Are Changes Brewing and How Does the Mind Fit In?
by BradfordSometimes plugs can be appreciated by more than plumbers. I found this to be the case with NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND. There are attention grabbing comments like this one:
The mind has played a role in physics since the earliest days of quantum physics. The Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927 featured a debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein about whether the mind and consciousness are (Bohr) or are not (Einstein) part of physics. Einstein's position has dominated mainstream physics for decades, but the battle simmered on for the entire twentieth century.
And questions like these:
How many phenomena of new physics does it take to break the standard model?
Are we really getting closer to a theory of everything by reducing our understanding to strings as physics' smallest pieces?
Can psychologists', mathematicians', and physicists' longstanding p-adic models of thought be brought into modern physics?
What optimal mix of new physics phenomena and p-adic models of consciousness have created holistic models of new physics and the mind, the 21st century's theory of everything?
Raw meat for a crowd of TT commenters with answers.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Bradford:
LOL!!! But I'm a vegetarian, Bradford!
But yeah, I've been following Matti's always expanding theoretical applications for a decade. Which doesn't mean I understand the details, of course. Using p-adic mathematics does get around some issues with the inventive (but not necessarily revealing) 'standard' maths with imaginary, irrational and all other sort of made-up numbers/values. The p-adic primes themselves encompass infinities that have served to distort more standard ToEs (and have to be factored out by fiat via "renormalization"). Which even the brightest mathematicians admit is cheating.
Anyway, Matti's blog is TGD Diary. Now I'm going to have to look at Sidharth's quantum black holes (an idea I encountered back in the '70s but generally rejected by gatekeepers due to implications) too. Must put Paster's book on my wish list.
< sigh > When will I ever win that darned lottery I don't play, so I can afford stuff I want? §;o)
Comment by Joy — February 12, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Joy:
I'm at the part of the learning curve reserved for beginers when it comes to quantum physics and its relationship to issues discussed at TT. Nevertheless it is intriguing. It looks like you are in the Niels Bohr camp with regard to whether the mind and consciousness are part of physics. Would that be accurate?
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Here are some comments that I made last summer that I think are relevant here:
David Chalmers wrote in his book, The Conscious Mind, that
(p101,102)
In his essay "Remarks on the Mind-Body Question" Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner writes: "it is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics [QM] in a fully consistent way without reference of the consciousness."
Expanding on the implications of Wigner's remarks, Harold Morowitz comments that it is remarkable that the scientific study QM has led to the revival of the concept of "consciousness as an ultimate reality." ("Reducing the Mind," Psychology Today, Aug 1980) This I think explains why many of the researchers of consciousness (Chalmers & Searle, for example) spend a lot of time focusing on the ontology of consciousness. Ontology, which is sometime used interchangeably with the term metaphysics, is simply a way to try to conceptualize what something really is at its most basic, fundamental or essential level.
The irony of all this is that the concept of mind and consciousness as ontologically distinct and irreducible has come out of modern physics, which in the 19th century was, without a doubt, the most reductionistic of the physical sciences.
Morowitz comments: "The founders of modern atomic theory did not start out to impose a mentalist picture on the world. Rather, they began with the opposite point of view and were forced to the present day position in order to explain experimental results."
I really like the way Morowitz concludes his article. He says that "a forceful commitment to uncritical reductionism as a solution to the problem of the mind"¦ is a dangerous view, since the way we respond to our fellow human beings is dependent on the way we conceptualize them in our theoretical foundations. If we envision our fellows solely as animals or machines, we drain our interaction of humanistic richness. If we seek our behavioral norms in the study of animal societies, we ignore those uniquely human features that so enrich our lives. Radical reductionism offers very little in the area of moral imperatives."
The bottom line, at least for the present, is that it is conceptually easier (more parsimonious) simply to conceive of mind and consciousness as a fundamental aspect of reality rather than something that emerges out of (or can be reduced to) something else. So far, at least for the present, it is the best explanation for the collapse of the wave function that has been well established in experimental studies. Any other explanation has to invoke new non-empirical (metaphysical) constructs: many worlds, retrocausality etc.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 12, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Thanks for comment John. I've been pondering a post on the subject and if I get to it your information will be helpful.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Electricians, for instance?
Comment by The Pixie — February 12, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Bradford:
Hahaha!!! Oh, heavens no! I struggle to wrap my head around stuff just like everybody else (it makes me cross-eyed!). I struggled with TGD for years before finally shrugging and taking Matti's word for it.
Though I do have some past experience in the fields of nuclear and particle physics. I desire "real answers." I like unexpected things too, have managed to encounter enough to keep me from believing too much in standard models of the ordinary. The anomalous is more surprising - thus often a lot more interesting - than the normal and mundane.
Came to the conclusion decades ago that any wannabe theory of everything that couldn't account for the anomalous as well as the mundane was probably not worth believing in. Anomalous things happen all the time. As if… as if what we consider normal and mundane (the things wannabe ToEs claim to explain) are really just habits of matter and energy that have nothing to do with "laws."
Comment by Joy — February 12, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Electricians, metaphysicians et. al. Some of the smartest people in America write ads. Maybe that explains some things.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked Joy…
Let me give you my reader's digest version.
The 1994 debate between Penrose and Hawking was thought to be the modern version of the debates between Bohr and Einstein.
Penrose is on the same side of the QM schism as Bohr was.
Hameroff/Penrose model of consciousness is on the same side of the schism as Bohr was.
Joy was the one who introduced me to the Orch OR model of consciousness.
The interesting part is examining those opposing the Bohr/Penrose view.
Hawking takes the position that deciding what is real or not is not needed to do science. Anything that predicts experimental data is good enough.
There is the Many Worlds interpretation that, to me, comes across as a last ditch effort to hang on to particles and materialism.
With Penrose, everything is part of one giant wavefunction.
Orch OR suggests our consciousness is interconnected with this universal wavefunction.
Note, I am still reluctant to overly dwell on implications that might suggest the existence of a universal consciousness.
