do you have a link to the paper that proves that they both have AB? I have searched Google but haven’t found it. Although there are a couple that demonstrate that the blood on the shroud can’t even conclusively be shown to be human.

    But now that we are talking about undesigned coincidence, the letter I posted above was written in the Middle Ages and, “coincidentally”, corresponds with the age of the shroud determined by independent C14 tests. Add to that the fact that the linen used is not consistent with that used at the time and location of the crucifixion, that the image does not match up with how bodies were wrapped at the time and location of the crucifixion, and that a forensic examination of the blood pattern on the shroud concluded that it was most likely a fake, and you have sufficient evidence to convince any impartial jury. Far more evidence that you have for widespread coordinated election fraud in the recent election.

    Selective hyperskepticism, is ever and irretrievably a fallacy.

    I agree. You would be well advised to correct your frequent use of it to make your arguments.

  102. 102
    Viola Lee says:

    I can post now: it comes and goes.

    I like JVL’s quote form the Loeb thread:

    A common misunderstanding is to interpret Gödel’s first theorem as showing that there are truths that cannot be proved. This is, however, incorrect, for the incompleteness theorem does not deal with provability in any absolute sense, but only concerns derivability in some particular formal system or another.

    I also like this line from KF: “That (Euler’s Identity) lends confidence to working in practical mathematics, that we have no material reason to dismiss coherence, regardless of abstract possibilities.”

    That is, Godel’s proof is about esoteric possibilities. It doesn’t cast doubt on the vast body of mathematical knowledge that we can prove.

    And JVL, I think the commenting problem is a bug, not something about you, or me, or anyone in particular.

  103. 103
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus,
    Thank you for the explanation, which I’m going to have to study a bit to disabuse myself of some misconceptions or oversimplifications.

    Viola Lee,
    I appreciate your response, but it seems odd to me that you confine Gödel’s theorems to a very narrow application. The extensibility of his theorems does seem plausible. For example, why can’t his use of natural numbers be extended to negative whole numbers?

    Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most important results in modern logic, and have deep implications for various issues. They concern the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.

    Where exactly do you disagree with the introduction posted on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? It seems that they also feel extensibility of Gödel’s theorems is plausible.

    The article goes on to state

    Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.

    So, I would assume that the operations in, for example, existential logic would also quality, wouldn’t you?

    -Q

  104. 104
    JVL says:

    Querius: I appreciate your response, but it seems odd to me that you confine Gödel’s theorems to a very narrow application. The extensibility of his theorems does seem plausible. For example, why can’t his use of natural numbers be extended to negative whole numbers?

    The negative whole numbers are part of the basic axiomatic system of mathematics so, yes, it applies.

    So, I would assume that the operations in, for example, existential logic would also quality, wouldn’t you?

    I would want it to be shown that existential logic was a formal axiomatic system. Is it?

    And yes, it appears the commenting system has been corrected. I hope.

  105. 105
    Viola Lee says:

    Q, you write, “Viola Lee, … but it seems odd to me that you confine Gödel’s theorems to a very narrow application. The extensibility of his theorems does seem plausible. For example, why can’t his use of natural numbers be extended to negative whole numbers?”

    I am a bit confused about why I am not being clear. Above, I wrote,

    As KF points out, Godel’s proofs are about the natural numbers, but it seems reasonable to assume that the undecidability features extends to other axiomatic extensions of the natural numbers. However, I don’t know (and don’t think I would know, as that is pretty esoteric) what mathematical work might have been done on broader extensions beyond the natural numbers.

    It seems like I said exactly what you’re saying I didn’t say???

    Also, you wrote,

    “Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most important results in modern logic, and have deep implications for various issues. They concern the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.”

    Where exactly do you disagree with the introduction posted on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? It seems that they also feel extensibility of Gödel’s theorems is plausible.

    I don’t disagree with that statement at all. Godel’s proofs are, I think, commonly assumed to apply to any axiomatic system. That is what JVL, KF, and I have been saying. I don’t know (because I am not expert enough) whether anyone has actually worked the proofs out for extensions to the natural numbers, but the general conclusions are, I think, assumed to axiomatic systems in general.

    And last, you write, “So, I would assume that the operations in, for example, existential logic would also quality, wouldn’t you?”

    Formal logic is an axiomatic system, so yes I would assume that Godel’s proofs would apply,

    In summary, I don’t think I’m saying anything that disagrees with what you are saying.

  106. 106
    bornagain77 says:

    In sum, it seems, in order to try to undermine the argument I made in the video that the atheists on UD are now trying to deny that Godel’s proof can be extended to physical systems altogether,, for instance Viola Lee states, “from what I’ve read Godels’ proofs apply to axiomatic mathematical systems, not real world mathematical descriptions.”

    Which is an interesting tactic for them to try to take since Turing’s ‘halting problem’ itself was the extension Godel’s proof in computers and was therefore a ‘real world’ example of the fact that Godel’s proof could in fact be extended to physical systems.

    In fact, the invention of the computer itself is directly linked to Turing’s desire to make Godel’s incompleteness theorem clearer and simpler, i.e. more ‘concrete’, to understand,

