Interest in Quantum Consciousness
by MikeGeneThe following essay was written by Thought Provoker and the views/arguments contained within do not necessarily reflect the views of Mike Gene. Mike Gene hosts such essays simply to provoke thought and promote discussion and communication.
My daughter is well on her way to getting a PhD. She casually mentioned my interest in Libet and Orch OR to one of her mentors. He asked for more informations. Here is the letter I am sending to him…
Dr. [name withheld],
[My daughter] tells me that you are interested in hearing about the subject of my internet debates concerning the timing and source of consciousness. If you want to simply jump into the deep-end of the pool take a look at www.hameroff.com and start reading Dr. Hameroff's numerous publications. However, if you want a less abrupt introduction, I will attempt to give you the benefit of my general understanding.
Dr. Hameroff is a sixty year old Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona where he is the Director for the Center of Consciousness Studies. Dr. Hameroff indicates he has always been interested in the study of consciousness and that was the main reason he studied Anesthesiology. He figured the best way to understand consciousness was to study the details of what causes unconsciousness. It was this line of investigation that led him to suspect that the microtubules in neurons had a key role in consciousness.
In 1982 Stuart Hameroff, along with R.C. Watt, presented a paper titled Information Processing in Microtubules where they laid out how the tubulin dimers that make up microtubules can act like on/off bits in a computer. This wasn't exactly a new idea, other people had considered the possibility that a cell's cytoskeleton (which is made up of microtubules and actin filaments) might act as a kind of nervous system for the cell. However, Hameroff was going beyond that to suggest that not only does anesthesia disrupt the tubulin processing but that the processing is quantum, not classical. Bluntly put, Hameroff is suggesting that each neuron contain multiple quantum computers working in concert to give rise to consciousness.
Hameroff has an anesthesiologist background; Watt came from the department of Electrical Engineering. These are hardly the credentials needed to be taken seriously in the field of Quantum Mechanics. Besides, all they were saying at this point was that the brain has significantly more processing power than generally thought. Instead of a processing bit per neuron, Hameroff was suggesting a processing bit per tubulin.
Enter Sir Roger Penrose.
Roger Penrose worked with Stephen Hawking (the guy in the wheelchair) in mathematically modeling Black Holes. Penrose and Hawking are peers from different schools of thought that trace their roots back to Bohr and Einstein. Penrose and Hawking have jointly written at least one book and held a debate in 1994 which was hyped as the modern equivalent of the old Bohr/Einstein debates. The debate was generally about what are fundamentally real foundations verses what are simply observations yet to be understood.
In Quantum Mechanics several things show a dual nature. For example, light can be thought of as both photons and light waves. There are many more startling examples of this, including a single particle being in two places at one time. There are mathematical models that explain this and modern physicists no longer hesitate of talk about superposition (two quantum states existing simultaneously) and Qbits (quantum bits that are both "1" and "0").
Bohr, Penrose and most adherents to the Copenhagen School generally consider the dual nature to be fundamentally real. The term "waveform collapse" is used to describe the event of multiple states resulting in a single observed state. The general thought was that the collapse was caused by the observation and that the final state was random (constrained by permissible states). Einstein and Schrödinger were on the opposite side of the debate. It was in this context that Einstein exclaimed "God doesn't play dice." Einstein was convinced that, like Newtonian Physics, Quantum Physics had to be deterministic. The general argument was that a more complete quantum theory would be figured out someday and it would provide a logical explanation for the observations. Schrödinger posed a thought experiment for the purpose of challenging the Copenhagen School. If a cat's life was directly tied to a quantum effect in superposition, would the cat be both alive and dead at the same time? Schrödinger eventually regretted posing this intractable puzzle since it plagued physicists on both sides. Schrödinger's Cat was very much a relevant topic in the 1994 Penrose/Hawking debate (although Hawking tried to downplay its significance).
Penrose has developed a Copenhagen like hypothesis he calls Objective Reduction. However, rather than multiple waveforms collapsing he suggests that the universe is one large wavefunction in four dimensional space-time and quantum states are exposed parts of this single wavefunction.
By now, you might be asking what all of this has to do with consciousness.
While Penrose worked out quite a bit including gravity and general quantum theory, there was still the "measurement problem" of Quantum Mechanics. This plays into the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment. Penrose had an answer to why large things don't appear in superposition (the more the mass, the faster to Objective Reduction (OR) due to gravitational energy), but he didn't have a ready answer for why observations caused OR. What interconnects observations to Quantum Mechanics? Could it be the consciousness of the observer?
Penrose is very much the mathematician. Not only does he mathematically model Black Holes, he solves extremely difficult math puzzles in his spare time. In the 1960's it was mathematically proven that you could tile a surface without having the pattern ever repeat. They called it non-periodic tiling and the race was on to figure out who could find the least number of tile shapes that could be used for non-periodic tiling. The number started out with over 20,000 tile shapes which was quickly reduced to 104. In 1974, Penrose had reduced it to six tile shapes. Shortly after that, he identified non-periodic tiling was possible with just two tile shapes.
Penrose maintains that his solution to non-periodic tiling could not have been found via an algorithmic process. Ergo, his brain is not an algorithmic computer. He formalized this by claiming strict algorithmic artificial intelligence (Strong AI) was impossible. Penrose wrote several books that revolved around this theme. He also generalized that the quantum wavefunction is not algorithmic. So even if "God doesn't play dice" quantum effects are not deterministic, in the sense that it isn't a lack of knowledge that is preventing us from being able to fully characterize them, quantum effects can't be fully characterized, period.
Since Quantum Mechanics is the only known source of non-algorithmic information, Penrose suggested that consciousness must be directly linked to Quantum Mechanics. Penrose wrote The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind. These books caught the attention of Dr. Hameroff and in 1992, the two of them started collaborating on a model of consciousness based on Orchestrated Objective Reduction.
An interesting piece of evidence Penrose offers is that the timing of OR events is based on the gravitational energy inherent in mass. According to Penrose, it follows the equation of E=h/t where E is the gravitational energy and h is plank's constant and t is the time of self OR collapse. It turns out that the mass of roughly 1011 tublins would result in OR event taking 25 ms. This would correspond to the gamma brain wave frequency of 40 Hz which Hameroff offers corresponds well with attention and consciousness.
This completed the circle. Conscious observations cause quantum OR because consciousness is directly connected with the orchestrated, interconnected quantum effects that occur in our universe.
Enter Benjamin Libet and his consciousness studies.
You may have heard of Libet since his experimental data has caused quite a bit of a shake up in your field. As far as I know, Libet was never directly involved with either Penrose or Hameroff. However, Hameroff has referenced Libet's work quite a bit. If I understand correctly, Libet has shown there is up to a half a second of "readiness potential" prior to a conscious recognition of an event. I understand this was very unexpected to Libet and others in the field. The delay is significant enough to make it difficult to explain everyday activities like hitting a fast ball or playing professional tennis.
One explanation is to say that we fool ourselves into thinking we are making conscious decisions in these circumstances. Another is to argue that we can consciously veto automated responses. I won't dwell on all the alternatives because I am sure you have better access to the appropriate information than I. Hameroff offers that the Orch OR model provides a simple answer. The "readiness potential" of consciousness is direct evidence of quantum processing in action. Orchestrated quantum effects are all in super position sorting out all the possibilities until that system collapses into the final state and a final conscious decision.
I recommend Hameroff's paper Consciousness, neurobiology and quantum mechanics: The case for a connection. It provides a fairly readable explanation of all of this.
Arguments against Orch OR generally focus on Penrose's timing calculations and the perceived difficulties of having quantum processing occurring in a warm, wet and noisy environment like a brain. Penrose's timing explanation makes sense to me and most of the arguments against it are either simple incredulity or suggesting it isn't universally accepted (which it isn't). Penrose has indicated that while he may have doubts about microtubules, he is convinced that he is right on the basic physics. I am not in a position to effectively argue that Penrose doesn't know what he is talking about. Dr. Hameroff provides his rebuttals of the warm, wet brain argument in the above paper and in other papers available on his web site.
As you can imagine, this sounds too close to mysticism for a lot of people. In fact, the route I took to come to understand occured while I was chasing down the details of the religiously motivation Intelligent Design Movement. If you didn't hear about it, there was a trial in Dover Pennsylvania late in 2005. It centered on the actions of a religiously motivated school board and a book that was clearly about creation science relabeled as "Intelligent Design". I found the trial interesting and was intrigued by hints of the possibility that a scientific argument could be made in support of Intelligent Design. Since I like a good argument and this had learning potential, I investigated further.
I ended up at a web site called www.TelicThoughts.com. While a lot of the blog's participants are clearly religiously motivated the blog is above average in tolerating contrary, anti-religious opinions like mine. One of the blog's moderators steered me to Hameroff's web site.
If you go to dfcord.blogspot.com you will find this letter (with names removed) posted with links to the various web sites and other details I mentioned.
Feel free to leave anonymous comments or questions there. Alternatively, you can contact me at dfcord (at) hotmail.com.
Thank you for your interest, I hope this has been informative.
Regards,
[name withheld]
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Thank you Mike.
I welcome any questions anyone might have on this.
(other than the identities of the people involved)
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 2, 2008 @ 10:19 am
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
"As you can imagine, this sounds too close to mysticism for a lot of people."
Heh, heh. Who's afraid of the big bad mysticism? People are funny.
At any rate, TP's letter is concise and well written.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 2, 2008 @ 11:54 am
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Thank You Kornbelt
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 2, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
TP, I notice you attract many more responses when commenters are free to verbally assault you.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Hi Bradford,
I take it you have been listening in on my AtBC thread.
Here is the link for anyone else who wants to listen in.
It is a little rough, but not as bad as I had expected. For a while there, I thought they were going to pull the plug on me.
If the worse thing I have to put up with is a discussion as to whether or not I meet the diagnosable requirement for narcissism, I'm not too worried.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 2, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
TP
Good Lord! That was ten minutes of my life that I will never get back.