I have a reputation to maintain, so keep it quiet, ok?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 12, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 1:16 am
John_A:
QM doesn't really require anybody to believe that wavefunctions collapse. And many quantum physicists (theoretical and experimental) don't bother. It's not necessary to consider any of the beasties in the zoo to be "real." If we knew more about time we could probably decide one way or the other. Unfortunately, we don't know much about time.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2008 @ 1:16 am
February 13th, 2008 at 1:25 am
TP:
Ahhh… didn't catch that meaning from Bradford's question. Just scanning the material, had work to do.
Orch-OR is an excellent door-opener. It will do way more than Matti's TGD (or Sidharth's quantum holes) to get the gummed-up physics works unstuck for the 21st century. Roger Penrose is a much nicer guy than Isaac Newton ever was, with the same kind of serious clout. I can't think of anyone better to open this door, show the more skeptical gatekeepers who fear what's on the other side that fear is never going to give physics the future it wants and needs.
At least it makes of consciousness a real consideration. It's been there for a hundred years, it's just that few really wanted to take it seriously. So long as the math 'worked' FAPP, nobody had to choose which side of the fence to graze (as a matter of science). Belief-in is a philosophical preference, nothing more scientific than that. Then we got the technology to test at at higher energy levels, and the math started spewing nonsense.
I'm a realist, FAPP. That doesn't mean I must believe-in Copenhagen or many worlds or any versions thereof. I don't have to believe all the beasties are "real," I never saw any conclusive evidence that they are. We don't "see" any of them, we observe the past-time tracks of their interactions. All anybody need accept is that something's interacting. "Gauge fields" of one variety or another, carrying forces of one sort or another. The interactions are complex as hell. They appear to enjoy extra degrees of freedom at scales of quantum and sub-quantum forces.
Extra degrees of freedom are basically extra dimensions. It's all real enough, FAPP. The universe moves on, the wavefunction's continual awareness of itself ticking moment to moment (whatever those are). Did I ever link you to Paola Zizzi's "Big Wow" theory? I think it's linked from Hameroff's page…
"A funny thing happened on the way to vector alignment" might be a good tale to tell someday. It never really has to collapse to a single vector - I don't think it can (unless we get an unwelcome universal phase transition like the Brookhaven critics pointed out was possible). It's all going to be dynamically balanced on the edge of chaos. "Always" being another FAPP term, depending again on what time turns out to be.
Guess what I'm saying is that there aren't just two ways to view reality - either a static "is-ness" of frozen real objects blurred by scale (and time) or a proliferating plethora of alternative realities self-generating ad infinitum (in time). It can be a process. That's why I like the multi-stage collapse notion. It can go on forever, or close enough in the 4-D world.
Consciousness can be fundamental to manifestation. It need not be reducible to or emergent from it.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2008 @ 1:25 am
February 13th, 2008 at 8:27 am
John
How do you figure it is more parsimonious to introduce an entirely quantity into our explanation of the universe as opposed to a quantity emerging from what we already know about. I would have said the reverse.
I thought you were invoking a new non-empirical construct too with this fundamental aspect of reality. Or do you have empirical evidence that consciousness is like that?
TP
How do you decide what is real?
Comment by The Pixie — February 13, 2008 @ 8:27 am
February 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Joy:
Whether or not it does or doesn't is irrelevant what happened historically in theoretical Physics. There are no doubt that historically the implications of what was really going on with waves/particles revived an interest among physicists in questions about mind and consciousness. But, I agree that some of the speculations that arise out of QM are somewhat over reaching, if not out right fanciful.
For example, in his book, The Mystery of Consciousness, John Searle makes a critique of theories of consciousness based on QM, in particular Penrose's hypothesis. He writes:
""¦at this point any account of consciousness is bound to contain speculative elements. The problem with these speculations is that they do not adequately speculate on how it is even conceivable that we might solve the problem of consciousness. They are of the form: if we had a better theory of quantum mechanics and if that theory were noncomputable then maybe we could account for consciousness in a noncomputational way. But how? It is not enough to say that the mystery of consciousness might be solved if we had a quantum mechanics even more mysterious than the present one. How could it possibly work? What are the causal connections supposed to be?"
Physicist Richard Feyman once said, "anyone who claims to understand quantum theory is either lying or crazy." Penrose and Hameroff, for example, have developed an explanation for consciousness based on our current understanding of quantum mechanics; however, their hypothesis at present, in my opinion, is little more than using one kind of mystery (QM) to explain another (consciousness). In reality all you end up with are two mysteries instead of one. How crazy is that?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 13, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Pixie, you asked:
You're not a conscious, intelligent being? Do you know that you are conscious and intelligent? How can you say that consciousness is something we don't know something about? Think man, just think.
Have you read any ancient philosophy? My reading of Plato, Aristotle et al. is that they were talking about the mind 2000+ years ago. How can you describe that as new? My point was that those seeking to explain the collapse of the wave function, apart from the role of a conscious observer, often turn to equally "metaphysical" explanations. These are relatively new.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 13, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
John_A:
Yeah, well. What does "understand" mean in this instance? I figure if you can work the equation - "the math works!" - that's all the understanding you need. At least, it's all you need to be a quantum physicist. What more does anybody expect?
Interpretations to metaphysical philosophies and a priori beliefs are entirely superfluous and don't (never did) count as science. I thought we all 'understood' that.
Deal is - and it's a bit of a big deal - the math no longer works. It spews nonsense at high energy scales, "everybody knows" the theory's wrong. They've been looking for a replacement for more than 30 years. It's not going to come out of nowhere, and it's probably going to have to consider that consciousness link they couldn't successfully ignore for the whole last century. That's the breaks.
Not crazy at all. QM isn't a mystery, it's the mathematical description of how the whole thing works once the reductionists have reduced it to where they can't possibly reduce it any further. They asked for it, they got it. Why complain now?