    Narrator: “(Turing) is also the man who made Godel’s already devastating incompleteness theorem even worse. Turing was a much more practical man than Godel. And simply wanted to make Godel’s incompleteness theorem clearer and simpler. How it came to him, as he said later, was in a vision. That vision was the computer. The invention that has shaped the modern world was first imagined simply as the means to make Godel’s incompleteness theorem more concrete. Because for many Godel’s proof had simply been too abstract.”
    Gregory Chaitin: It is an absolutely devastating result from a philosophical point of view that we still haven’t absorbed. But the proof was too superficial. It didn’t get to the real heart of what was going on. It was more tantalizing than anything else. It was not a good reason for something so devastatingly fundamental. It was too clever by half. It was too superficial. It said ‘I’m unprovable’,, “so what?’,, It doesn’t give you any insight into how serious the problem is. But Turing, five years later, his approach to incompleteness, that I felt was getting more in the right direction.”
    Narrator: Turing recast incompleteness in terms of computers, and showed that since they are logic machines, incompleteness meant there would always be some problems they would never solve. A machine fed one of these problems would never stop. And worse, Turing proved that there was no way of telling beforehand which problems these were.”,,,
    Georgory Chaitin: “But Turing makes it very down to earth because he talks about machines. He talks about whether a machine will halt or not.,, You know computers are physical devices . You start it running and there are two possibilities if you start a program.,, One possibility is that it will come up with an answer and stop. The other possibility is that it is going to run forever and never finish the calculation. (And you can never know beforehand which is which). And this is Turing’s version of incompleteness. Turing gets incompleteness, Godel’s profound discovery, he gets as a corollary of something more basic which is uncomputability.,, Things which no computer can calculate. In certain domains, most things cannot be calculated.” ,,”,,,,
    ,,, “Turing’s personality is one thing. His mathematics doesn’t have to be consistent with his personality. There is his work on artificial intelligence where I think he believes that machines could become intelligent just like people. or better, or different, but intelligent. But if you look at his first paper, when he points out that machines have limits because there are numbers, in fact most numbers, cannot be calculated by any machine, he is showing the power of the human mind to imagine thing that escape what any machine could ever do. So that may go against his own philosophy. He may think of himself as a machine but his very first paper is smashing machines. Its creating machines and then its pointing out their devastating limitations.”
    – Gregory Chaitin –
    Alan Turing & Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/

    Thus, contrary to what the atheists on UD are trying to say, i.e “from what I’ve read Godels’ proofs apply to axiomatic mathematical systems, not real world mathematical descriptions”, the halting problem itself is proof that Godel’s incompleteness can be applied to physical systems.

    Hence, the proof I cited in my video, via Godel and Turing, that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics cannot be extended to the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity, contrary to what the atheists on UD are trying to insinuate, remains very much a valid proof.

    Godel’s proof can, and indeed has, via Turing himself, been extended to physical systems!

  107. 107
    kairosfocus says:

    Q,

    BA77 actually clipped above, abstract from a paper in Nature pointing to undecidability in Quantum theory. Undecidability is a term for when it is concluded that a frasmework [here, Q-theory] faces results that are at least plausibly true but are unreacheable from axioms.

    AS2

    You have already had link enough above on multiple points of correlation that give reason to conclude the two items came from the same crucified man (from a site in Palestine), complete with confirmation of the blood and water observation. There is no good reason to take your extensive skeptically dismissive clip above seriously.

    VL,

    The Godel result is anything but narrow; that is why it blew up the grand programme of mathematical unification 90 years ago. The general force is that complex mathematical systems are incomplete or incoherent and there is no scheme to guarantee coherence. Relative to systems we build — logic model worlds — we face the prospect of undecidable propositions. I would suggest that complex theoretical constructs are liable to face such.

    The claim in a paper linked by BA77 is that such has actually popped up in Quantum theory.

    where, BA77 also aptly bridges to the matter of computability, and uncomputability. From given start-points on a turing machine, certain valid results will be unreacheable. Of course natural halting of a machine is a classic challenge . . . in the real world we can pull the plug or force a halt in software of course, but such is the opposite of creating a feasible algorithm that naturally progresses to a good solution in finite cycles and on recognising such, reports and halts. Where, clearly defined start points, operations, inference or computing rules etc are amenable to such an analysis.

    String theory, notoriously is troubled by the infinite.

    The trick then is that our theories effectively function like that and are prone to incoherence and undecidability or simple contradiction to valid observation.

    KF

  108. 108
    Viola Lee says:

    Re BA’s post at 106

    Turing machines are an abstract axiomatic system: they have certain definite concepts and certain rules to follow. The fact that they can be actualized in a deterministic physical computer is no different than the fact that math is actualized in a series of logical proposition in writing. This is different than describing a real-world phenomena in which we are modeling the system mathematically to see if we have a good model, but which itself may have (almost certainly does have) properties or indeterminacies not included in our model.

    So I don’t think BA is correct when he says “the halting problem itself is proof that Godel’s incompleteness can be applied to physical systems.” A computer is a physical manifestation of a logical axiomatic system, to which Godel’s proofs apply, but that is different than saying Godel’s proofs apply to our attempts to create a mathematical model of real-world phenomena.

    Also, the “proof” that “that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics cannot be extended to the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity” is a video where one scientist drew an analogy between their understanding of a situtation and Godel. One quote does not a proof make.

    Also, to KF at 107 wrote, “VL, The Godel result is anything but narrow; that is why it blew up the grand programme of mathematical unification 90 years ago. The general force is that complex mathematical systems are incomplete or incoherent and there is no scheme to guarantee coherence.”

    Yes, I’ve said that several times. For instance, at 105 I wrote, “Godel’s proofs are, I think, commonly assumed to apply to any axiomatic system. That is what JVL, KF, and I have been saying.” I don’t think we have disagreed about the impact of Godel’s proofs on abstract axiomatic systems ast all.

    As to the paper BA points to, note this paragraph towards the end:

    The reason this problem is impossible to solve in general is because models at this level exhibit extremely bizarre behaviour that essentially defeats any attempt to analyse them. But this bizarre behaviour also predicts some new and very weird physics that hasn’t been seen before.

    Note that the undecidability comes from the predication of some new, weird physics. That is, it comes from ways in which their model is not sufficient to solve the problem. However, rather than assume that this is a product of Godel’s proofs in respect to their model it is more reasonable to assume that this is because their model is incomplete, which seems to be what the quoted paragraph is saying.

  109. 109
    kairosfocus says:

    VL,

    you will note that I have frequently suggested that mathematical axiomatisations, model frameworks and scientific theory frameworks alike compose abstract, logic model worlds, essentially defining start points, rules of computation, elements [suitably symbolised] that are structural-quantitative, and thus set up a core with a definable process to advance to particular states or statements in an abstract space. Those rules are obviously constrained by core logic and core mathematics ties to N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc and structures built up from them. The fact that N and its extensions will be built in carries with it Godel’s result, once we move beyond toy examples.