Comment by chunkdz — February 2, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Thought Provoker, thanks for all the elbow grease you've put into this synopsis. It helps me get the lay of the land for Orch OR, and gives me hope that I might understand it if I keep working at it.
I do sense some promise there…but I also hafta admit that I don't believe I have a good grasp of the science.
I'll keep trying, and count on you to keep communicating.
Comment by Lutepisc — February 2, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Ouch! In the full of oneself category, that crew certainly gives you a run for your money.
Double ouch; hey, I resemble that remark! [AtBC] a greater bunch of asshats I've never seen. Having fun, TP?
Took me twenty! I need a shower.
Comment by Rob R. — February 2, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Which reminds me of a question forTP… What's in it for you? Follow-up: What are you trying to convince them of?
Comment by Joy — February 2, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
It was a trip to the dark side. They personify misery. What happens after the bar closes? Alcohol is a depressant is it not?
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Hi Joy,
My motivation has multiple aspects.
1. Test the strength of my own convictions.
2. Motivate myself to verify and reverify things I think I understand.
3. Provoke independent thinking
4. Reinforce the concept they will lose a Culture War standoff.
5. Engage in a little testosterone induced activity.
Joy, I would think by now you would recognize stupid male chest thumping.
Besides, it was the fair thing to do after the "Is this Inference Sound, thread".
And I did learn a few things.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 2, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 am
Here is the updated reader's digest version…
1. 4D spacetime geometry is more realistic that Euclidian Geometry
- Minkowskian geometry for flat
- Schwarzschild geometry for curved
- True 4D, not 3D plus time (no absolute time)
- Experimentally shown, GPS satelites constantly reconfirm it
2. There are different path lengths in 4D spacetime
- Twin Paradox is a geometry problem, one twin takes a short cut
- Path length for light is always ZERO
- Entire universe is directly interconnected via null cone
- Other names for null cone is "light cone" or "null geodesic"
3. Quantum Entanglement occurs in spacetime geometry
- Same reality, same geometry
- Quantum information can't result in causal paradox
- Time travel is not a problem for Quantum information flow
- All quantum effects are interconnected in space and time
- Explains quantum experimental results
4. Consciousness is directly connected to all quantum effects
- Quantum Mechanics is source of non-algorithmic processing
- Evidence exists that life uses quantum processing
- Provides explaination for quantum 'measurement problem'
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 1:03 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 am
Hi TP,
The fourth dimension being time, yes?
What does 'no absolute time' mean here in the context of a 'more realistic 4D space/time geometry'? The satellites confirm time dilation, yes? How/why are you linking them?
So, time is simply a measurement of distance[s travelled]? I always get lost right about here [definition of time and/or causality]. A paradox, I aways like to think, means a fundamental error in our thinking, hypotheses and/or theories. In other words, paradoxes don't exist other then as a way to tell us we've got something (fundamentally) wrong. Either that or time is real and it runs straight and forward, and only that way. (unless something has no mass… I guess,. . . see already lost.)
Two places at the same time and instantanious communication (regardless of distance) are paradoxes, no?
Forward only though (for anything with mass), yes? How does this explain anything with respect to origins (at any level)?
Since the inflationary epoch as I understand it. But, what does that mean/tell us?
How so? Is this where retrocausality is inferred? How does that work?
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — February 3, 2008 @ 2:32 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
One of the key elements of the Hameroff/Penrose hypothesis is that there is quantum coherence in the microtubules of neurons and glia. Most scientists have been skeptical about this because in the warm, wet environment of the brain it is thought that decoherence would be high, preventing such coherence.
However, I just ran across a report on research into photosynthesis from last year that may add some credence to this. These scientitist are looking for explanations for the near perfect conversion of light into chemical energy found in photosynthesis. What they found in their experiment was the presence of quantum coherence for longer periods than would be expected.
Now these experiments were done at low temperatures where decoherence is minimized. They plan to raise the temperature to see what happens. If, however, coherence at higher temperatures is maintained, it might mean that there can be quantum coherence in organic systems. If this coherence turns out to be the reason for the high efficiency in photosynthesis, since it occurs in plants, it would be an example of quantum coherence in organic systems at environmental temperatures.
Comment by Steve Petermann — February 3, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
"Alcohol is a depressant is it not?"
It's definitely a sedative for me. But I've never ever been depressed while drinking.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 3, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Hi Rob R,
Thank you for your interest.
You asked…
Yes, but let me provide some further explanation.
In 2D the path length meets the following…
dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2
Where dl is the a path segment and dx and dy are the coordinate segments in the "x" dimension and the "y" dimension. It can be thought of as another way of expressing the Pythagorean theorem.
In 3D the path length meets…
dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
In 4D the path length meets…
dl^2 = dw^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
Nothing overly tricky so far. The tricky part is accepting that there is nothing special about w, x, y and z being complex numbers. Complex numbers are readily used by mathematicians, physicists and even electrical engineers. As an electrical engineer I see a sine wave as having a constant value with real and imaginary components which rotates. What is thought of as the real component and what is thought of as the imaginary component is mostly arbitrary. The sine wave's imaginary component is a cosine wave (just a shifted sine wave).
What makes the time dimension different from the space dimensions is the orientation of the complex components. Time could be thought of as having a SQRT(-1) factor. If dw = SQRT(-1) * dt then the path length becomes…
dl^2 = – dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
The SQRT(-1) squared is -1. Good so far?
Even here you can see that traveling at the speed of light through spacetime results in a dl of ZERO. However, things become easier to reconcile with experimental data if you orient the complex components so that time has the real component. In this orientation the space dimensions have the SQRT(-1) factor.
By convention (at least Roger Penrose's convention) we use "ds" in the place of "dl" when we do this. The result is…
ds^2 = dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2
Where ds corresponds to the path lengths through spacetime that are measurable by a clock. In 4D spacetime, clocks are the equivalent of a distance measuring device (like the wheel policemen use to measure skid marks).
Notice that we are dealing with time as just another dimension. Would you be confused by the thought that there was no absolute "Z" value that all things shared? Most people think of spacetime as simply 3D Euclidean geometry clicking by frame by frame like a movie. I'm suggesting that isn't true 4D geometry and doesn't match experimental data.
The GPS satellites confirm time dilation, but which clock exhibits the dilation?
The GPS clock or the earth bound clock?
It is obvious that a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is moving faster than a earth-bound clock in relationship to a non-rotating earth frame of reference. Think of the merry-go-round. The horses on the outside track move faster.
So the GPS clock would be the equivalent of the traveling twin in the Twin Paradox who doesn't age as quickly. The GPS clock should be running slower.
But it doesn't. It is the earth bound clock that runs slower.
Why? Because the curvature in the 4D spacetime geometry is greater for the earth bound clock sitting further inside the gravity well than the GPS clock.
While it is hard to show this in the Cartesian coordinates of (t, x, y and z) it could be done. But converting it to Polar coordinates makes it so much easier. When converted to polar coordinates the previous equation becomes"¦
ds^2 = dt^2 – (r*dθ)^2 – (r*sinθ*dΦ)^2 – dr^2
Again, this is something that is more readily accepted by someone with an Electrical Engineering background. Converting from Cartesian to Polar and back again is something I have had to do countless times in college and at work.
Now adding the curvature parameter Gtt results in…
ds^2 = Gtt*dt^2 – (r*dθ)^2 – (r*sinθ*dΦ)^2 – dr^2 / Gtt
The sharper the curve, the smaller the Gtt.
And using insight provided by Schwarzschild and others…
Gtt = 1 – 2 * G * M / r
"¦where M is mass and G is the gravitational constant.
With this equation we know the path taken through 4D spacetime by both clocks. Comparing the clocks on the GPS satellites with the clocks on Earth constantly confirm the 4D geometry of spacetime.
The "paradox" in the Twin's Paradox is in choosing which frame of reference to use. If you use the homebound twin's reference, the answer is that the traveling twin experiences time dilation. But if you use the traveling twin's reference, the simple answer would be the opposite. Thus the paradox. If the frame of reference isn't supposed to matter, why does it?
Now, Keiths and Zachiel and a whole lot of other people will provide lots of handwaving explanations that include references to acceleration and/or changing inertial frames. However, I consider this just a reluctance to give up on Newtonian Physics and its Euclidean geometry way of looking at things.
The answer is simple, with no paradox. The traveling twin takes a shortcut in 4D spacetime.
When you think you are sitting still, you are actually moving in time dimension.
If you think you are sitting still in an area of curved space, you travel a slight dz (down) for every dt. That is why you are a little like the traveling twin even though you are Earth-bound.
It's all just geometry. Granted, it's four dimensional, complex geometry, but still just geometry.
These things are paradoxes to the classical way of thinking. Going forward and backwards in the dimension of time is no more paradoxical that being able to go North and South, it all just geometry.
Classical information and classical communication is what appears to be restricted. The ability to kill your ancestors presents an intractable logic problem. We, therefore, presume that isn't possible which I agree is appropriate.
But in QM experiments it looks like these types of causal paradoxes can't happen. The reason we think Quantum Physics is "weird" is because we try to look at it in classical terms. Are you thinking particles are solid? Why? There is no problem with waves being in multiple places at the same time. And when you recognize the geometry of our universe provides for path lengths of ZERO then the idea that all quantum effects are directly interconnected isn't a problem.
The problem is our trying to reconcile it with our "weird" view that matter is solid and we exist in a 3 dimensional universe where time is absolute and the same for all things.
Quantum Mechanics makes perfect sense, it is the macro world that is "weird".
In you other comments, I see you are equating "quantum information" with classical information. In his book Penrose indicated his concern that many people get confused on that, I think I need to follow his lead. "Quantum entanglement" is what I mean. "Quanglement" is the term Penrose uses.
Yes, Quanglement occurs both forward and backwards in time along with between any to points in the universe.
Let me stop here because I think my explanations may cause you to modify your remaining questions.
If not, please ask them again.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
TP:
Interesting TP. Would it be accurate to state that classical roughly correlates to the macro-world and QM to the world of the sub-atomic? Are you applying QM as an explanation for the origin of novel biological systems (life itself?) precisely because causality can be traced to levels at which QM is applicable?