Consciousness isn't a mystery either, even though people who appear to be conscious like to pretend it is. It's real - a simple fact of life - and we all empirically experience it directly. We may not be able to explain it adequately, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't the realest thing human beings ever encounter empirically in their lifetimes. Lots of words are misapplied whenever someone wants to obfuscate or avoid dealing with what's right there on top of the table for all to see. A quirk of consciousness, nothing more.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:53 am
John
Of course I think I am conscious and intelligent. What did I write that might suggest otherwise? And where did I say that consciousness is something we don't know something about? Read man, just read! And then think.
You are making the specific claim that consciousness is "a fundamental aspect of reality", and that this is the more parsimonious explanation. That is what I challenge, not the existence of consciousness.
Okay, scratch that. How about "unknown" instead. So now you are invoking an unknown non-empirical construct with this fundamental aspect of reality, and yet claiming parsimony (unless you have empirical evidence that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality).
Comment by The Pixie — February 14, 2008 @ 6:53 am
February 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Pixie:
Let me briefly state my POV:
In my opinion, there are 3 major questions that any kind of naturalism or materialism cannot presently resolve:
1. What is the cause of the universe?
2. What is the cause of life?
3. What is the cause of mind and consciousness?
At least "˜classical atheism' as espoused by Bertrand Russell and others seemed to be somewhat reasonable. One could attribute aseity or "˜self-existence' to space-time, matter-energy and the universe as a whole. If the universe was infinite and eternal it could be then argued that it is the cause of all finite and contingent being; or perhaps more accurately all that has ever existed is an eternal regress of natural causes. It appears; however, that the "˜Big Bang' has caused something of a metaphysical bottleneck that limits this kind of natural causal nexus. Whatever caused the universe, it now appears, must, at least, in some sense transcend the universe both spatially and temporally. An infinite regress is no longer an easy, simple, or adequate explanation. It can no longer be argued that matter and energy are eternal. What caused or existed before the universe is, at least for the present, appears to be empirically an open question.
The simpler and, in my view, better explanation is that a mind or intelligence is the self-existing (or ontologically self-contained) thing that transcends the universe. It exists because it has always existed. It's not much more complicated than that. I think Billy Ockham would have been pleased.
David Chalmers in his book, The Conscious Mind, argues that consciousness can be conceived of ontologically the same way that we conceive of space-time and matter- energy; as something that is ontologically, or conceptually, irreducible and basic. However, I part company with Chalmers when he starts speculating about pan psychism. I don't think thermostats or toasters are conscious.
On the other hand, the result of experiments like the classic double slit experiment strongly suggest that consciousness plays a fundamental role in our understanding of physical systems at their most basic level. It appears, for example, that conscious observation has an effect on subatomic particles (causes the collapse of the wave function, for example) and, furthermore, this property appears to a property of matter that existed even before conscious beings (animals, people and ET's?)existed. Many modern physicists are absolutely convinced of this.
Once again to quote Morowitz: "The founders of modern atomic theory did not start out to impose a mentalist picture on the world. Rather, they began with the opposite point of view and were forced to the present day position in order to explain experimental results."
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 14, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
JAD:
Sounds like nonsense to me. So before conscious beings existed, what caused wave function collapse? Can we detect consciousness this way? "Aha, the wave function didn't collapse, she must be unconscious."
Comment by Raevmo — February 14, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Raevmo to John:
As I mentioned, it doesn't have to (finally) collapse if more than 4 dimensions are involved. Sort of a post-Bohmian view with de Broglie overtones - an ongoing incremental phase transition or vector alignment, depending on whether you're talking wave or particle behaviors. The choice to talk about waves or particles determines the labels, just as the choice of which to measure determines the form.
Much of high-end theoretics in particle physics (under the umbrella of RQFT), does grudgingly accept the Aspect falsification of Bell's inequality theorem - thus the actuality of quantum non-locality (a.k.a. entanglement). They've formulated the idea of instantaneous exchange of force particles - hidden variables - that lets them salvage belief-in determinism. Naming them doesn't make them any less hidden, it just lets them talk about their hidden variables as if they were in plain sight.
The non-deterministic aspects of quantum mechanics don't make it an "incomplete theory." Reality might just be that way, and the hidden variable (or one of them) might be consciousness. It could be that the interpretations of quantum mechanics make it seem incomplete. There may be no final collapsed state and no infinitely self-generating multiverse - just an ongoing process and relative degrees of ability to consciously experience and control it.
So it sure seems premature to rule out the existence of such mechanism(s) at this stage of the investigation, and even more premature to rule out the existence of a fundamental (parameter, force or law) that expresses through a mechanism.
Comment by Joy — February 14, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Hi John
Oh to be a theologist, and you can answer al the hard questions with "God did it".
What changed that caused this eternal intelligence to create the universe? It had already existed for eternity; why the sudden desire to create a universe? Bear in mind that by the time of the Big Bang this eternal intelligence had already had an infinite number of thoughts. It must have reached the decision to create the universe an infinite number of times before it actually did so - or not at all. There is a problem with the infinite creating the finite.
Can you talk me though this. Thinking about Schrodinger's cat (radioactive decay -> detector -> poison -> cat -> observer), why do you think wave collapse does not happen at the detector or with the cat? If consciousness is a fundamental property of nature, then why should we not think the cat is conscious? Suppose we use an ant instead of a cat, is that conscious enough to collapse wavefunctions? How about a mushroom? How about that detector again? At what point is an embryo/foetus/baby/child conscious enough to effect quantum collapse? Is there a sudden event when a baby becomes conscious? Are there any observations that might support that claim? The whole idea that consciousness causes quantum collapse raises a whole raft of new quiestions. That does not make it wrong, but claims of parsimony seem unjustified.
So in what sense is this property the same as what you or I know as consciousness? For me consciousness implies subjectivity and awareness, and I cannot see how that can be true of a property of matter that predates animals. You seem to be arguing that consciousness is required for quantum collapse, but conscious beings are not, which appears to be an inherent contradiction. If you do not need conscious beings for quantum collapse, that would suggest - going back to Schrodinger's cat - that it could well happen at the detector. So now we have eliminated consciousness from the experiment!