    These logic model worlds are amenable to analysis on computational theory [simple survey here], and yield to the standard result: many valid states in the world cannot be reached by finite length sequences of computation from a given start-point.

    Worse, given our actual atomic-material and temporal constraints on computability and observability [one has to spot and recognise a solution as valid per some criterion to guide reporting and halting on success], blind mechanical succession and/or chance processes cannot be reasonably expected to discover intelligent signals of greater than 500 – 1,000 bits of functionally specific complex information. Where, recall, existence of Autocad etc demonstrates that arbitrary 3-d functional elements and combinations are reducible to coded binary strings in some description language or other.

    Where, too, if the direct blind search for a satisfactory target zone in a complex space of n possibilities is challenging, the search space for a golden search on the space, is the collection of subsets, which is directly known to be the exponentially harder search in a space of scale 2^n, the power set.

    Put in another frame, powerful creative intelligence is not a manifestation of blindly mechanical and/or dynamic-stochastic computational trajectories. Our creative intelligence is itself evidence of a realm that exceeds computational limits. Mind space, we may term it.

    That is, Turing’s analysis (which was about theory of numbers) propagates through other problems reducible to a similar framework. Effectively equivalently, Godel’s analysis blows up any sufficiently complex universal calculation scheme. Including, the proposition that there is a grand continent of effective, evolutionarily ascending functions just waiting for blind physics and chemistry to assemble some first cell based life. Islands of complex function deeply isolated in and not computable by blind search are what we should expect. Starting from the domains for functional proteins in AA sequence space, such islands are also what we observe.

    And yes, the design inference challenge lurks here too. It is not about to go away. The config space for 1,000 elements is 1.07*10^301 and bigger spaces can be reduced to chaining sequences from such. But already the first space swamps any computation machine within the material and temporal resources of our observed cosmos. This problem is not going away, it actually comes from statistical mechanics:

    In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [–> given “enough time and search resources”] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense.

    We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).

    [–> or, there may not be “enough” time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 – 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 – 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]

    Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [–> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ –> notice, the “loading”] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). [“The “Hard Problem” of Life,” June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]

    In short, we are looking at a class of powerful constraints and the Godel incompleteness, Turing machine challenge is just a start point.

    For simple example, there is no universal decoder that can detect and reduce to plain text any arbitrary intelligent signal. The halting problem is extremely powerful. (BTW, this means that detection of design is not algorithmically reducible to a simple framework, instead it is a body of knowledge built up through praxis.)

    Whether we program some super computer to run the deductions or do it with chalk on boards step by step makes but little difference, abstract logic model worlds of significant complexity are inherently limited in their power to reach conclusions constrained by finite frameworks defining start points and rules-compliant stepwise successions. Yes, one may then extend the axiomatic or modelling framework, but then the same problems of potential incoherence and/or undecidability continue to haunt the system.

    Undecidability and incoherence potential are built-in issues. Godel and Church-Turing rule the roost.

    It’s not just Q-theory or Relativity etc, this is a broad, deep challenge.

    KF

  110. 110
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: JB of UD on axioms ant theorems (on the way to oracle machines):

    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/02/why-i-doubt-that-ai-can-match-the-human-mind/

    >> cognitive ability is only one aspect of intelligence. Those who think that artificial intelligence will eventually equal human intelligence face many hurdles, including problems of consciousness, emotion, etc. Here, we are looking at only one problem—cognitive ability.

    Consider the difference between axioms and theorems. An axiom is a foundational truth, which cannot be proven within the system in which it operates. A theorem is a derivative truth, whose truth value we can know based on axioms. Computers are exclusively theorem generators, while humans appear to be axiom generators.

    Computers are much better than humans at processing theorems—by several orders of magnitude. However, they are limited by the fact that they cannot establish axioms. They are entirely boxed into their own axiomatic rules.

    You can see this in several aspects of computer science. The Halting Problem is probably the best known. In essence, you cannot create a computer program that will tell if another arbitrarily chosen program will ever finish. In fact, the problem is deeper than that: While the Halting Problem itself comes with a handy proof (which is why it is so often cited), we also find that absent outside information, computers have trouble telling if practically any program with loops will complete without directly running the program to completion. That is, I can program a computer to recognize certain traits of halters and/or non-halters. But without that programming, it cannot tell the difference. I have to add axioms to the program in order to process the information.

    Given a set of axioms, computers can produce theorems very swiftly. But no increase in speed allows them to jump the theorem/axiom gap. AI research identifies the axioms needed to solve certain types of problems and then lets the computer loose to calculate theorems that depend on them.

    AI research also creates more and more powerful axioms. That is, a previous generation may have started with axioms A, B, and C, but current generations have found more fundamental axioms, D, E, and F which reduce A, B, and C to theorems.

    A question now appears: Is there a super-axiom that allows all of these axioms to be reduced to theorems? The answer is no. The same logic that shows that the Halting Problem can’t be solved can be used to show why the super-axiom does not exist. This distinction is essentially the same as the one between first-order and second-order logic.

    Computers cannot process second-order logical statements in the same way as first-order logical statements. Some systems are described as second-order logic processors but they work is by picking out a subset of second order propositions, reducing them to first-order propositions, and then processing them as first-order logic. This is identical to the process I mentioned with respect to the Halting Problem. Humans can identify specific traits that will/will not halt and have the computer identify those traits but the computer itself cannot generate them on its own.

    In fact, if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the point where computers break down is infinity. The halting problem deals with identifying programs that will have infinite states and second-order logic deals with propositions that require an infinite number of comparisons. As I mentioned, after humans discover truths about them, we can encode these specific truths as new axioms into the system. But computers cannot discover the truths by themselves. For instance, try to imagine how a computer program (AI or otherwise) could establish the well-ordering property of the natural numbers without using any other second-order logic operation (or even try to do so!).>>

    KF

    PS: I think the issue is, WP likely has done an update. I am not sure that such can be easily rolled back without losses. There is a whole — relevant! — theory out there that bugs are ineradicable in a sufficiently complex computational entity. Indeed there is a tradeoff where fixing bug A may create at least one other bug B and so forth. Where also, the low hanging fruit get picked first, so onward bugs tend to be increasingly intractable.