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Hi Bradford,
Depending on the definition of "life" I'm of the opinion that if life is considered to be a non-algorithmic process then life inherently depends on the only source of non-algorithmic processing available, Quantum Mechanics.
What defines "classical" verses quantum is destined to become one of the big questions, if it isn't already. Is concept of "classical time" all in our minds? Is it just a result of living consciousness?
Fullerines (i.e. BuckyBalls) demonstrate superposition so, no, I would not limit quantum effects to the sub-atomic. BuckyBalls are large molecules made up of 60 or 70 carbon atoms.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The reason definitions of life are not a great concern to me is that the data needed to establish a biological case for life can be made irrespective of one's definition. For example, any chemical trail must begin with establishing a plausible reason why certain organic chemicals would be present and what type of reactions would result in a subsequent causal trail leading eventually to the cellular life found on earth. Show me the trail is the operative phrase.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
We both know you wouldn't be satisfied with being shown the trail.
"Show me the evidence" is the operative phrase.
I have been asking you to show me your trail since I have been posting to Telic Thoughts.
The QM trail I am pointing to extends in both directions, forward and backward in time.
I suggest Mike Gene's Front Loading isn't limited to explaining just the past. Unless you think here and now is the ultimate culmination of the universal design, there is more.
When it is realized that all quantum effects are interconnected both in space and time for all space and all time, it becomes obvious the trail exists as a whole, not something dynamically created.
Whether the trail comes from God or just a universe being consistent with itself is a philosophical question we probably will never know. And you know my opinon on NOMA.
So if "show me the trail" is the operative phrase, that I can do.
Proving it is a whole different matter.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Show me the trail is the operative phrase.
Not so. There is no trail to follow and some critics get upset with me for pointing this out.
Fine. Show me the evidence for a causal trail.
As I've often said, the trail to life has not been pinned down to a process. Let's be honest about this and leave the question open rather than artificially closed to options.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Let's be honest about this and note that it appears you would rather leave the question open so people can freely continue to praise God for his divine gift of life.
(note to listening audience, this is from the banner on Bradford's web site)
Bradford, it's not my intent to be mean. It is my intent to help you be honest with yourself.
My way of showing you respect.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Let's be honest about this and leave the question open rather than artificially closed to options.
TP, God does not need my help on this. The question is scientifically open because we have not pinned down answers.
Good quote TP. You have successfully shown that I have metaphysical inclinations not reducible to empircal evidence. The ill kept secret is that we all do.
I am honest about both my empirically and non-empirically based beliefs. I do not pretend to be able to subject God to a laboratory analysis. OTOH, it is disingenuous to pretend that science has explained how the universe and life on earth came about in accordance with the tenets of philosophical materialism.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Hi Bradford,
Actually I had quoted your banner more for the words than an indication you were relying on the Bible.
The words seem to indicate a compelling need to find answers which I would consider the opposite of your stated desire to "leave the question open".
Finding the trail of life is easy. We are standing in the middle of it. It leads in both directions past and future.
Shall we try to figure out some possible answers by posing scientific hypotheses?
I have one, it involves recognizing the interconnectedness of all quantum effects.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 12:20 am
February 4th, 2008 at 1:45 am
TP:
My desire to leave the scientific question of life's origin open is based on lack of conclusive evidence favoring a particular theory. Given that situation leaving doors open is consistent with the spirit of free inquiry. Free inquiry should entail an open mind toward quantum effects. I do not sense that openness at AtBC. That's a very telling statement about many who critique ID.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2008 @ 1:45 am
February 4th, 2008 at 4:41 am
TP,
The two questions are unrelated, TP. People who accept the possibility of a naturalistic explanation of an OoL continue to praise God for the gift of life. The idea of an agent using (why, even creating) a natural process to achieve an end isn't exactly controversial. Finding out the cellular mechanisms of reproduction and birth didn't exactly result in theists shrugging their shoulders and regarding the process as unimportant and unrelated to God.
Whenever you do the 'TP, ministering in the name of truth and kindness' routine, I don't think I'm the only one who gets a kick out of the sheer gall. It's right up there with 'promote independent thought' on the mission statement, a line which gets followed up with passive-aggressive denunciations when people's thoughts stray off in the independent-yet-undesired direction.
But I have to credit your continued awareness-raising of QM, and the Orch-OR theory of mind in particular. After all, as a believer, I have to admire what amounts to a scientific argument for an immaterial soul. Proof of that means the culture war ends overnight.
Comment by nullasalus — February 4, 2008 @ 4:41 am
February 4th, 2008 at 8:36 am
TP, how does this show that Bradford is "relying on the Bible?" If the quote were from Macbeth, would that mean he is "relying on Shakespeare?"
I actually think it's a rather pithy quotation. Job is demanding that God give an accounting of himself, and God answers from the midst of a whirlwind. The answer is meant to clarify for Job who is "the knower" and who "the known." From the midst of the whirlwind, God turns the tables on Job, saying something like, "I make the rules; you play the game."
Job's character is unaware of his ignorance, and portrays the hubris of those who believe they are the ultimate judges and final arbiters of what is fair, proper and just in the world. God's response from the whirlwind is as jarring to us today as it was in Job's time.
It's just a little tidbit which was written about 2800 years ago. Take it or leave it. (I'm guessing you'll leave it, but why not try to understand it first?)
Comment by Lutepisc — February 4, 2008 @ 8:36 am
February 4th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Oops. Looks like I misunderstood your words, TP! Sorry!
And…well…nevermind.
Comment by Lutepisc — February 4, 2008 @ 8:42 am
February 4th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
I agree that I don't get too many accusations of being overly timid. Quite the opposite, I tend to quickly get labeled arrogant by people on both sides. I'm going to argue with you if you are suggesting that my encouraging/provoking people to clearly and ethically state their positions and defend them as some sort of passive denunciation.
I disagree with Walt Brown (www.creationscience.com) but I respect his honest efforts of independent thought. I disagree with Richard Dawkins' NOMA position, but I respect his no-nonsense arguments against it.
Are you under the mistaken impression that I WANT Orch OR to be true?
What I would want to be true is something that unquestionably takes the wind out of the sails of most organized religions.
However, even if that is the case, organized religion is so prevalent that if it comes down to a choice between believing in the divine or accepting scientific truth, the scientific truth will be discarded. Violently, if necessary (as it was in the past).
So, whether it is true or not, I argue for Orch OR because I don't like the ramifications of a Culture War stalemate.
Is that passive-aggressive enough for you?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 8:45 am
February 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
TP
What is he thinking anesthesia is? The brain keeps going under anesthetic to some extent; how could that be if the tubulin processing is disrupted? Is he saying that under anesthetic the quantum computers stop, but the classical brain (i.e., processing via the standard model) keeps going, and this is sufficient for the very basic functions?
This leads me to wonder if the classical brain is still the model for, say, the rat or ant brain. Do you, Penrose and/or Hameroff consider them to be conscious? How do their microtubules compare to human microtubules (indeed, how do the microtubules in neurons compare to microtubules in other cells)?
In this model, does an organism need a certain "critical mass" of microtubules to be conscious? Is a single microtubule, or a single neuron (with several quantum computers of course), enough to be conscious, or is this an emergent property perhaps? When does an embryo/foetus/baby become conscious?
I do not get the connect between quantum computing in microtubules and the "mysticism". I am happy with the one big wave function idea; it seems very likely to me. Why should that have any trail to God? Why should they be any special connection to quantum computers in neural microtubules that there is not in, say, a cup of hot tea?
Comment by The Pixie — February 4, 2008 @ 10:02 am
February 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Hi Pixie,
Thank you for your interest.
You asked…
It's obvious that Dr. Hameroff suspects consciousness is something more than an emergent property of an organic processing organ (i.e. the brain). You can talk to Joy about the Great Zombie debate for details. This should mean that it would be possible for a brain to continue to function but lack consciousness. This pretty much describes the effect of the kinds of anesthesia Hameroff studied and why he studies them.
Depending on your how you define consciousness, Hameroff not only thinks rats and ants are conscious, he suspects single celled organisms might be conscious too.
Hameroff was once asked "Are we to believe that carrots and rutabagas also exhibit quantum computation, or are conscious?"
His answer was, "No, we are not. Plant cells have very few microtubules (very small E); whether they have quantum isolation and quantum computation is unknown. But assuming they did, by E=h/t a carrot or rutabaga (small E, long t) might have a single, very low intensity conscious moment once per month or so." link
But like I said, this gets into how you define consciousness. There is a big difference between being minimally aware verses having the ability to question the meaning of life. I think of consciousness as being aware.
I think this is a good question.
If I understand you correctly, my usual answer is that even if a rock (or a cup of tea) is interconnected with the whole of the universe, there isn't much it can do about it. Living things are more useful for fulfilling a universal purpose if such a purpose exists. My modest philosophical suggestion is that a possible purpose of the universe is to do whatever it takes to exist and be consistent with itself.
As for God…
If God is a timeless being his view of the universe would be holistic. He would see the entire 4D spacetime geometry for all space and all time. God would create one big wavefunction "…And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Gen1:31.
And to this engineer "good" means an invention that is complete and logical (i.e. is consistent with itself).
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Hi TP,
You're welcome and thanks to you too, for the attempt at a 'for dummies' version. I'm not even at the Readers Digest level yet.
I'm with ya so far, I think. So time in your/their model isn't really time at all. Isn't that simply taking the "time" out of space/time? So there is no such thing (in your model) as "time travel" (in any direction) simply shortcuts through space?
So the GPS satellite takes a (geometric) short-cut through space or the earth bound clock is running slower? Hope that question makes some sense.
Because for the home-bound twin the short-cut was a very long one instead?
Off Topic: I've the impression that keiths isn't welcome at TT any longer. Neither is Stunney. Not that I have any say in such matters, but both of them were big reasons why I've enjoyed this blog so much, and I'd love to see them both invited back. Who's with me! Okay back to our regularly scheduled program….