Comment by The Pixie — February 15, 2008 @ 7:31 am
February 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Or simply be someone who is honest enough to admit that science has limits which do not allow for empirical resolutions of the questions posed.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 7:40 am
February 15th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I will happily admit that science may not be able to answer the questions. How can you be so (dogmatically) sure it cannot?
Comment by The Pixie — February 15, 2008 @ 8:37 am
February 15th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Hi Pixie,
While I would tend to agree with your general assessment of Bradford's stubbornness, in this case Bradford did add the qualifier "presently".
For what it is worth.
P.S. I just noticed Bradford said "…science has limits which do not allow for empirical resolutions".
I should get back to work.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 15, 2008 @ 10:45 am
February 15th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Pixie wrote:
Name me a modern theologian (theologist?) other than some screwball fundamentalist who answers the "hard questions" with "God did it" Is that something you actually heard or read or is it the way you think theologians, and people like me who are interested in theology, think?
Consider this quote by John Gribbin from his book, In Search of Schrodinger's Cat:
Gribben goes on in the next chapter to describe the Many Worlds Interpretation. This is the one that he apparently prefers.
Notice how Gribben begins: "By definition, the universe is self-contained. It includes everything, so there is no outside observer who notices the universe and therefore collapses its web of inter-acting alterative realities into one wave function." But consider another possibility. There is an eternally existing omniscient outside observer. Wouldn't that solve many of the issues that Gribben has raised? In my mind it would also be a more parsimonious answer.
BTW I don't know whether or not this particular interpretation is correct but scientists like Gribben do. He writes: "So not only is the Copenhagen interpretation fully vindicated for all practical purposes by experiments, it looks as if there are developments in store far beyond those that quantum mechanics has already given us"¦'
As Joy has pointed out there are other ways to look at this puzzle.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 15, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
TP:
Remember my concept of scientific limits TP. The limit of science is determined by reliable predictions that flow from it. Reliability can vary with time.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Pixie wrote:
You seem to be trying to make an argument similar to the Kalam cosmological argument championed by William Lane Craig. His argument can be summarized as follows:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
I have always thought this was a somewhat superfluous argument. I realize that when we consider something like infinity we run into all kinds of paradoxes, both mathematical and metaphysical. But what is the alternative? That the universe just began without a cause? Something came from nothing uncaused? To me that way of thinking is more problematic than the paradoxes caused the idea of an actual infinity.
Craig runs into a problem when he tries to argue against a temporal infinity but the tries to reintroduce the concept of an ontological infinity, God, who is the cause of both space and time. But then, maybe I don't really understand his argument.
Frankly, in my opinion, the finite human mind simply cannot comprehend the infinite. However, I can comprehend the idea that as far back as I can think in time I can conceive of something existing before that. Furthermore, an always existing something is not only a rational concept it is an ontologically basic one. It's nonsense to ask what existed before an always something. The answer is obvious. Nothing.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 15, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
John
Ah, I should have said theist. Yes, I am sure a theologian who want more of an answer. So now I am curious. Do you think theologian can presently resolve those three questions? The way yopu said "In my opinion, there are 3 major questions that any kind of naturalism or materialism cannot presently resolve" suggests you believe other philosophies can resolve those questions. Why single out naturalism or materialism otherwise?
No, invoking a new, unknown entity is the antithesis of parsimony!
And if we go back to Schodinger's cat, you are again removing the quantum collapse from the (mortal) observer. You seem to start by claiming that quantum collapse is caused by the conscious observer, and end up saying actually it is not!
Sure, I have my favourite, but it is all up in the air.
Well, yes, we just using it to prove opposites.
I have no problem with that. There is some evidence that the universe adds up to nothing - negative and positive charges cancel each other, matter and anti-matter cancel, negative (potential) energy cancels positive energy. Maybe the universe is an example of nothing coming from nothing. Quantum fluctuations are a known example of an uncaused effect. So, yes, a universe without a cause coming from nothing.
Comment by The Pixie — February 15, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Pixie,
Aren't you then invoking an unknown? How could you ever prove to skeptic like me that the universe came into being uncaused from nothing? Lot of things are possible; for example there is nothing impossible about the idea that unicorns really exist. But to believe that they really exist without any evidence requires a leap of faith. Other ideas like 5 + 11=17 are assertible or sayable but unprovable. They require a leap of both faith and logic. IOW there is no possible world where 5 + 11=17. IMO your claim that something can come into existence uncaused from absolute nothing falls into this latter category.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 16, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Mere desperation, John. We all choose what to believe. An uncaused universe of nothing coming from nothing for no reason is no doubt comforting to some (narcissists, nihilists, maybe some other 'ism' out there). But one could legitimately wonder how come they want everybody else to believe it too, since it makes no sense at all.
Comment by Joy — February 16, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Hi John Designer,
I'll apologize up front for beating my OMA/NOMA drum again but it goes right to the point, IMO.
Unlike Theism, Atheism doesn't lend itself to an absolute statement. Even Dawkins admits it is possible God exists (just as it is possible fairies exist at the bottom of gardens).
Once a theist decides God absolutely does exists (for whatever reason) then if he/she embraces OMA, the game is over. GodDidIt is the simplest scientific explanation for all things.
However, if a theist like Ken Miller embraces NOMA, then scientific exploration can continue as it has.
Logical arguments can be made that a complete explanation is unknowable. Not just forever unknown, but actually unknowable (see Kurt Gödel)
If you insist on rejecting NOMA, we can have a very lively discussion on your logic and proof for your single, OMA Truth for us all, but don't expect special treatment for religious beliefs.