  111. 111
    bornagain77 says:

    Although the invention of the computer itself is directly linked to Turing’s desire to make Godel’s incompleteness theorem clearer and simpler, i.e. more ‘concrete’, to understand, i.e. less abstract, this is still not good enough for Viola Lee to accept the broad applicability of Godel’s proof to the physical universe at large and so he objects thusly,

    ,,, This is different than describing a real-world phenomena in which we are modeling the system mathematically to see if we have a good model, but which itself may have (almost certainly does have) properties or indeterminacies not included in our model.

    And yet Godel’s proof applies, not just to any mathematics that does not describe the universe, but also to any mathematics that may describe the universe.

    As Hawking himself reluctantly conceded,

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “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”.
    – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    In short, for Viola Lee to hold that Godel’s proof is not applicable to the universe at large is for Viola Lee to, basically, claim that the universe itself is not fully explicable to mathematics.,,, i.e. “a real-world phenomena in which we are modeling the system mathematically to see if we have a good model, but which itself may have (almost certainly does have) properties or indeterminacies not included in our model.”

    So does Viola believe that the universe is fully explicable to mathematics or does he believe there will always be “properties or indeterminacies not included in our (mathematical) model”?

    Either way, it is ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ for Viola Lee. If the universe is fully explicable to mathematics then Godel’s proof necessarily applies. If the universe is not fully explicable to mathematics then there, obviously, can never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything.

    And that is precisely my point!

    Apparently, unbeknownst to Viola Lee, Viola Lee’s objection that Godel’s proof can’t be applied to the universe at large is making my point for me that I made in the video. i.e. ‘There will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that describes all the phenomena of the universe.’

    Of course I made my point in my video because of Godel’s proof and Viola Lee is, apparently, trying to make his point in spite of Godel’s proof. But to the same conclusion is apparently being reached by both of us. i.e. There will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that describes all the phenomena of the universe.

    I’ll leave it to Viola Lee to straighten out exactly where he stands on the question of whether the universe is fully explicable to mathematics or not. But if it is, then Godel’s proof necessarily applies, and if not, then the nearly 100 year quest for a purely mathematical theory of everything has been in vain.

    It is also interesting to point out that, as an atheist, Viola Lee simply has no reason to presuppose the universe should be fully explicable to mathematics.

    Both Einstein, who discovered General Relativity, and Eugene Wigner, who’s insights into quantum mechanics continue to drive breakthroughs in quantum mechanics,,,,

    “When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena, through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”
    – Eugene Wigner – “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question,” in Symmetries and Reflections, p.171

    ,,, Both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding it as a miracle that mathematics is applicable to the universe. (Einstein even chastised ‘professional atheist’ in the process of calling it a miracle.

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 ?Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,?It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,?The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. ?http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    And the last time I checked, miracles were the sole province of God.

    mir·a·cle
    noun
    miracle; plural noun: miracles
    a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
    “the miracle of rising from the grave”

    So does Viola Lee believe the universe is fully and ‘miraculously’ explicable to mathematics or not?

    If so, then Godel’s proof necessarily applies and, as the proof in the paper I cited found, “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”, and hence the conclusion that there never will be a purely mathematical theory of everything that bridges the ‘infinite infinities’ that separate the microscopic descriptions of Quantum Mechanics to the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity is a straight forward reading of the paper I cited.

    And since Viola Lee apparently disagrees with the conclusion of the paper that I cited from Nature, then I suggest that he write one of the authors of the paper, such as Professor Wolf of Munich, and tell him exactly where he went wrong In his analysis so that Professor Wolf and his colleagues can have a chance to retract their paper from Nature.

    Or perhaps Viola Lee can just submit his own paper to Nature showing exactly where they went wrong in applying Godel’s proof to Quantum Mechanics?

    Elsewise, it is basically just Viola Lee’s word, (an internet atheist who rails against Christianity, and who self admittedly is not very well versed on Godel’s proof), against the word of a Professor’s, and his colleagues, published work in Nature.

    Viola Lee, seems, if you truly want to thoroughly refute their paper in Nature, instead of just throwing stuff on the wall on a blog to see if it sticks, then you have really got your intellectual work cut out for you.

    🙂

    Verse:

    Romans 1:22
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

  112. 112
    Viola Lee says:

    BA writes, “So does Viola believe that the universe is fully explicable to mathematics or does he believe there will always be “properties or indeterminacies not included in our (mathematical) model”?”

    Given that QM inherently involves probabilities, I don’t think a mathematical description will ever be able to fully model what is going to happen in all situations. To believe that is to believe the universe is completely deterministic, and I don’t believe that.

    BA writes, “If the universe is not fully explicable to mathematics then there, obviously, can never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything. And that is precisely my point!”

    The fact that all mathematical descriptions of the world are necessarily incomplete because of quantum probabilities doesn’t mean that there can’t be, at some point, a mathematical description that ties together the general fundamentals of QM and general relativity. However, it may be that such a formulation will never be developed because the two phenomena aren’t in fact related in such a fashion. I don’t think that it a necessary truth that the universe can be modelled by a one single mathematical theory of everything. Maybe it can’t be.

    But whatever the case, the conclusion “therefore Jesus” is the imposition of a religious belief system that is really not relevant to the situation at all.

    Also BA writes, “As an atheist, Viola Lee simply has no reason to presuppose the universe should be fully explicable to mathematics.”

    As I have pointed out several times, which BA seems to not get, there are metaphysical positions that fully accept the inherent mathematical nature of reality without there being a personal god, much less one that human beings are capable of knowing details about, much less the Christian God upon which BA builds all his beliefs.

    I’m pretty sure that BA has never displayed any curiosity about what I in fact do believe, and I’m pretty sure he actually has no interest in views others than his own. But I do object, not that it will do any good, to his simple black-and-white stereotyped dichotomies about the range of people’s religious and philosophical beliefs.