But the observations/observers change with respect to those 'changing inertial frames,' no? Is it really fair to reduce those issues to mere hand waving?
But where did the travelling twin go? Some sort of sub-space? As I've said/am seeing this, it wasn't a short-cut for the home-bound twin. Did the travelling twin travel (forward) through time?
My head hurts.
So there's no/never such a thing as an inertial frame of reference (t, 0, 0, 0) outside of making an example/argument easier to understand/or compute. Correct?
North/South/East/West/Up/Down are all places I can go to. Tangible things. The future hasn't happened yet. The past is gone…. there's nothing there (stored?) for me to visit. Perhaps at a point in time in the very distant past just prior to the inflationary epoch, when the entire universe was the size of a basketball and space and time were infinitely warped, this was true. But, now? How?
How do you know this and/or why are you so comfortable with it? If these waves have little or no mass isn't just as likely that they travel at speeds which make them appear to be in several places at once but are simply travelling so fast that they confuse our ability to measure/detect them?
Now that's a weird statement. The macro world makes sense (mostly) and works with law-like non-paradoxical regularity… you… you, quantum quack.
If you're waiting on me, you're backing up. Please, continue at your leisure. Others here, I'm sure, will be able to keep up much better than I. I'll keep chugging along, trying my best – the little layman train that could.
Thanks again.
Comment by Rob R. — February 4, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
PS TP,
The Dr. you're writing to is a physicist, correct. Have you had any feedback from him on this yet? Also, In what field, if you don't mind my asking, is your daughter doing here PhD?
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — February 4, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Where is stunney? TT is pretty patient. I still see Ed Darrel post occassionally so I don't think there was any request from TT toward Keiths or stunney to not come back. But I could be wrong.
Comment by Doug — February 4, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Hi Rob R,
I'm at work so I will just handle the off topic stuff leaving the meat for when I have more time.
My daughter and her mentor are in the field of psychology, not physics.
No, my "handwaving" remark was not fair. It was intentionally provocative. Keiths reacted accordingly on AtBC. I don't know if Zachriel has seen it yet.
As far as your head hurting, join the club. It is a good indication you are on the right track.
And yes, calling me a "quantum quack" is reasonably justified (especially since I call myself that).
More later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Hi TP
You talk about microtubules in carrots. Are they different in nature to microtubules in humans, or just in number? Has anyone looked at the differents between human microtubules and chimp microtubules? Can we isolate human microtubules and use them as quantum computers our selves? Penrose and Hameroff are respected scientists, I believe, so I wonder what research are they doing to support this theory.
I thought that to, but with so many threads recently about the evils of asking for definitions I thought better of asking.
Okay, though I see nothing in your quantum claims that would connect into that.
That may be, but again I see nothing in quantum computing with microtubules that makes that more or less likely.
Comment by The Pixie — February 4, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
TP wrote:
Could you give us an example of something that is not consistent with itself?
Comment by valerie — February 4, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I'm getting behind on my responses. Please be patient, I am trying to take them in the order posted.
Hi Rob R,
Actually, I am arguing that time is IN space/time, it is other people trying to take time "out" by keeping it separated from space/time geometry. Treating time as just one of the four dimensions is truly accepting 4D space/time as reality, instead of thinking reality is some modified three dimensional Euclidean geometry with time being separate.
Your question makes sense but it appears you are confusing fast and slow clocks (understandable).
Because the traveling twin's path length is shorter (takes a short cut) the traveling twin doesn't age as fast. The traveling twin's clock runs slower compared to the other twin's clock (whose path is longer).
In the GPS situation, the earth bound clock's path is shorter (because space is curved) and, therefore, the earth bound clock runs slower.
A clock floating stationary in space away from any gravity wells travels straight along the time dimension. This clock would be traveling the longest spacetime path. No other clock will run faster. I think this is what has been referred to as "proper time".
The clock in the GPS satellite is closer to the ideal free floating clock than the clock on Earth, Therefore, the GPS clock runs closer to "proper time". The Earth-bound clock ages slower (like the traveling twin taking the shorter path). Therefore, the Earth-bound clock runs slower that the satellite clock.
Yes, the space/time path taken by the home-bound twin is longer than the traveling twin. The Twin Paradox assumes flat geometry and, therefore, ignores the curved space of gravity wells.
This isn't like falling through a wormhole. It is about measuring path lengths in 4D space time. The longer the path, the more time that shows on the path measuring device (a clock) the older the twin is. The twins start out together at one point in 4D spacetime and meet again at another point in 4D spacetime. When they compare their measuring devices one twin notes the path he traveled between the two points was shorter.
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
Is it my fault we are handicapped in this "weird" macro world? When we explore the implications a little deeper (which I hope we do), it becomes apparent that the entire giant wavefunction is fixed, not dynamic.
Think of a Mandelbrot Set. As you zoom in it looks dynamic, but it isn't. It is a fixed function (actually it is a rather simple one dimensional function that uses complex numbers).
Here is a video of a Mandelbrot Set claimed to be the size of the known universe.
That was a good observation. Joy has dropped the hint that there might be only one photon in the entire universe. It just gets around a lot.
What makes you think I am "comfortable with it" My head hurts over this too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
TP: When you think you are sitting still, you are actually moving in time dimension.
Me: So there's no/never such a thing as an inertial frame of reference (t, 0, 0, 0) outside of making an example/argument easier to understand/or compute. Correct?
Not terribly important (or cogent either, I suppose) but I was trying to understand if what you were saying is 'there's really no such thing as sitting still, it's just a way to simplify an example (e.g., the home bound twin in the Twin Paradox isn't still but it makes for an easier (less maths involved) explanation of the issues involved.'
Any better?
One other small point re: my own ignorance of the nuances:
I thought the Twin Paradox was dealt with by General Relativity not Special Relativity. The latter assuming (FAPP?) a flat space/time geometry, the former treating space/time as curved as a result of massive objects.
No?
Comment by Rob R. — February 4, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
TP,
I've obviously argued with people on TT before. I regard that as ultimately unfortunate – I'd prefer to discuss rather than argue any day of the week. But I have a feeling you either don't get what riles people, or you do but think you can textually jiu-jitsu it away. 'Encouraging people to clearly and ethically state their positions'? It's not just that you accuse people of lying and dishonesty, but your little would-be-Freud game of pretending to psychoanalyze them. You casually, innocently mention how, oh my goodness, what that person-you-disagree-with said is rather comparable to 'whack those damn monkey-gooks' WW2-era racism – it's a shame how SOME people think this way. You accuse Bradford not only of being fundamentally dishonest, but also in essence mentally ill – he's lying to himself, you see, and you just want to counsel him through the delusion. Because that's just how nice you are.
By all means, argue that if you want. But what you may think is a brilliant debating tactic is really just a sad display.
You know, there was a time where some people, dedicated to what they thought was scientific truth, were willing to stand up to the nay-sayers and finally fight back. They were eager to make a stand to the last in order to bring about a world that was in accordance with the primacy of science-driven social order, and the response was they were attacked and denounced by their truth-deniers through any means necessary, with the goal of eradicating their commitment to scientific truth. The result was, of course, their losing World War II.
(What a load, eh? It's a transparent insult, couched in dramatization. And if you came back and yelled at me for likening you to the nazis, I'd technically be able to say that I certainly did not – I referred to some people, no one in particular. Why, I merely thought the comparison was pertinent – I want only to dissuade people from such single-minded hate. But everyone would know the game I was playing. Take this lesson to heart, TP.)
and
Alright. So this isn't about you wanting Orch-OR to be true. You're just arguing for it, whether it's true or not, for political reasons. And you'd by far prefer a 'truth' that more than anything else would harm your political enemies.
Can we finally put the 'promote independent thought' canard to a rest now? Because, really, it's true only in the sense that a commercial for a presidential candidate is 'promoting independent thought'. And I say this as someone who's freaking interested in Orch-OR and quantum questions in general.
Comment by nullasalus — February 4, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Hey TP
Would this include very improbable events like the resurrection of a certain Jewish rabbi If that is what was required for the universe to be consistent with itself?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 4, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Hi Pixie,
Thanks for the comment. Sorry I took so long in responding. You got me looking into recent research and I got distracted.
You wrote…
My understanding is that the main difference is in number, but there are people here who are better at answering that than I. I wouldn't think there is any difference between human microtubules and chimp microtubules.
Some promising experiments have been done the provide evidence of non-local "entanglement" between neuron networks. Other than that, direct experimental data for quantum microtubules has yet to materialize.
Penrose is over 70, Hameroff is over 60. There are plenty of eager you scientists attempting experiments. If this was easy, there wouldn't be a debate.
I'm not sure how soon this will all come together, but if and when it does, it should make for some interesting repercussions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 12:13 am
February 5th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Hi Valerie,
You asked…
Sure…
I don't know the Truth, therefore all my statements are inaccurate.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 12:17 am
February 5th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Hi Rob R,
You wrote…
In think the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle means nothing can stay still because if it did, we would know both it's position and its momentum.
But, I have actually given this some thought. I thought what you could do to get close to standing still in space/time is vibrate at light speed. But when I thought about the shortening path lengths, that would mean standing still in spacetime meant you would be everywhere and everywhen all at once.
"Blessed are the pure in heart…"
Are you trying to provoke me to provoke Keiths and Zachriel some more?
That was a major part of our previous argument. I felt Special Relativity was a stop gap explanation until a more complete explanation came along to replace it. General Relativity could be thought of as that more complete explanation. That is when the semantic arguments start. Let me just answer your specific question with a definite "maybe".
What I can say is that Sir Roger Penrose explained, complete with charts, how the Twin Paradox (Penrose called it the Clock Paradox) is a geometry problem that is solved by understanding the path lengths of 4D Minkowskian geometry.
Penrose explained this in chapter 18 of The Road to Reality. The name of the chapter is "Minkowskian geometry".
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 12:40 am
February 5th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Be well. Be good.
Regards.
Oh, and PS,
Mike's latest blog has your name all over it. That whole beginning-from-the-end style origins thing… very retocausalityesque sounding. Have fun!