If you embrace NOMA, we can still have a lively scientific discussion along with lively philosophical discussions but agree to keep them separated and respect that no one knows the Truth.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 16, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
TP:
God did it is no more scientific than natural forces did it. There is a lack of causal specificity in both statements. IDists share this much in common with Dawkins. Both sides believe scientific data can be used to support their respective beliefs. When you write "Even Dawkins admits it is possible God exists" you are noting a throw away line used to shore up one's backside from logical assaults. He may say that but everyone knows he no more allows for its possibility than the apostle Paul allowed for Christianity being a sham. In Paul's case he wrote somewhere in the NT that (paraphrasing) if Christ did not rise from the dead then our faith is useless and we are the most pathetic of people. He used the conditional which one could argue (like Dawkins) allows for the possibility. Incidentally if you wish to stoke the culture war flames keep inserting those fairy comments. You're sending the clear (although somewhat camoflauged message) that our metaphysics is more real than yours.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Hi Bradford,
Your reaction is interesting on multiple levels, starting with the appearance the you are violently agreeing with my point.
Faries existing at the bottom of gardens came from Dawkins' book which is why I mentioned it when discussing Dawkins' stated position.
Dawkins rejects NOMA loudly and clearly. As you indicated, it is obvious the ID Movement also rejects NOMA.
At least until political and legal ramifications start to come into play.
Walt Brown (see http://www.creationscience.com) rejects NOMA and is clearly trying to use scientific data in support of his belief.
If you want to do the same thing, great. Shield bash all you want. Yell and scream that science is incapable of solving the OOL puzzle. You can even refuse to suggest mechanisms and hypotheses.
However, don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously if and when you try to claim your version of ID is not about religion, because it's apparent that it is.
It is obvious you believe your "metaphysics is more real" than mine because, philosophically, I believe I don't know the Truth.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 16, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Distinguish between shield bashing and warring for your cultural side.
You can discount something I say about OOL or any other scientifically linked topic when I delink my arguments from scientific data. Until then my biases no more negate my views than do the biases of PZ Myers and Dawkins negate theirs.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Hi Bradford,
You requested that I…
Warring for your culture side is when you argue why your side is right.
Shield bashing is when you argue the other side is wrong by framing them as the aggressors.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 16, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Thanks for that clarification TP.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Hi, Thought Provoker. You said
Yes, this is an intriguing position, since it would carry little force if Dawkins didn't realize full well that the overwhelming majority of theists don't accept the proposition that there are fairies dwelling at the bottom of gardens.
Earlier in this thread, you said
Would that mean you were teetering on the verge of acknowledging fairies at the bottom of gardens? (Didn't think so.)
And please rest assured that your willingness to consider "a universal consciousness" nicely supports any pre-existing reputation you might have as a seeker after the truth (to the extent that we are able to discern it).
Comment by Lutepisc — February 16, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 2:22 am
Joy,
It seems to me that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Renormalization group (RG) is a mathematical formalism that constrains a physical theory near a scale-invariant fixed point. Its applicability to physics has been thoroughly tested in the realm of condensed-matter (CM) physics, where scale invariance arises naturally near critical points. Note that in CM we know the physics at the (high-energy) lattice scale and so we can test whether this physics is important to the (low-energy) behavior near a critical point. The answer is it isn't. Ising ferromagnets on the square, triangular, hexagonal and other lattices exhibit the same critical behavior, so RG is well regarded and completely noncontroversial.
Likewise, in particle physics it does not matter how divergences are regularized at high energies (something we don't know for sure). Renormalization-group mathematics tells us that it doesn't matter. One can formulate a perfectly sensible theory that deals just with the low-energy sector and one can test its predictions, which agree with experiments very well. Ponder the accuracy of QED. Are we completely satisfied with this situation? Not quite (hence string theory), but having good answers for our low-energy physics is much better than having no answers at all. Consciousness involvement at high energies is, as far as I understand, is pure speculation. There's not even anything approaching a theory in this direction.
And I don't think particle theorists have any grudge towards Aspect's results: relativistic QFT is fully compatible with the standard QM: as Dirac famously said, QFT is a marriage between QM and relativity. QM does have a problem with general relativity (GR) in the sense that GR is nonrenormalizable. But that has nothing to do with quantum nonlocality or Aspect's experiments. And consciousness isn't likely to solve that problem. String theory is a much more likely candidate for that, warts and all.
Comment by olegt — February 17, 2008 @ 2:22 am
February 17th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Hi Olegt,
I am glad you decided to join us.
You wrote to Joy…
What gave you the first clue? Was it when she said…
"Hahaha!!! Oh, heavens no! I struggle to wrap my head around stuff just like everybody else (it makes me cross-eyed!)."
While I am encouraged that you took the effort, I hope it isn't your intent to simply antagonise people with your superior knowledge.
I know it takes a lot of patience and requires ignoring the insults and assults to the ego, but you may find that a couple of people around here are actually interested in learning. Please, count me as one of those.
I take it that you don't consider Penrose's ideas (and those who agree with him) as "approaching a theory in this direction".
And what do you think of Penrose's Twister Theory?
I suggest the fact that "QM does have a problem with general relativity' means there is a problem. Is there any doubt about the reality of general relativity?
Penrose brings QM and GR together. In the other thread at AtBC you seem to indicate that Penrose's ideas concerning quantum gravity might be true but unnecessary because current QM models are good enough.
I argue current QM models aren't good enough if they have a problem with GR.
Thank you again for your participation. I look forward to your response.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 17, 2008 @ 11:26 am
February 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am
olegt:
This is not my thread, so the behavior of this 'gator in his very first post to the forum can be preserved for posterity. I'll consider it a reminder of why we don't invite these creatures to cross our threshold.
To the rest of Swampy's display of hormonal overload:
a) Never said they did.
b) I know.
c) Sure it does.
d) It's called "Unitary Crisis."
I did not invent it. Strings can't cure it unless they somehow become scientific (and pass the tests).
Have fun, TP. You're the one who asked for it.
Comment by Joy — February 17, 2008 @ 11:46 am
February 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hi Joy,
I know, I know.
This wouldn't be the first time I have had to struggle with getting what I asked for.
I thank you for your restraint.
P.S. I wouldn't mind a little help now and then though.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 17, 2008 @ 11:49 am
February 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hi All,
A couple of pieces of information from Penrose's The Road to Reality.
pages 902 and 903
Penrose is noted for being one of the few physicists who challenge the string theory.