  113. 113
    kairosfocus says:

    VL (attn BA77 & Q):

    The actual abstract:

    . . . These and other problems are particular cases of the general spectral gap problem: given the Hamiltonian of a quantum many-body system, is it gapped or gapless? [–> A Hamiltonian Operator expression is “a function that is used to describe a dynamic system (such as the motion of a particle) in terms of components of momentum and coordinates of space and time and that is equal to the total energy of the system when time is not explicitly part of the function ” . . . it is one of the original keys that opened up Q-theory, it is central] Here we prove that this is an undecidable problem [–> tie to Turing and Godel]. Specifically, we construct families of quantum spin systems on a two-dimensional lattice with translationally invariant, nearest-neighbour interactions, for which the spectral gap problem is undecidable. This result extends to undecidability of other low-energy properties, such as the existence of algebraically decaying ground-state correlations. The proof combines Hamiltonian complexity techniques with aperiodic tilings, to construct a Hamiltonian whose ground state encodes the evolution of a quantum phase-estimation algorithm followed by a universal Turing machine. The spectral gap depends on the outcome of the corresponding ‘halting problem’. Our result implies that there exists no algorithm to determine whether an arbitrary model is gapped or gapless, and that there exist models for which the presence or absence of a spectral gap is independent of the axioms of mathematics.

    2020 full version at Arxiv https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04573.pdf

    KF

  114. 114
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks KF, I note that the date on the pdf is June 16, 2020, so apparently they are still going strong, and have not been refuted, 5 years since they first published their results in Nature in 2015

    Undecidability of the Spectral Gap – June 16, 2020
    Toby Cubitt, David Perez-Garcia, and Michael M. Wolf
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04573.pdf

  115. 115
    Viola Lee says:

    I see that one of the issues in this discussion is the difference between the mathematical statement of general “laws of nature” as are expressed in QM and general relativity (GR), which are generalizations, and the application of those laws to exactly predict events in the real world. The former is a map and the latter is the territory. These are not the same.

    Wigner, in his famous essay “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences”, has some interesting things to say about this.

    All these laws of nature contain, in even their remotest consequences, only a small part of our knowledge of the inanimate world. All the laws of nature are conditional statements which permit a prediction of some future events on the basis of the knowledge of the present, except that some aspects of the present state of the world, in practice the overwhelming majority of the determinants of the present state of the world, are irrelevant from the point of view of the prediction.

    It is in consonance with this, first, that the laws of nature can be used to predict future events only under exceptional circumstances when all the relevant determinants of the present state of the world are known. It is also in consonance with this that the construction of machines, the functioning of which he can foresee, constitutes the most spectacular accomplishment of the physicist. In these machines, the physicist creates a situation in which all the relevant coordinates are known so that the behavior of the machine can be predicted.

    The principal purpose of the preceding discussion is to point out that the laws of nature are all conditional statements and they relate only to a very small part of our knowledge of the world. … It should be mentioned, for the sake of accuracy, that we discovered about thirty years ago that even the conditional statements cannot be entirely precise: that the conditional statements are probability laws which enable us only to place intelligent bets on future properties of the inanimate world, based on the knowledge of the present state. They do not allow us to make categorical statements, not even categorical statements conditional on the present state of the world.

    This is the point I am making about the difference between pure mathematics and real-world phenomena. A machine, in the theoretical sense, can manifest a purely mathematical axiomatic system to the extent that “all the relevant coordinates are known so that the behavior of the machine can be predicted.” In this sense, the machine, or the laws of nature that it might model, are subject to Godel’s conclusions.

    But the real-world is not a machine, and our knowledge about it is, and can never be, comprehensive. Mathematical laws of nature, as manifestations of axiomatic systems, can never model all the relevant initial conditions of an actual situation in the real world, and thus are only abstract approximations of reality. Given that “the conditional statements (of QM) are probability laws which enable us only to place intelligent bets on future properties of the inanimate world”, the real world does not behave deterministically like a machine, so Godel’s conclusions do not apply. Things in the real world, at the level of individual quantum events, can be undecideable because the relevant initial conditions are probabilistic, not because the generalized mathematical laws of nature which we use to describe them are subject to Godel’s limitations.

  116. 116
    kairosfocus says:

    P. 7 in the 2020 version:

    >>A short version of this paper – including a statement of the main result, dis-
    cussion of its implications, an outline of the main ideas behind the proof, together
    with a sketch of the argument – was published recently in Nature [CPW15]. We
    encourage the reader to consult it in order to gain some high-level intuition about
    the full, rigorous proof given in this work.>>

  117. 117
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks KF, it appears that not only have they successfully defended their 2015 proof, but, as of 2020, they have now made it more robust.

    per wikipedia,

    Spectral gap (physics)
    In quantum mechanics, the spectral gap of a system is the energy difference between its ground state and its first excited state.[1][2] The mass gap is the spectral gap between the vacuum and the lightest particle. A Hamiltonian with a spectral gap is called a gapped Hamiltonian, and those that do not are called gapless.
    In solid-state physics, the most important spectral gap is for the many-body system of electrons in a solid material, in which case it is often known as an energy gap.
    In quantum many-body systems, ground states of gapped Hamiltonians have exponential decay of correlations.[3][4][5]
    In 2015 it was shown that the problem of determining the existence of a spectral gap is undecidable in two or more dimensions.[6][7] The authors used an aperiodic tiling of quantum Turing machines and showed that this hypothetical material becomes gapped if and only if the machine halts.[8] The one-dimensional case was also proved undecidable in 2020 by constructing a chain of interacting qudits divided into blocks that gain energy if they represent a full computation by a Turing machine, and showing that this system becomes gapped if and only if the machine does not halt.[9]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_gap_(physics)

  118. 118
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus and Bornagain77,

    Thanks for your cogent replies and excellent quotes! I’m now able to belatedly post replies again (woohoo).

    Viola Lee,
    It seems like you’re not considering a lot of relevant points in these posts–something that I’m admittedly guilty of as well. Perhaps it’s at least partly due to the sheer length of some of the posts, again something I’m guilty of creating. It might seem more productive to consider one point at a time, but the resulting downside is the proliferation of threads that are 1,000+ posts long.