Comment by Rob R. — February 5, 2008 @ 1:25 am
February 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Not exactly on topic but check this out http://www.physorg.com/news120735315.html
Genetic 'telepathy' will the weirdness never end.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 5, 2008 @ 8:27 am
February 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
After I read what you wrote in Mike Gene's "understand the universe" thread I was tempted to forgo responding to this philosophical argument and get back to doing science but I didn't think it would be appropriate to allow potential misperceptions to linger.
However, there really shouldn't be that many people who are surprised by my honest and open opinions by now.
1. I distrust most organized religions and feel they have been, and continue to be, dangerous to society.
2. My solution is to encourage independent thinking to fight the dogmatic mindset most organized religions encourage and expect.
3. I consider Orch OR to be a "Third Choice" alternative to dogmatically believing in a divine "Designer".
I encourage, expect, provoke and, even, demand that people like Bradford stand up for what they believe in. And, yes, I very much suspect that "riles" him. That is the point. I rile Keiths, Valerie and most of the denizens of After the Bar Closes too.
Verbal conflict generally makes people uncomfortable but attempts to "discuss rather than argue" inevidably, and almost instantly, lead to Group Think. If everyone on Telic Thoughts started agreeing with Orch OR, I would quickly start arguing against it to provoke us into verifying that we aren't just agreeing to avoid conflict.
Verbal conflict is better than the alternative.
As for your violation of Godwin's law…
When I was in college we had a mandatory course called Western Culture. It was the typical Lecture Hall followed by discussion group kind of deal. One day our discussion proctor suddenly stopped in the middle of writing down important WWII points to turn around and very seriously say "I don't understand how so many Christians could follow a man like Hitler." I laughed out loud. When she looked at me puzzled, I said "Just last week, we took a test on the Christian Crusades". She turned back around and continued writing on the blackboard. I don't think she liked me very much. I probably riled her too.
Of course, this was back in the dark ages before the Religious Right started downplaying the significance of "reality-based thinking". Before preceptions changed suggesting that even though Hitler hated communism, went to mass and prayed he was actually a godless left-leaning liberal.
And even though a Christian majority elected him and bishops and future popes supported his regime and celebrated his birthday he was actually supported by atheists. And, oh yeah, there is the Hitler oath.
"I swear by God,
this holy oath,
to the Führer of the German Reich and people.
Adolf Hitler…"
link
Kind of like how some people in America proudly pledge allegiance to one nation, under God, trusting in God. It's also similar to how some people like to echo their commander and chief's call for victory in Iraq. The Nazi followers simply said "sieg hail". IMO, the popular support of Nazism was fueled by some of the same forces that fueled the majority support for a pre-emptive war in Iraq that ended up killing over 100,000 men, women and children accompanied with the practice of torture and imprisonment in secret and not-so-secret gulags.
Are you certain that America would hesitate in exterminating six million non-Christians if it was thought they were "terrorists" bent on destroying our way of life?
IMO, faith and fear make for a powerful political weapon for controlling the masses. If it takes a little verbal provocation and the risk of getting people riled up by questioning their beliefs, I suggest it is worth it.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding of whether or not my desire for provoking independent thinking is just a canard. As long as people are actively defending their beliefs and explaining their thoughts instead of dogmatically following the herd (be it political or religious) people like St. Cyril, Hitler or even godless Stalin are powerless.
I really want Bradford to defend his ideas even though I am pretty sure some of my thoughts are not in alignment with his (an understatement), as long as the thoughts are out in the open.
BTW, you have my compliments in your courage to express your beliefs even though some of them aren't in alignment with mine.
Meanwhile, I hope we can get back to discussing science. I am looking forward to catching up with comments and participating in Mike Gene's new thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
When I said
The universe's purpose is "to do whatever it takes to exist and be consistent with itself." I meant that it wouldn't be limited by any "Upper Probability Bound" so, yea, it could include improbable, but possible, events like the resurrection of a certain Jewish rabbi, fairies in the bottom of gardens or, even, tea pots orbiting our sun.
However, if all the universe required was a prevailing belief, it would be a lot easier to manipulate the quantum minds of key individuals, like a certain Hellenistic Jew on his way to Damascus after one wandering rabbi out of many was dead and soon to be forgotten.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
TP,
Wonderful, beautiful derail. The lesson of bringing up comparisons to the nazis was utterly lost on you. I'd get into the facts of Nazi Germany, Christianity, and the like with you – but frankly, it would be a waste of time. You've put a whole lot of elbow-grease into constructing the worldview you live in. Like most others, it's not about to get shattered with some mere factual data.
So let's stick to the real point.
It does, but not the way you think. When you want people to hold particular beliefs, when you want them to think in a particular way, you're not 'promoting independent thinking'. You're a partisan angling for a political result. You provoke – and desire to provoke – as much 'independent thought' as a commercial for Miller-Lite.
And actively defend? I haven't been calling you out because – gasp – you argue with people. I've been pointing out the crass amateur psychotherapy and roundabout insults you engage in. I've been pointing out that your 'promoting independent thought' is a tremendous load. And I've been pointing out that, in the end, it isn't effective. It isn't 'great debating tactic' as you may think. It's merely transparent, and irritating. It's sanctimony writ large.
Which gives me something to sign off on.
TP, I'm writing under an alias on a medium traffic blog site on the internet, and so are you. There's no courage here. There's no valor. There's no victory or defeat in any meaningful senses of those terms. There's – my apologies to the admins here, as I truly love TT – a modest number of people, posting links and arguing.
So let my response be clear: I don't compliment your courage in expressing your views here, because it takes none. Maybe if you'd put down your frantic intellectual commitment to your worldview – we call that 'zealous devotion to dogma' in the pews, by the way – you'd realize how complicated the world really is, and in particular, the penny-ante stakes of arguments like this.
Instead, I have a sneaky suspicion you're going to wind yourself up and insinuate something along the lines of.. oh, say, if Huckabee becomes Vice President it will mean agnostics, unitarians, and women who wear jeans instead of skirts will be stoned to death en masse in a football stadium. And maybe, just maybe, if you can convince someone here you're a better debater than I am, a few more helpless babes will be smuggled out in their mothers' arms before the rocks start flying.
Comment by nullasalus — February 5, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
TP to nullasalus:
From what I've been able to tell, you haven't been "doing science," you've been promoting a particular model of a particular phenomenon you're still trying to understand, to people on both 'sides' of the evolution vs. ID divide, because it tweaks dogmatic opinions and ideological assumptions both ways. Consciousness as 'hidden variable' that both materialists and creationists must reject in order to maintain ideological commitments at the conclusion end.
Which doesn't answer questions on detail or process for life or evolution, and cannot change minds that came into this culture war already firmly made up. It lets you dance in the middle as if you had exclusive hold of something "closer to true" than either camp, knowing it won't get serious attention because it's heavily reliant on quantum mysticism (that no one really understands) which inevitably makes biologists bluster ineffectually and religious people shrug.
We know. So what? What do you personally expect to be able to do to eradicate religions and religious beliefs in your lifetime? Argue for a model of consciousness on an evolution vs. ID blog? How's that working out for you?
"Most?" That's not been my experience, though there is a subset of humans who seem to strongly need other people to tell them what to think and how to behave. I don't think you're in a position to do any Edwards Scissorhands sculpting of the tree of life per what variations on the theme exist in any given generation. Those who can handle independent thoughts generally have such thoughts on occasion. Those who can't will either not have them or will resist entertaining them. It has always been thus.
But you don't dogmatically believe in a divine Designer. So I don't know why you'd think it meaningful that you need an alternative to a belief you don't have. You could have gone with straight standard theory and become just another Evangelical Atheist, but you're not a 'joiner' and are contrary enough to want to tweak noses both ways. Again, not meaningful to the actual subject matter.
Orch-OR doesn't in any way do away with anybody's belief-in a divine Designer if they choose to believe in one. Surely you're smart enough to see that. In fact, if Orch-OR were confirmed in any significant way (and it might be), it would do way more to support a divine Designer than it would to challenge such views at their root. If consciousness does participate in the design of its own physical vehicle and is a concentrated manifestation of a fundamental parameter of reality, it's the materialists who come up way short, not the deists/theists who believed it all along.
Oh, come on! This is the Internet, TP. We do try to keep a tad of decorum here for the sake of "family friendly," but even we don't always succeed when tempers rise. Your 'other' playground never tried for any decorum – it's a swamp, and the swamp denizens who inhabit it like to keep it that way. Nobody's playing nice just to "avoid conflict." Maybe there's a Yahoo group like that, but they aren't discussing evolution versus ID.
But it is a canard. You aren't getting anyone to think independently, you're offering your personally favorite alternative because it's got an authoritative name attached and is good for inciting "verbal conflict" amongst the swamp denizens. It goes over the head or comes in under "duh" for creationists and IDers, something I told you months ago when I mentioned it in the first place.
I also recall telling you that despite its conceptual plusses, it wasn't likely to be a long-lived explanation due to the problem with quantum gravity and the increasing likelihood of intervening dimensions – as well as the existence of even better models in more dimensions. Boiling down, as all things eventually do, to the true nature of time. We are nowhere close to it yet.
Just thought I'd clarify a few things. Your position isn't as authoritative as you'd like to think, and your embraced model isn't the threat you wish it could be. At least, not to IDers. But you aren't changing or challenging any made-up minds over at AtBC either, are you? It takes no "courage" to have or express beliefs in the face of your disbelief. It just takes some familiarity with language and keyboards.
[Oops! nullasalus beat me to the post button, and said it better. Never mind.]
Comment by Joy — February 5, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
A quick response.
You wrote…
I don't think it would be a waste of time. Either you or I or both of us would become more knowledgable on the subject.
You might have a point that I want them to approach thinking in a particular way (Socratic Method) but, believe it or not, I do NOT want people to hold any particular belief besides their own.
And limiting my posting to Panda's Thumb would have been more effective?