If I understand correctly, Penrose's answer focuses on more holistically unifying different aspects of reality. From Chapter 33 of Penrose's book (where he describes his Twister Theory)…
page 958.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 17, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Your first trip to the plate comes with that preface. It added nothing to the substance of your comment.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Hi TP,
Twistor calculus is a set of mathematical tools, just like algebra or field theory. It can be useful in physics, but so far no one has built a theory of quantum gravity on its basis. The problem is not the lack of right mathematics, it's the lack of physical principles around which a theory could be built. (An example of that would be axioms of Einstein's special relativity: all inertial reference frames are equivalent, speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer or source etc.)
The unsatisfactory situation wherein quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible with each other is not likely to be fixed in the near future. Not because we are lacking in intellectual power but simply because there are no experiments that would involve both quantum mechanics and gravity. We can't smash particles at Planck's energy and won't be able anytime soon. Experience shows that one can't build a physical theory from scratch, one needs lots of hints from experiments and with quantum gravity we're just out of luck.
If you are interested in quantum decoherence, forget quantum gravity and twistors. Understanding of this phenomenon will come from experiments conducted in the areas of atomic physics (supercold atoms) and condensed matter (electrons in quantum dots).
Comment by olegt — February 17, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
John
We do not know what caused the universe, so any theory of what caused the universe muyst necessarily be invoking an unknown. However, quantum fluctuations are know, so this is not as radically unknown as a supposed intelligent creator entity.
I am only suggesting this as a possibility, not as Truth. I think belieiving in a intelligent creator entity requires a leap of faith.
Opinion noted. When you have the slightest evidence for your intelligent creator entity let me known.
You might like to look at this web page, by the way:
http://www.colorado.edu/philos...
Bradford
What? There is a "lack of causal specificity" in the latter statement because of the way you made the statement; not because of any lack in science. IDists (creationists to be more accurate) say God did it, and leave it at that. Scientists say natural forces did it, then do the science to support the claim.
Comment by The Pixie — February 17, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Hi Olegt,
Thank you for your reply. You wrote…
Some more from Penrose's The Road to Reality…
All these ideas concentrate on the construction of notions of 'spacetime' that take on aspects of discreteness or 'quantum' characteristics of some kind. In the remainder of this chapter I shall describe a quite different family of ideas, namely those of twister theory (to which I have, myself, now devoted over 40 years!) in which there is no discreteness specifically imposed upon spacetume. Instead, spacetime points are deposed from their primary role in physical theory.
…
Another guiding principle behind twistor theory is quantum non-locality. We recall from the strange EPR effects discussed in [sections 23.3-6], and more specifically from the role of 'quanglement'…
The twistor description of spacetime indeed turns out to be a non-local one; moreover, there is a fundamentally 'holistic' character to the twistor description of physical fields
…
We shall also begin to see how twistor theory finds a remarkable and unexpected deep relation to general relativity, and that it provides an intriguing perspective on QFT, particle physics, and the possible non-linear generalization of quantum mechanics.
How do these ideas indeed begin to come together in twistor theory? As a first step towards the understanding of twister ideas, we may think of a twistor as representing a light ray in ordinary (Minkowski) spacetime. One can regard such a light ray as providing the primitive 'causal link' between a pair of events (i.e. of spacetime points).pages 692 to 694
My version is that all quantum effects are interconnected via spacetime because the path lengths of light rays are ZERO.
I think Penrose is offering a fundamental insight into the reality of both large and small physics. A holistic, unified explanation of GR and QM.
One of the things I have mentioned to ID proponents is the propensity of complicating things more than they have to be. I consider this a form of confirmation bias and protection. For example, sometimes it seems like Bradford practically lives on the complexity of OOL research.
Excuse me for pointing out how you appear to be doing something similar. Your default QM answer is incomplete, but rather than explore a more understandable and complete answer, you are hanging your hat on a presumption that as long as you can't be proven wrong "anytime soon" we should follow the herd.
As you are aware, Penrose et al are proposing the FELIX experiment. Here is a link to Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror
And while I wouldn't be surprised if you felt the experiment would be insufficient to get you to separate from the pack, I am curious as to what you dislike about Penrose's theory.
Let me clue you in on something I probably mentioned before. I have two levels of interest. First, I am interested in understanding Penrose's theory, right or wrong.
So, therefore, I would welcome any suggestions on where I am misunderstanding Penrose.
I would also be interested in understanding how the Many World's interpretation makes sense, but no one seems to want to defend it past "it works as well as any other interpretation". To which I ask if the same is true of the GodDoesIt quantum interpretation?
The second level would be to understand the weakness of Penrose's logic.
I do not consider Penrose's deviation from "standard QM" to be a weakness.
Everyday computers and appliances using QM are just around the corner. My engineering instincts tell me that the PhD types are making this more complicated than it needs to be. The answer is staring us in the face.
What is the answer?
I think Penrose is on the right path, but many physicists are resisting it because of the uncomfortable implications. Especially in the area of bioquantum mechanics.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 17, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
TP:
TP, I'd like to see Penrose enjoy success with his theory but it seems to me that olegt is pointing to some very real experimental problems not likely to be resolved any time soon. I wish I were in a better position to evaluate conflicting claims but I at least think I get the gist of olegt's point.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
God did it is no more scientific than natural forces did it. There is a lack of causal specificity in both statements. IDists share this much in common with Dawkins. Both sides believe scientific data can be used to support their respective beliefs.
I chose my words carefully. I did not mention a particular natural force or a specific mechanism. The phrase "natural forces," when not detailed, does lack causal specificity although it suffices as a philosophical belief.
That canard gets tiresome. You can do better.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Bradford:
Perhaps oleg simply wishes to point out that his preferred alternative (strings, I presume he has a favorite among the many) is as untestable as OR, even though it multiplies the unknowns in a most non-occam-like way. Penrose has a single operator (so does Matti, but he's got more dimensions to transition through).
Fortunately for Penrose, the biophysical application - Orch-OR - is testable and some of that has been going on, not all of it proprietary. Each technical development or test sets the stage for more to test. It is much less difficult to construct designed analogues of molecular structures (or work with the molecular structures themselves) than it is to measure Planck level separations in spacetime or gravitons that collapse them.