    Thus, this dilemma reinforces my conviction that we’re experiencing a manifestation of the dendritic hierarchy of the levels of abstraction that’s inherent in Information. From this statement, one might recognize an analogy between the Mandelbrot set emerging from observable nature and from intellectual information. I think it’s worth thinking about. An emergent phenomenon is that ALL non-trivial true-false questions on tests are False at a sufficiently detailed level of abstraction.

    In 108, you make the following point:

    So I don’t think BA is correct when he says “the halting problem itself is proof that Godel’s incompleteness can be applied to physical systems.” A computer is a physical manifestation of a logical axiomatic system, to which Godel’s proofs apply, but that is different than saying Godel’s proofs apply to our attempts to create a mathematical model of real-world phenomena.

    I have four issues with your assertion:

    1. I don’t think it’s consistent with your previous assertions.
    2. Your assertions are unsupported in the sense that you don’t often include reasons why you believe as you do.
    3. There’s a false dichotomy between “mathematics” (which serves as models of the Logos) and “the real world.” The real world IS fundamentally Information together with Conscious Measurement approximated by mathematical abstractions from a QM perspective. Heisenberg, Vedral, and others have famously noted (a) that atoms and molecules don’t actually exist unless they’re observed, and (b) Reality is fundamentally Information and the processes in which information interacts. Are you familiar with Finite Element Analysis?
    4. Turing machines are easily created both in software (electrons acting as bits in an electronic device) and macro/physically. For example, in high school, I created a macro/physical Turing machine in cardboard that followed several rules and yes, it inevitably did “run off the tape.” In software, there are different types of bugs. One pernicious type of bug that’s hard to identify obeys all the rules but falls through the code into an unexpected error condition. These are often encountered as “occasional” or “non-reproducible” (sic) under most conditions.

    -Q

  119. 119
    bornagain77 says:

    in 112 Viola Lee states that he does not believe the universe will explicable to mathematics because,

    ,, QM inherently involves probabilities, I don’t think a mathematical description will ever be able to fully model what is going to happen in all situations. To believe that is to believe the universe is completely deterministic, and I don’t believe that.

    Yet Viola hedges his bet a bit with this,

    The fact that all mathematical descriptions of the world are necessarily incomplete because of quantum probabilities doesn’t mean that there can’t be, at some point, a mathematical description that ties together the general fundamentals of QM and general relativity.

    And just in case anyone has missed the inherent hostility that VL has towards Christianity, Viola Lee then states this,

    But whatever the case, the conclusion “therefore Jesus” is the imposition of a religious belief system that is really not relevant to the situation at all.

    Well, that’s a lot to unpack. So to get started let’s start with VL’s claim that there will never be a ‘theory of everything, (not because of the insurmountable limitation imposed by Godel that was elucidated by Wolf and company mind you), but because in VL’s view ‘QM inherently involves probabilities’

    Well,,, since probabilities are indeed amendable to mathematical analysis, (i.e. to talk about probabilities is to in fact talk about math), I don’t necessarily see that, in and of itself, as necessarily being a insurmountable roadblock to there ever being a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything.

    But what I do see as being an insurmountable roadblock to there ever being a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything is how the probabilities themselves get into quantum mechanics..

    As Steven Weinberg stated, “In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,,”

    The_Trouble_with_Quantum_Mechanics__by_Steven_Weinberg
    Excerpt: The introduction of probability into the principles of physics was disturbing to past physicists, but the trouble with quantum mechanics is not that it involves probabilities. We can live with that. The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,,
    The instrumentalist approach is a descendant of the Copenhagen interpretation, but instead of imagining a boundary beyond which reality is not described by quantum mechanics, it rejects quantum mechanics altogether as a description of reality. There is still a wave function, but it is not real like a particle or a ?eld. Instead it is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made. It seems to me that the trouble with this approach is not only that it gives up on an ancient aim of science: to say what is really going on out there. It is a surrender of a particularly unfortunate kind. In the instrumentalist approach, we have to assume, as fundamental laws of nature, the rules (such as the Born rule I mentioned earlier) for using the wave function to calculate the probabilities of various results when humans make measurements.
    Thus humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal, but I think not yet. Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement.
    I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made, because in quantum mechanics not everything can be simultaneously measured. As Werner Heisenberg realized, a particle cannot have, at the same time, both a definite position and a definite velocity. The measuring of one precludes the measuring of the other. Likewise, if we know the wave function that describes the spin of an electron we can calculate the probability that the electron would have a positive spin in the north direction if 4/8 that were measured, or the probability that the electron would have a positive spin in the east direction if that were measured, but we cannot ask about the probability of the spins being found positive in both directions because there is no state in which an electron has a definite spin in two different directions.
    https://www.coursehero.com/file/78050243/The-Trouble-with-Quantum-Mechanics-by-Steven-Weinberg-The-New-York-Review-of-Bookspdf/

    And as I pointed out in my video, Weinberg, an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and precisely because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    And as I further pointed out in my video, Zeilinger and company, as of 2018, closed the last remaining ‘free will loop hole’ in quantum mechanics,

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    Moreover, besides undermining the Darwinian worldview from within, with human observers, via their free will, now being brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level then it now becomes, at least, theoretically plausible for God, via his son Jesus Christ, to bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

    John 6:38
    because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.

    And as I also pointed out in the video, the Shroud of Turin does indeed give us empirical evidence that both quantum mechanics and General Relativity were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Thus regardless of whatever bias against Christianity Viola Lee, and other people who are hostile to Christianity, may personally have, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, especially with the closing of the last remaining free will loop hole in quantum mechanics, is indeed very much a viable option for solving the long standing mystery of the ‘theory of everything’.