I have learned more here being provocative than I ever would have if I chose to "discuss rather than argue". Because the only way that was going to happen is if I restricted myself to anti-religious blogs. Either that or acted against my own sense of ethics.
The courage is in testing your own convictions.
The victory is in understanding a different way of looking at things.
I consider efforts in understanding and testing ones own beliefs to be reasonably high stakes.
I would be curious as to what dogma you think I am zealously devoted to. Obviously, I am not a materialist. I could arguably be labeled a naturalist.
You and I have similar NOMA views, but it appears I am more understanding of how someone could justify in not agreeing with it.
I happen to have a high intolerence to ethical misconduct but I don't have a very high opinion of the importance of what I term "morals" (morals as being different from ethics in that they are externally forced, not internally agreed to).
I think I have a pretty good understanding of how complicated the world is. People tend to make things more complicated than they need to be in order to hide their lack of understanding or conviction ("I'd get into the facts … with you – but frankly, it would be a waste of time. ").
Group dynamics is also something interesting to watch. As you can imagine I have been in many situations where I am in the minority position. It takes a lot of work to fight Group Think because right or wrong, the majority thinks it is right (even as the engineering project is in an obvious death spiral).
This happens because people tend to feel little, or no, personal responsibility for group decisions.
I would rather convince some potential rock throwers to hesitate and think about what they are doing and why. I know it is a losing battle, but I feel ethically compelled to try. I have been trying on both sides of the Culture War.
One more thing. If I could convince both sides that there might be a Third Choice, maybe the rock throwing could be avoided or at least delayed.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Hi Joy,
I'm not sure Nullasalus said it "better" but there wasn't as much to disagree with you on.
I don't think Orch OR is as authoritive as my delivery may suggest.
I'd like to think I could argue any position well, that would include the pro ID position (divine Designer and all).
I did that a little bit on Panda's Thumb once. However, that was truly as waste of time.
I may be deluding myself, but I have indications (private e-mails) that I have gotten a few potential rock throwers on the other side to stop and think.
And you remember how you indicated that I was quick on the uptake of who's who and what's what in the ID Movement politics? I have reason to think I have managed to tweak a few noses here too. Enough said?
P.S., you haven't commented on my explainations recently. What did you think of my letter to my daughter's mentor?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
TP:
I've not perceived that anybody involved would care how well one argues a position. If they don't believe it to be correct, that will come through. But it might gain one an entry into the group, either or. But then it would just be "group think," eh?
That's good. It is a real theory, and it's out there being subjected to tests. I figure most intelligent and interested people will have to consider what's happening in the fields doing the investigating, if for no other reason than that it's well funded and happening with or without them.
I don't see that even a general drift in the direction of Q-G (as opposed to strings/branes) makes much difference to this particular culture war. People who believe consciousness rules the roost will still shrug, and those who believe consciousness is an illusion will choose to be non-conscious anyway.
Why am I not surprised? The only thing that could ever possibly matter in the box where you want to be is a model that can explain what we see biologically. That really has nothing to do with consciousness, it has to do with guided versus unguided evolution. EAM (or a version thereof) requires nothing beyond biophysics – it needn't explain the entire universe or its laws or even consciousness – to explain the progressive evolution of life and even multi-dependent ecologies. To that, the search for the PCCs [Physical Correlates of Consciousness] is just the search for a mechanism for how life can generate and perfect its forms/functions forward in time endogenously and adaptively via reproduction.
IOW, explaining life and evolution in ID terms probably doesn't need an explanation of the whole universe and all its dimensions, it just needs intent that can be causally effective here on planet earth, in our little gravity well where time is… what it is here. We aren't ever going to be able to physically measure or observe anything at 10-43 resolution (Planck). It's a conceptual convenience.
Thought it was quite good for generating interest. But now you say the mentor is a psychologist. I doubt s/he will understand it, but it might lead to asking some research colleagues in neuroscience what they think about it. Might even open a door on the Wonderful World of Consciousness Quest – which is chock full of psychologists and other evo-psych/cog-sci guys. Hameroff is a professor of psychology too, you know.
Comment by Joy — February 5, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
…and I would find that worse than a worthless activity, I would be one more voice adding to the confirmational bias.
And you are right, I have found few people interested in hearing a good argument for the other side. The only people who participate in a mock debate are those convinced there is no good argument against their beliefs. Then they get emotional when it is shown they are wrong. Then they get frustrated because their standard Ad Hominem tactics are not only useless, they are silly.
Actually, one of the more telling things about the standard pro-ID argument is that it generally ends up presuming the whole universe is designed. The argument usually is of the form, "yes, I happen to believe God designed everything". Once that happens, there are no counter examples. How can we detect design if, by definition, everything is designed?
At least Mike Gene's Design Matrix adds a sliding scale. Yes, everything has design in it, now it is a matter of detecting how much.
But I am rambling.
Thank you for your feedback. We will see how much interest this generates.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I read that one of the problems with quantum computers in microtubules is that they are not isolated. Attempts to build quantum computers are done at very low temperature, to keep interfence to a minimum. The authors, however, argue that the microtubules would be sufficiently isolated. But this is a problem for the trail to God, which, I would think, relies on those quantum computers being connects to God?
Also, computers are basically information processing units. How much information can these (or any) quantum computers output? My PC dumps a load of information on to the screen, speakers, internet, etc. I get the impression quantum computers have a single bit output.
Comment by The Pixie — February 5, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
TP
.
So all that is necessary for you to become a Christian is for me to convince you that a world in which Jesus did not rise from the dead does not make sense? Man do I wish I could sit down with you over a Coke and explain the moral law as an objective and real property of the universe.
I can't think of any reason why a prevailing belief would cause the universe to be consistent. An innocent man vindicated and a sacrifice accepted now that's another story. I can think of many reasons why that would be nessary for the univese to be consistent. If the moral law is real.
Have a good day
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 5, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Pixie:
Whoa. The whole run-down on Tegmark's misguided objections and reasons why they don't apply to the actual model is found in:
Debate on Quantum Decoherence
It's a pdf by Hameroff, physicist Scott Hagen and biophysicist Jack Tuszynski. Worth reading if you really want to know how it works. And nobody's talking about quantum computers being connected to God/gods or fairies in the garden.
Golly, Pix. You could have done the Google on "quantum computer" as easily as me if you cared to know. Here is CalTech's introduction, written quite simply. The advantage is in massive parallel capabilities…
This is of course limited to the planned usage of quantum computing for our purposes – digital 1s and 0s are all we know of such things – and does not necessarily reflect what's going on in neural MTs, which may have more than two configuration states in addition to superpositions. Nobody's designing conceptual blueprints for quantum computers that work with more than YES-NO-BOTH qubits, or even thinking about gates that deal with more than two qubits at a time.
So even when we have an operational quantum computer in a box NSA can use to unravel all the security codes on the planet at once to gather whatever it wants from any computer or computer network, it won't be a fair analog of what's going on in brain cells – or even non-brain cells (which process information and coordinate functions via the same essential mechanism, but don't maintain an Orch-OR threshold for full consciousness).
Which, according to Hameroff, Hagen and Tuszynski, requires ~500 ms of coherent superposition for 109 participating dimers in 103 neurons, presuming 10% tubulin involvement with 107 tubulins per neuron.
For 25 ms coherent 40 Hz oscillations, 2 x 1010 dimers, or the equivalent of about 20,000 neurons (less than 1% of your brain's power). The series of OR events (reductions of the superpositions) could then culminate in membrane depolarization and/or synaptic transmission.
A video that might help.
Comment by Joy — February 5, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
TP, Hitler fashions an oath that Germans are required to pledge to and you think that signifies exactly what?
Most recite the words without thinking about them. They do so due to social conventions. Pledges like this are meaningless.
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Interesting thought. You have my permission to try if you want but this might fall under the rubric "be careful what you wish for". Do you think the world really needs Thought Provoker as an evangelizing preacher?
It would take more that something making sense. Just like an argument from incredulity is weak, so is a "sounds good to me" argument.
My thought about the physics of Orch OR are backed up by expermental data and equations that match the results. Even so, I remain skeptical that Orch OR is some kind of Ultimate Truth which I keep separated because of my NOMA sensibilities.
At best, to me Orch OR is a scientific hypothesis that is good enough until something better comes along.
But if you think you can convince me to drop NOMA and accept Christ, I am curious as to how you would go about even trying.
and good luck with the morality thing. Do you need any more information on how and why I separate the concepts of ethics and morality?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
In justaposition these comments are interesting.
It is the "without thinking" that I am trying to reverse.
It is independent thinking that prevents the Hitler's from getting into a position to do harm.
It is independent thinking that can prevent America from executing, killing, torturing and inhumanly imprisoning human beings.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I beg to differ TP. Hitler himself was an independent thinker as were some (but clearly not all) Germans who supported him. Dietrich Banhoffer was a German dedicated to living according to some moral principles that were thousands of years old. He died as a consequence although it is unclear whether by your standards he would be viewed as an independent thinker. I was introduced into the world of "independent thinking" as a child by a parent who prided himself on it. When I got older I realized "independent" meant conforming to his way of thinking.
What is really needed to overcome evil are strong moral convictions motivating an individual to stand up against transgressions of the same.
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 1:26 am
TP,
I point out your urging for 'independent thought' really means 'you're advocating a specific brand of politically-motivated thought', and your response is that well, you want people to believe in their beliefs, not other beliefs? Well, obviously TP. And the Miller-Lite people aren't trying to get others to believe in Miller-Lite's belief that beer is good. They want the people themselves to desire beer.
Who the heck are you having these conversations with? I could care less about Panda's Thumb. I've been criticizing your armchair-psychiatrist routine with roundabout insulting people, and how your 'I just want to promote independent thinking' is, once again, a load. You're turning that into 'Go to Panda's Thumb' through as close to magic as can be possible in conversations.
The idea that religion is a bogeyman to be feared above and beyond any other intellectual position.
More complicated than they need to be? Please.