It might boil down to a situation where "know thyself" will eventually allow us to know the universe. Seems fairly apropos to me.
Comment by Joy — February 17, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Of course you do.
Both you and Olegt are presuming that your respective fields of interest are so complicated that they won't be resolved any time soon.
Now, I happen to think in Olegt's case it might be a matter of job security assuming this is the Olegt who we are talking to. If I were him, I wouldn't be overly eager to embrace a radical departure from standard QM either.
Allow me to expand on Joy's comment.
Penrose is very much the mathematician. I can almost tell that black holes became real to him in 1965. He didn't need tangible evidence, he had all the evidence he needed in his mathematical models. It all made too much sense.
However, there were a lot of people refusing to accept it without verification. I understand that this type of mentality is the main reason neither Penrose nor Hawking have received a Nobel Prize.
It's not enough to be right.
Penrose knows that QM is non-algorithmic because he knows nature is inherently non-algorithmic. He sees it in Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorms. Penrose figured out the ultimate solution to the non-periodic tiling puzzle which Penrose indicates can't be solved algorithmically.
Penrose started the Twister Theory in 1967. I can all but see his thought process. Like Black Holes, Penrose doesn't need tangible proof. To him, the twistor theory is real. He has worked it out. It makes sense except for one thing, the roll of consciousness. In 1989, he starts working on that and suggests, somehow, someway, consciousness is directly coupled with quantum mechanics.
Meanwhile, the real reality starts catching up. It looks like Black Holes are real. Penrose's Tilings shows up in nature as quasicrystals. A Dr. Hameroff suggests microtubules act like quantum computers inside neurons. Libet demonstrates hard-to-explain timing of consciousness (hard to explain if consciousness is just an unconnected classical Turing machine).
What is going to happen going forward?
We are getting better at keeping things in superposition. We are developing techniques to isolate and hold states of coherence. Even if Penrose's FELIX experiment doesn't directly test it, eventually coherent limits will be found. Penrose knows the limit is tied to Planck's constant of the form E ≈ h/t with E being self gravitational energy due to the superposition separation.
However, there will still be those who will reject it waiting for their favorite (but incomplete) explanation to be proven wrong in some high energy, high cost experiment.
And when biologists determine that life makes extensive and direct use of Quantum Mechanics in things like photosynthesis and DNA processes, there will still be people coming up with strained explanations for Libet's data.
So, as the old song says, the beat goes on.
"¦and so will the dueling metaphysics.
Someday, people will pick up Penrose's The Road to Reality and wonder how this guy made such lucky guesses. Either that, or wonder why so few people listened to him.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 17, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
February 18th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Bradford
It sounds like you chose your words carefully to give the impression science is as vacuous as creationism, when the reality is that science has a vast body of knowledge behind the phrase "natural forces did it" and creationism has zero behind "God did it"
Labelling it a "canard" does not make it so. And it was you who said there is a lack of causal specificity in the "God did it" statement. Objecting to an argument because it is tiresome really is not convincing.
TP
I would have thought that a radical departure (assuming it is a better model) would be welcomed as an oppurtunity for a scientist to make a name for himself.
Comment by The Pixie — February 18, 2008 @ 5:00 am
February 18th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Science has limits. Everyone is aware of benefits that have resulted from scientific progress. The science backed up by a great deal of knowledge is science that shows us how chemicals react and why. The vacuousness of scientism is indicated by those who take organic chemistry well beyond where knowledge is supportive and attempt to make it indicate something about how life came to be without the evidence to back it up.
The canard lies in your claim that IDists say God did it and leave it at that. This is clearly a lie. Is that what Mike said in The Design Matrix? Which TTer says God did it and there is nothing more to discuss?
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2008 @ 8:05 am
February 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Hello, TP.
Once again, twistors are, first and foremost, a mathematical tool. The simplest, though imprecise analogy would be vectors. Vectors are convenient mathematical objects that are extremely handy in classical mechanics and electromagnetism. Vector algebra greatly simplifies the mathematical notation and incorporates the rotational symmetry of our 3-dimensional world into a physical theory (or 4-dimensional Minkowski space in special relativity). However, vector algebra on its own does not equate with a physical theory. One must observe the dynamics of physical objects to infer Newton's 2nd law, F = ma.
Likewise, the mathematics of twistors provides some interesting clues about the structure of a physical theory. Unfortunately, the idea is based solely on math and that is usually not enough to guess the entire physical theory. Twistors aren't real objects. Just like integers, vectors and geometrical shapes, they're mathematical abstractions. Black holes, on the other hands, are real: they can be and have been observed, albeit indirectly (see Sagitarius-A*).
String theory suffers from the same problem: it's a mathematical framework, not a physical theory, akin to the quantum field theory (QFT). The QFT is the mathematics of point-like objects (particles) in a Euclidean or Minkwoski space. It is applicable to a variety of physical systems: quantum electrodynamics (electrons plus photons), quantum chromodynamics (quarks plus gluons), ferromagnets near a critical point (spins) and even finance (derivative pricing). But QFT on its own does not describe any physical system. Same with string theory.
Since both twistors and strings are mathematical tools, one shouldn't think that they are at odds with each other. Proof to the contrary is a recent (2003) work of Ed Witten in which he used twistor math to solve certain problems in string theory. Here's Penrose's take on it: Strings with a twist.
Lastly, I find the conspiracy theory about my preference for the Copenhagen interpretation mildly amusing. As I said elsewhere, for all practical purposes all of the current interpretations of QM give the same results, and that is applicable to my work. When I calculate expectation values of certain quantum observables, it does not matter which interpretation of QM I use. I can announce that I am a hard-core Penrosian today at lunch and none of my colleagues will care. So don't worry, my job is secure regardless of where I stand with respect to Penrose.
Comment by olegt — February 18, 2008 @ 11:40 am
February 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Bradford
Then please do not claim that science is lacking causal specificity with the statement "natural forces did it".