    As Zeilinger noted, “the fact that some of the brightest minds in physics have been working on this issue, (i.e. The unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), for 80 years now at least, and have not found a solution means that the solution will be extremely deep. It will be extremely significant if somebody found it, and it will probably be in a direction where nobody expected it.,,,”

    Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics – video – 2018
    (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA
    15:45 min:,,, the fact that some of the brightest minds in physics have been working on this issue, (i.e. The unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), for 80 years now at least, and have not found a solution means that the solution will be extremely deep. It will be extremely significant if somebody found it, and it will probably be in a direction where nobody expected it.,,,

    And Jesus Christ rising from the dead is definitely a direction where nobody expected it.

    But regardless of whether people were looking in that direction or not, that still does not take away from the fact that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is still very much a live option and is very much a plausible solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything.

    That such a solution for the ‘theory of everything’ would even be a live option as to providing a viable solution should definitely be more than enough to raise quite a few eyebrows. i.e. How is it even remotely possible that a supposed ‘ancient myth’ of a man rising from the dead could find itself as a serious candidate to solving the most perplexing scientific problem of our day?

    And although many scientists of today, who are totally committed to the doctrine of methodological naturalism, may find this to be quite a unacceptable state of affairs in science, I am fairly certain that the many of the Christian founders of modern science themselves would be quite pleased to see that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very plausible solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.”
    (Kepler, as cited in Morris 1982, 11; see also Graves 1996, 51).

    “I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.”
    (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 404-405)
    – James_Clerk_Maxwell

    “Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.”
    (Kelvin 1871; see also Seeger 1985a, 100-101)

    Verse:

    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.

  120. 120
    bornagain77 says:

    In further solidifying Professor Wolf and company’s claim that, via Godel and Turing, “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    – per physorg

    ,,, In further solidifying that claim, it is interesting to note how the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics have thus far failed to account macroscopic descriptions of the universe.

    In inflation theory it is held that “(inflation cosmology) explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe.”

    Inflation (cosmology)
    Excerpt: explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe.
    – per wikipedia

    Inflation theory was postulated to try to solve the The Monopole Problem, The Flatness Problem,
    and The Horizon Problem.

    Inflation: Status Update – Sabine Hossenfelder – March 08, 2019
    Excerpt: The currently most popular theory for the early universe is called “inflation”. According to inflation, the universe once underwent a phase in which volumes of space increased exponentially in time. This rapid expansion then stopped in an event called “reheating,” at which the particles of the standard model were produced. After this, particle physics continues the familiar way.
    Inflation was originally invented to solve several finetuning problems.,,,
    1. The Monopole Problem
    Guth invented inflation to solve the “monopole problem.” If the early universe underwent a phase-transition, for example because the symmetry of grand unification was broken – then topological defects, like monopoles, should have been produced abundantly. We do not, however, see any of them. Inflation dilutes the density of monopoles (and other worries) so that it’s unlikely we’ll ever encounter one.
    But a plausible explanation for why we don’t see any monopoles is that there aren’t any. We don’t know there is any grand symmetry that was broken in the early universe, or if there is, we don’t know when it was broken, or if the breaking produced any defects. Indeed, all searchers for evidence of grand symmetry – mostly via proton decay – turned out negative.,,,
    2. The Flatness Problem
    The flatness problem is a finetuning problem. The universe currently seems to be almost flat, or if it has curvature, then that curvature must be very small. The contribution of curvature to the dynamics of the universe however increases in relevance relative to that of matter. This means if the curvature density parameter is small today, it must have been even smaller in the past.,,,
    3. The Horizon Problem
    The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost at the same temperature in all directions. Problem is, if you trace back the origin the background radiation without inflation, then you find that the radiation that reached us from different directions was never in causal contact with each other. Why then does it have the same temperature in all directions?,,,
    Ever since the results of the Planck in 2013 it hasn’t looked good for inflation. After the results appeared, Anna Ijjas, Paul Steinhardt, and Avi Loeb argued in a series of papers that the models of inflation which are compatible with the data themselves require finetuning, and therefore bring back the problem they were meant to solve. They popularized their argument in a 2017 article in Scientific American, provocatively titled “Pop Goes the Universe.”,,,
    http://backreaction.blogspot.c.....tific.html

    Yet the “Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region” predict none of these properties.

    As Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, stated, “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace”

    Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation – 25 September 2014
    Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous,,,
    Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems.
    Meet the multiverse
    Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true.
    “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace
    Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. “So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing,” he says. “I think it’s telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it’s going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn’t.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....CajrGl0y00

    And in 2017 Steinhardt and company further explained, “…inflation continues eternally, generating an infinite number of patches where inflation has ended, each creating a universe unto itself…(t)he worrisome implication is that the cosmological properties of each patch differ because of the inherent randomizing effect of quantum fluctuations…The result is what cosmologists call the multiverse. Because every patch can have any physically conceivable properties, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has the very special conditions that we observe—they are purely accidental features of our particular patch.”,,,
    the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.”

    Pop Goes The Universe – Scientific American – January 2017 – Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb
    Excerpt: “If anything, the Planck data disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe… (i)n the years since, more precise data gathered by the Planck satellite and other instruments have made the case only stronger……The Planck satellite results—a combination of an unexpectedly small (few percent) deviation from perfect scale invariance in the pattern of hot and colds spots in the CMB and the failure to detect cosmic gravitational waves—are stunning. For the first time in more than 30 years, the simplest inflationary models, including those described in standard textbooks, are strongly disfavored by observations.”
    “Two improbable criteria have to be satisfied for inflation to start. First, shortly after the big bang, there has to be a patch of space where the quantum fluctuations of spacetime have died down and the space is well described by Einstein’s classical equations of general relativity; second, the patch of space must be flat enough and have a smooth enough distribution of energy that the inflation energy can grow to dominate all other forms of energy. Several theoretical estimates of the probability of finding a patch with these characteristics just after the big bang suggest that it is more difficult than finding a snowy mountain equipped with a ski lift and well-maintained ski slopes in the middle of a desert.”
    “More important, if it were easy to find a patch emerging from the big bang that is flat and smooth enough to start inflation, then inflation would not be needed in the first place. Recall that the entire motivation for introducing it was to explain how the visible universe came to have these properties; if starting inflation requires those same properties, with the only difference being that a smaller patch of space is needed, that is hardly progress.”
    “…inflation continues eternally, generating an infinite number of patches where inflation has ended, each creating a universe unto itself…(t)he worrisome implication is that the cosmological properties of each patch differ because of the inherent randomizing effect of quantum fluctuations…The result is what cosmologists call the multiverse. Because every patch can have any physically conceivable properties, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has the very special conditions that we observe—they are purely accidental features of our particular patch.”
    “We would like to suggest “multimess” as a more apt term to describe the unresolved outcome of eternal inflation, whether it consists of an infinite multitude of patches with randomly distributed properties or a quantum mess. From our perspective, it makes no difference which description is correct. Either way, the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.”
    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf

    As should be obvious, the failure of inflation theory, (via ‘quantum fluctuations’ generating an infinitude of universes with differing properties), to predict the specific macroscopic properties of our observable universe is a fairly clear example that brings Wolf and company main point home, i.e. “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    And whereas inflation theory has utterly failed to predict exactly why our universe has the specific macroscopic properties that it does, namely, why the universe is as flat as it is and why the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost at the same temperature in all directions,,, Whereas inflation theory has utterly failed in that endeavor, on the other hand Christian Theism ‘predicted those exact macroscopic properties for our universe thousands of years before those macroscopic properties of our universe were even discovered by modern science.

    As to ‘the flatness problem’, the following quote gives us a clue as to just how bad the ‘flatness problem’ is for atheistic astrophysicists to try to ‘explain away’,

    “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness.”
    – John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang

    In fact, “for it (the universe) to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
    In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.”

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation.
    And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across.
    The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today.
    But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,,
    We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,,
    Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
    In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.
    – per physorg

    And whereas this ‘insane coincidence’ of 1 in 10^57 flatness was not predicted by inflation theory, (indeed it is a thorn in the side of inflation theory), thousands of years before this exceptional flatness of the universe was discovered, the Bible, on the other hand, is on record as to ‘predicting’ this ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being exceedingly flat:

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation??Tell me, if you understand.?Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!?Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    Moreover, without some remarkable degree of exceptional, and stable, flatness for the universe, (as well as exceptional stability for all the other constants), Euclidean (3-Dimensional) geometry would not be applicable to our world. or to the universe at large, and this would make modern science, and engineering, for humans, for all practical purposes, all but impossible.

    Why We Need Cosmic Inflation
    By Paul Sutter, Astrophysicist | October 22, 2018
    Excerpt: As best as we can measure, the geometry of our universe appears to be perfectly, totally, ever-so-boringly flat. On large, cosmic scales, parallel lines stay parallel forever, interior angles of triangles add up to 180 degrees, and so on. All the rules of Euclidean geometry that you learned in high school apply.
    But there’s no reason for our universe to be flat. At large scales it could’ve had any old curvature it wanted. Our cosmos could’ve been shaped like a giant, multidimensional beach ball, or a horse-riding saddle. But, no, it picked flat.
    https://www.space.com/42202-why-we-need-cosmic-inflation.html

    Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006
    Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.”?The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,,?The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed.
    http://www.space.com/2613-scie.....-laws.html

    This is certainly very suggestive to the fact that the universe was specifically designed for intelligent creatures, such as ourselves, to be able to use and grow in their mathematical abilities.

    Likewise, the Horizon Problem, the fact that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost at the same temperature in all directions, a problem which inflation theory has failed to ‘explain away’ much less ‘predict’,,, as the following article explains, ““On the face of it, inflation is a totally bonkers idea – it replaces a coincidence with a completely nonsensical vision of what the early universe was like,”

    Space is all the same temperature. Coincidence?
    Distant patches of the universe should never have come into contact. So how come they’re all just as hot as each other? – 26 October 2016
    Excerpt: THE temperature of the cosmic microwave background – the radiation bathing all of space – is remarkably uniform. It varies by less than 0.001 degrees from a chilly 2.725 kelvin.
    But while that might seem natural enough, this consistency is a real puzzle. For two widely separated areas of the cosmos to reach thermal equilibrium, heat needs enough time to travel from one to the other. Even if this happens at the speed of light, the universe is just too young for this to have happened.
    Cosmologists try to explain this uniformity using the hypothesis known as inflation. It replaces the simple idea of a big bang with one in which there was also a moment of exponential expansion. This sudden, faster-than-light increase in the size of the universe allows it to have started off smaller than an atom, when it would have had plenty of time to equalise its temperature.
    “On the face of it, inflation is a totally bonkers idea – it replaces a coincidence with a completely nonsensical vision of what the early universe was like,” says Andrew Pontzen at University College London.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230970-900-cosmic-coincidences-everythings-at-the-same-temperature/

    While inflation theory has failed to explain exactly why the Cosmic Background radiation is “remarkably uniform” in all directions that we look, the Bible, on the other hand, thousands of years before it was discovered by modern science, predicted the universe to be “remarkably uniform” in all directions that we may look,

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,??

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    Thus, whereas cosmologist, (who try to explain why the universe is the way it is without any reference to God), have, at every turn, been stymied in their attempts to extrapolate the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics to explain the macroscopic structures of the universe, the Christian Theist, on the other hand, can take assurance in the fact that the Bible predicted these macroscopic structures of the universe thousands of years before these macroscopic structures were even discovered by modern science.

    I would call those some pretty amazing fulfilled predictions for modern science coming from a book that many atheists try to claim to be nothing but a book of myths.

    Quotes and Verse:

    “My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
    – Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    – Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    – Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000),

    “The question of ‘the beginning’ is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians…there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing”
    – George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.189., Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

    “Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”?
    – Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – ‘God and the Astronomers’ – Pg.15 – 2000??

    “The Bible is frequently dismissed as being anti-scientific because it makes no predictions. Oh no, that is incorrect. It makes a brilliant prediction. For centuries it has been saying there was a beginning. And if scientists had taken that a bit more seriously they might have discovered evidence for a beginning a lot earlier than they did.”
    John Lennox? – Science Is Impossible Without God – video?

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Leave a Reply