It's a waste of time because you're committed to the idea that 'religion' was responsible in that situation, and not because the force of facts lead you to such a conclusion. Bradford has put it nicely thus far, but I would add: When you consider the opposition from many religious both within the German regimes (From Bonhoffer, Edith Stein, and Maximilian Kolbe and many others who helped would-be victims hide from or survive the nazis) to outside (religious among the resistance, the allies, etc), the fact that even Dawkins squirms and casts Hitler as a 'theist of sorts' at best, among other evidence.. your claim of national socialism being a religious, even Christian affair is hilariously simple.
See, the truth really is 'more complicated' than the picture you painted. You throw out Hitler's overtures to get christians onboard with his regime as a signal that the regime was in fact christian. You curiously disregard any of the considerable religious opposition, and declare it all cut and try. I'm sorry, but the reality is more difficult; Hitler and Stalin, among others, proved that a person or group's motivations can have next to nothing to do with religion (be religion-hostile), and result in a whole lot of horror nevertheless. The typical squirm is to insist that Nazism and most forms of communism are religions themselves – but that means you should be worried about any zealous group, religious or not. Including the ones you favor, like Sam 'Some beliefs are so deadly it may be justifiable to kill people for having them' Harris. I guess some thoughts can be too independent, comrade.
Those in the minority position can also be devoted to Group Think (Especially if they identify heavily with one group anyway), and those who are entirely alone can still be extremely unreasonable and wrong. That 'Timecube' guy is raging against the machine pretty damn valiantly, last I checked.
Or maybe no rock throwing is on the way, or maybe it's going to be religious people in the pit. And maybe, much as I am intrigued by his position, the safety of millions isn't hinging on whether or not Penrose & Hameroff's views of consciousness become popular.
I certainly have nothing against promoting discussion of Orch-OR, though I admit I'm getting tired of hearing about the idea without new and relevant data included. I dislike your methods – I consider pseudo-psychoanalyzation distasteful, and I think your version of 'independent thought' is meaningless, more inspiring slogan than reality. Otherwise I wouldn't comment about your 'third choice' other than to say 'Can we please see more data, or even new speculation?'
Comment by nullasalus — February 6, 2008 @ 1:26 am
February 6th, 2008 at 8:08 am
TP
I would not argue that Christianity makes sense. I would argue that with out Christ nothing including the universe makes sense. IOW the universe is not consistant with out the Christ event.
My argument to you would be that if Orch Or is true and the moral law is real then Christianity is necessarily true and therefore it's part of the same scientific hypothesis. It might require something more than Coke but I'm sure I could make that case.
No I think I understand your position. But if you want to think independently about this you might want to check out what the other side has to say. For starters I recommend
http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926
and
http://www.amazon.com/Simply-Christian-Christianity-Makes-Sense/dp/0060507152
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 6, 2008 @ 8:08 am
February 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Hi Nullasalus,
Even though you immeadiately tried to distance yourself from it (even in the same comment that you introduced it), YOU were the one making claims about what the advent of Nazism represented, not I.
My response was, and continues to be, that Nazism demonstrates the dangers of Group Think (regardless of religious motivations or the lack thereof).
Did you remember me saying this?
"As long as people are actively defending their beliefs and explaining their thoughts instead of dogmatically following the herd (be it political or religious) people like St. Cyril, Hitler or even godless Stalin are powerless."
I will respond to the idea that there can be "right" verses "wrong" kind of herd mentality when I respond to Bradford.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 6, 2008 @ 9:49 am
February 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Joy
Thanks for the long reply.
I thought TP was when he said: "Whether the trail comes from God or just a universe being consistent with itself is a philosophical question we probably will never know".
In part my laziness was an attempt to provoke TP to think about himself.
What I do not get is how that maps to the brain. Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem each microtubule is a single quantum processor, and each microtubule is doing this calculation in response to some quantum event. What sort of quantum event would that be (the CalTech article uses a radio frequency burst)? What use is that sort of massively parallel calculation for us?
I am not saying this is all wrong, indeed, at its simplest it could be that the microtubule accepts inputs from the dendrites, and these determine the quantum state. In what way is that not a quantum computer? In what way does it differ from the established position?
Here is a paper on AI and quantum computer I cam across. Rather techical, and I must admit I only skimmed it.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0401/0401124.pdf
Comment by The Pixie — February 6, 2008 @ 10:01 am
February 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am
TP,
Quote the whole thing, TP:
If by 'distancing' you mean 'Said it was a load, a transparent insult, a dramatization' intended as an example of the sort of games you play when it comes to discussing things with people – sure. You tried to parley an example I immediately denounced (not 'distanced myself from', but outright said was inane) into a serious claim. As usual, be my guest in doing so.
I've said repeatedly, what I object to is the transparent 'I just want to promote free thought' routine, and the cheap insults and barbs dressed up in bad psychotherapy and drama. By all means, keep doing both if you like. I'll just jump in and have a ball with it whenever I get bored. Which is rather often.
Comment by nullasalus — February 6, 2008 @ 10:08 am
February 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Pixie:
He's just sensationalizing his "third choice" by appealing to the metaphysical concerns of both sides. Metaphysical considerations are still firmly in his NOMA enclosure, and mean precisely zip to the theory. Theoretical physics is a genuine scientific discipline, after all. So are the biological mechanisms of consciousness and anesthetic agents.
It's genuine science, it's generating testable hypotheses that are being tested, it's focused attention on the players enough to where design science is making specific use of the knowledge (Tuszynski has definitely run with it in the pharma realm), and it has contributed quite a bit to the designed nanotechnology being developed for use in quantum computers. Carbon nanotubes have been modeled on MT structure, an application of the Fibonacci sequence.
Yeah, well… good luck!
It doesn't map to the brain, which is why I said… This is of course limited to the planned usage of quantum computing for our purposes – digital 1s and 0s are all we know of such things – and does not necessarily reflect what's going on in neural MTs, which may have more than two configuration states in addition to superpositions. As well as gates that collapse more than two AND qubits at a time.
According to the paper on decoherence linked in my post, superpositions enough to collapse into a "moment of consciousness" – as calculated on mass per Penrose's formula – represent about 10% of the tubulin dimers in any given neuron at any given time, if 20,000 neurons in the net are involved in the processing computations. There's obviously some numerical wiggle room there for other scenarios. That pdf link has a great electron micrograph of a neuron slice showing individual MTs, MT bundles and MAP filaments tying them together. It's hydrolized actin forming cytoplasmic gel states that help insulate the area of the MT where computation is going on from decoherence.
There are lots and lots of MTs in every neuron, and they're essentially stable – which standard cytoskeletal MTs are not. Those are some of the most dynamic structures in a cell, often assembling directionally as proteins and protein constructs are being transported, while dissembling behind. Sort of like Magneto's metal walkway in the second X-Men movie.
So 10% could represent all the tubulin dimers in 1/10th of MTs in a neuron, but more likely represents tubulins in superpositional processing mode along one section of of a number of parallel MTs. If this processing forwards the transduction of signal polarity, propagating it via directional movement of dipole moments through the MT, it would represent the internal information processing that precedes neuron 'firing' and transfer of action potentials further on down the net.
As I (barely) grok the situation (I am NOT a cog-sci/neurosci guy or even a biologist, but I did take the UA course in 1999-2000), action potentials are transferred from neuron to neuron, not from electrical signaling activity straight to individual MTs. The MTs – as efficient signal transducers – go to work when signal is received by their neuron, but whether they necessarily 'fire' to a designated sub-network is the result of interior processing of the incoming information from the network sending the signals (what part of which net sent the signal, what its incoming associations are per specific transmitters, what previous information processing in previous neurons found upon completion of computations, etc.) by the MTs.
IOW, neurons as "smart" cells essentially specialized for high level processing and signaling and not much else. Metabolically expensive, but really useful to the critter who depends on his/her brain to process information quickly, efficiently and more correctly than not. That critter can initiate processing in the abstract too – we call that "thought" – so the 'self' is not just a passive receiver of what the neurons decide. The 'self' is a distributed, fully entangled awareness not found in any one or several neurons or nets, or their interior processors.
It is a quantum computer. It's just a whole heck of a lot more sophisticated than anything we've yet thought of. From the illustrations I've seen, the Josephson gap junctions and parallel capabilities indicate that MTs don't work with just two definite and one indefinite state, and the gates work with more than just two qubits at a time. A truly emergency situation (with strong panic signals) will bypass most of the higher level (time-consumptive) processing capabilities and simply propagate NOW. Thinking about a fond memory or planning one's retirement, or even trying to recall the name of that guy back in high school may take its own sweet time, and may not activate that much of your brain or its neural nets.
This of course is way beyond mere parallel processing, and could be exponentially more complex if it turns out that the dimers represent a 4-plex of configuration states. Our current and planned technological wonders are very crude and simplistic in comparison.
Computational models of brain function and its primary attribute – consciousness – have been around for a long time. It's not just analogy, at least not when AI guys talk about conscious machines and technological immortality. All that Penrose and Hameroff have done is reduce things to an actual mechanism for processing the information in each neuron. This is entirely reasonable, as simply saying "neurons fire and stimulate other neurons" doesn't explain why or how neurons fire.
The resistance to OR and Orch-OR is not that it highlights quantum weirdness. On the level of molecules and atoms 'of course' quantum phenomena play a large role. They're involved in molecular binding, protein folding, configuration state changes, chromosome packing, gene expression, signal transduction, molecular transportation and… Quantum mechanics is the substrate of our entire physical reality, including life. That there might be a sub-substrate at the Planck level isn't an immediately dismissible extrapolation. Doesn't mean it's real (or that the operator is a graviton), just means it's not that outrageous in the realm of theoretical cosmology. Don't forget that Max (Tegmark) has his own cosmological model to defend, so he's not a disinterested observer.
The resistance is metaphysical, just like in these biology debates – it's all the same culture war. They're very much concerned that if people are allowed to consider "quantum weirdness," humans (and all other life forms) wouldn't be programmed automatons, things might not be deterministic. Next thing you know people might start believing they have free will, or that life's evolutionary watchmaker isn't blind.
I never have figured out why that bothers so many scientists so very much on such a personal level, but it does. Go figure.