Abiogenesis is an active research area, with real scientists doing real science. I would agree that at best they will only find out how it could have happened, but that is a lot more science than IDists are doing at the moment.
First off, if we are talking about ID, we really mean "the designer did it". I am only half way through the Design Matrix; I have not found anything there to suggest what further research will be done once design has been confirmed. What areas do you think will become opened to science? Are IDists going to investigate the nature and purpose of the designer?
Many people claim ID is already science (Mike of course is not one of them), and many are convinced there is already enough evidence of design. I wonder what new science they are doing.
Comment by The Pixie — February 18, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
February 18th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Why distort what I actually said? What I said was not that science is lacking causal specificity but rather "God did it is no more scientific than natural forces did it. There is a lack of causal specificity in both statements." Once you attach a specific valid biochemical pathway in place of natural forces you have a scientific statement. Until you do something similar you have naturalism. There is a difference between science and a philosophy. Are you aware of that?
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
February 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Hey Pixie:
I have an honest question. Can science come to the conclusion that Abiogensis is beyond the power of natural forces or is this conclusion impossible for science to make?
I'm not saying that we are at that point but suppose in a thousand years we still haven't been able to indentify a sufficiently plausible path way. What then?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 18, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
February 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Hi oleg,
Thank you for responding. You wrote…
Please excuse my provocation. I was hoping you would react the way you did. I think it helps to clear out potential obstacles for an open discussion.
For my part, I am earnestly interested in looking for holes in my understanding of Penrose's ideas and/or holes in Penrose's logic.
For example, you have mentioned twice now that "…twistors are, first and foremost, a mathematical tool." I am not disagreeing with this statement. However, I think Penrose's translation of mathematical models into reality is a little stronger than what you are implying. I suggest Penrose felt Black Holes were real long before any tangible evidence was found. I could easily be wrong on my understanding of Penrose but in the 1994 debate Stephen Hawking seemed to be critising Penrose's fixation on worrying about what is real or not.
I suggest you are doing something similar by implying that any mathematical model is just as good as another as long as it matches specific observations in specific fields of study.
I could be convinced that Penrose is wrong but, frankly, his holistic approach makes a lot of sense to me. Even if it causes him to have to make way-out hypotheses about the role of consciousness to make the model complete. Reality has to be real for all situations, not just QM or GR or the macro FAPP world.
That being said, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH for providing the Penrose link….
"The geometrical correspondence between twistor space and the four-real-dimensional space-time of special relativity means that twistor space now does double duty: it simultaneously supplies the needs of both the Calabi-Yau spaces and space-time itself. Accordingly, the strings now become complex curves — Riemann surfaces, to be specific — in twistor space!
The development of these ideas is due mostly to Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, who has been the main driving force behind new directions in string theory since the late 1980s. It seems to me that there are some striking developments coming from this new approach, and it will be exciting to see how far these ideas can be extended towards a comprehensive physical theory with something serious to say about quantum gravity.
Twistor theory has been around for a little over four decades now. Like string theory, it has had more impact on pure mathematics than on clear-cut physical results, but as the string theorists begin to take it up it may just be coming into its own as a physical theory. And, since fully fledged twistor theory calls for just three space dimensions and one time dimension, the first result of this emerging union may well be that those extra dimensions of string theory slip quietly away." link
So now that you provided Penrose's positive argument, why aren't you a "hard-core Penrosian" What is wrong with Penrose's logic?
A lack of experimental evidence is one thing. But why treat a model with clear holes as being equivalent to a model that doesn't have holes?
Even Joy was voiced reservations about the leap of faith in Penrose's quantum gravity but, if I understand correctly, there isn't anything absolutely preventing it from being correct.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 18, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
February 18th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
TP wrote:
The problem that I have with the people that preach NOMA such a S. J. Gould (and you) is that they are among the first ones to violate it. Gould's book, Wonderful Life, is a prime example of this. I don't see how anyone, with philosophy 101 background, can conclude that Gould isn't involved in a lot of philosophical (metaphysical) speculation, if not pontification, in this book. Isn't the argument that the evolution of life is non teleological a metaphysical one? Isn't that the claim Gould is making in his book? Doesn't that violate NOMA?
Bradford is the sponsor of this thread. He didn't stipulate any where that anyone had to adhere to any kind of NOMA standard. Did he ask you to start policing this thread? Does the topic really lend itself to any kind of adherence to NOMA? IMO it doesn't.
Is NOMA now the official standard of Telic Thoughts? If it is, when did that happen? What is the definition of Telic? Doesn't it have something to do with teleology? (It does.) How could you empirically prove something is or isn't teleological?
I've tried my best to play by the rules and keep the thread on subject. Why are you trying to derail it? If the topic is not your "cup of tea" why don't try another topic or go someplace else? To me that seems to be the ethical thing to do.
Anyone who has participated in a discussion with you over the past year knows what you think about NOMA. We have all heard over and over again and again. It's one thing to present it as a topic for discussion it's another to continually preach and pontificate about it. I don't know about anyone else but I for one am getting a little tired of this neo authoritarian NOMA nonsense. Please realize other people, besides you, are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.
Did you read Athony Flew's latest book (see below for title). He quoted Socrates who was willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. I believe in an eternally existing transcendent intelligence because at the present it is the best explanation of the evidence(comparing all points of view) as we presently know it. I am certainly willing to change my POV if new evidence requires it. You can't IMO get much more open minded than that.
(Sorry if this comment has been some what blunt. I tried my best to restrain any unnecessary negative feelings and to be as polite as possible. I sincerely hope it has come across that way.)
Pixie wrote:
A t the beginning of our discussion I wrote;
We certainly know that intelligence exists. We (you, me, other humans) are, afterall, are intelligent. Didn't you say this? So, intelligence as a causal agent is something we know at least something about.
I would strongly disagree that there isn't any evidence supporting my position. Former atheist Anthony Flew would certainly agree. That is the argument that he makes in his latest book, There Is a God: How the Worlds Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind. Have you read it?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 18, 2008 @ 1:42 pm