Comment by Joy — February 6, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
That was an interesting insight into your background, thank you for sharing it.
So, do you share Nullasalus' opinion that I really want some kind of conformity to my world view? Note that my world view is flexible enough to be changed and is, in fact, changing now due to my further understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
However, that is science. Philosophy is another matter, isn't it?
BTW, I don't remember if you have ever answered my oft repeated question in the year and a half I have been posting on Telic Thoughts.
I don't know the Truth, do you?
I find it interesting that out of all the possible people fighting Nazism you chose Dietrich Banhoffer. Wasn't there a Mother Teresa type of individual working hard saving Jews that you could have referenced?
I offer two individuals as counter examples, Raoul Wallenberg and Oskar Schindler. I found out about Wallenberg as a result of a simple Google search. He showed up at the top of a list of non-jews in order of the number of people they saved. It's alledged that Wallenberg saved over 15,000 Jews. I know about Schindler from the book/movie Schindler's List. But Schindler's story has been so popularized, I thought it best to come up with another example to explain what I wish to communicate.
Both Wallenberg and Schindler were businessmen. Their day-to-day activity was dealing with the ethical behaviors of making deals and honoring contracts. Schindler wasn't an overly moral person. I don't know about Wallenberg's morals (not important). It is obvious that both Schindler and Wallenberg felt that what the Germans were doing to the Jews was not FAIR. Fairness is an ethical matter. Our brains are wired to detect a lack of fairness (link).
These individuals' actions appeared to be based on their personal view of the situation and not some global need to start a religion or movement to modify the political situation to match their worldview of right and wrong. These individuals started out as businessmen, did what they thought was fair in extraordinary situations and, in Schindler's case, continued in business after the war was over. Wallenberg died (was killed?) in a soviet prison where he was being held under the suspicion of being a spy.
Dietrich Banhoffer, on the other hand, was clearly interested in establishing a church and changing the political situating "according to some moral principles that were thousands of years old." Banhoffer was killed, along with a lot of other people, because he was accused of being part of a plot to kill his country's leader. Bradford, while you didn't exactly use the term "martyr", I think it is safe to presume that is what you were suggesting. Banhoffer "died as a consequence" of trying to actualize his own social-political view over an existing one. And that was the nice version. A possibly correct version is that Banhoffer was killed because he acted on what he felt was a moral imperative to attempt murdering Hitler.
Most organized religions tend to try to manipulate facts and politics in support of a particular moral sense of right and wrong. Encouraging a herd mentality helps this. A large group of like-thinking people make for a powerful political weapon. Since I'm not interested in starting a church (like Banhoffer was) I get absolutely no benefit from having people believe as I do. My interest is in breaking up herd mentality by promoting individual thinking in would-be followers. Sure, Hitler and Banhoffer were both independent thinkers.
The difference is that I would want neither of them in power because both were obviously interested in establishing their version of morality.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 6, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Hi Pixie and Joy,
I am glad someone is on topic.
Yes, I was talking about God to say Orch OR didn't say anything about God.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 6, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I believe I do TP. Christ described himself with several terms including truth. He was the embodiment of it.
There were many individuals that could have been mentioned. They include the two you write about in your comment. One could make an argument that at one point (albeit too late) Erwin Rommel was counted among them.
Banhoffer was murdered because he had the courage to stand up for what is right. He made no effort to conceal his desire to spread Christianity. True followers of Christ were anethema to Hitler. You do not conquer the world with the sword by loving your neighbor although you might capture some hearts by doing so.
Herd mentality as in politics of hope and time for a change?
The difference between them is Hitler was a self-centered, selfish, immoral criminal who retained power through terror. Banhoffer believed in something he was willing to die for but also believed that the decision to follow Christ must be voluntary or it has no meaning. Freedom to choose whether or not to be a Christian has been a core belief since Christ.
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
TP:
It's not always clear when your rhetoric appeals to metaphysical considerations (one way or the other). Possibly this is a consequence of trying to maintain discussions in diametrically opposed arenas at the same time…
But then I wonder (again) why you want the Neo-diehard culture warriors over at AtBC to acknowledge a direction in science (biophysics) that terrifies them a lot more than Neodarwinism ever terrified religious people. The sheer spectacle of their fear is revealing, not in a way they'd want anyone to notice. Biologists hate quantum quacks a lot more than anybody else does, it seems. Oh, and as a btw, their live-in physicist is a poser.
God can be conceptualized in a broad variety of ways, with a wide variety of powers and concerns. Not everybody who believes in "More" is a YEC – or even a Christian Scientist. Hameroff is a pantheist (or is that panentheist?) with a penchant for Buddhist philosophy, for instance. Penrose is a Platonist. It's not like Orch-OR's metaphysical implications have anything to do with fundamentalist Baptists or Pentecostals. Though they'll draw whatever conclusions they like from the situation, if they draw any at all. As will everybody else. I honestly don't know why it matters.
When I took the course with Hameroff, Penrose, Hagen, Tuszynski and Chalmers I was tracking a miracle. I wanted something I could wrap my head around, because "It's a Miracle!" just didn't explain anything that needed explaining in my mind. What I discovered is that 'science' is just now beginning to tickle the extreme edges of what's real. They have not progressed much since then, and I don't expect any real answers before I die. But I'm sure glad someone out there isn't so terrified of the metaphysical implications that they'll simply ignore what's real.
Penrose is onto something. It's probably the best that can play in the arena right now, even though it comes up short on the dimensional scale (and the extremal is highly suspect). I was quite gratified that he mentioned Matti in his "Road to Reality" – I'd shared my enrollment in the UA course with Matti so he could follow, some of his concepts were being borrowed without attribution wholesale.
What's real is real whether we know about it or not. We really haven't anything to lose by looking into such things, despite what the professional grouches in the nay-sayer camp believe or say.
Comment by Joy — February 6, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Joy wrote:
Really? You mean olegt?
What makes you say he is a poser?
Comment by valerie — February 6, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Hi Valerie,
Was just about to ask the same thing. But I doubt she meant Olget .
He's actually, on top of his CV, the most civil AtBCer I've seen. Making the whole TP versus AtBC thing stomachable (and I'm learning a few things too!)
Comment by Rob R. — February 6, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
There are a lot of beliefs a lot of people are willing to die AND KILL for.
Do you think Banhoffer was willing to kill for his?
But enough of this off-topic stuff. You get the last word (although I will be answering Joy).
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 6, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
As you are no doubt aware, the ID Movement engenders a lot of cross discussions about science and metaphysics. I'm not shy about arguing my philosophy but it is easy to get me back talking about science, since I believe openly and honestly talking about science is the best cure to the ills a religious movement causes.
Which gets into my motivation ala AtBC. I think your "swamp" label is appropriate if it was in reference to the M.A.S.H. swamp. The place reeks of Male Ego running amuck. I'm probably more comfortable than you in that environment. The biggest insult would be to ignore me. Their loud yells and chest thumping put downs don't bother me. In fact, it helps me gauge which points are scoring home.
Whether you would like to admit it or not, they have helped me sharpen my understanding. I like to argue. They like to yell. While not very pretty or efficient, it works.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 6, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Banhoffer believed in something he was willing to die for"¦
A willingness to kill Hitler is a willingness to defend massive numbers of innocent victims from certain death.
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
TP:
Of course I know that ID – which in fact did wrest the mantle of 'science' from Creationist precursors – engenders metaphysical conundrums and arguments. I just don't know why it matters, and have never quite figured it out. People do have the freedom of mind, will and citizenship to choose their metaphysical beliefs and even vote their conscience if they want. I see too much from the fringes on both 'sides' that indicate a strong willingness to abrogate such rights – even if such rights are completely beyond their control to abrogate. That's incredibly stupid, and the fact that some of the most incredibly stupid metaphysical culture warriors also happen to be considered among the most incredibly brilliant humans is simply an indicator to me that we aren't nearly as smart as we like to pretend we are.
I've argued for years that metaphysical implications and interpretations are irrelevant to what's real or true. I still believe that, strongly. Which of course means I have a position to argue that I feel is 'important' enough to argue. I just don't go looking for assholes to argue with. They're a dime a dozen, don't mean shit to a tree [h/t Gracie Slick]. You obviously carry some leftover baggage from your religious upbringing, and it reflects in your choice of demeanor and sparring partners.
I don't have that experience. I never believed the nonsense that came with the religious affiliations my parents tried out on us (they could never make up their minds), mostly ignored it. So I never got mad at God for either being or not-being what somebody else tried to tell me He/She/It/They were. IOW, I've no axe to grind. I was never taken advantage of, never brainwashed, never forced to do or believe-in anything that made me laugh too hard or cry 'foul'. You were. That's a difference between you and me.
If I could convince the "Mad at God" contingent that their anger is ridiculously misplaced – targeting believers as projections of one's own angst – I'd do it. But that doesn't work. If I could convince YECs to pay more attention to the Jews whose mythology Genesis actually *is* (and who wrote it in the first place), I would. That doesn't work either. Eventually you just have to accept that people choose to believe what they believe, and that's their right. At least, that's what you accept if you aren't some sort of Junior Hitler.
None of which matters at all to science or what's true. Really. In the end, wouldn't we all like to approach what's true?
Comment by Joy — February 6, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Joy:
The uninformed projecting and psychoanalysis is laughable, as usual. And there's definitely more than one physicist regular poster at AtBC. Unlike Joy, who desperately tries to posture as a physicist (educated long-time visitors have figured out a long time ago that she isn't), they are no posers, although they might be ill-mannered and somewhat childish (quite typical for many scientists in my experience. Hell, doing science is a way of not growing up).
Comment by Raevmo — February 6, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Raevmo:
Then I'm glad you got a laugh. It's good for you, y'know.
Do tell. I don't hang out there, know only what I've seen here and there. Am I supposed to be impressed?
Au contraire, mon ami. I've never claimed to be anything I am not. I am an old lady who lives on a mountain and facilitates forest medicinals while growing some food and pleasurables – organically. Who are you claiming to be?
Not mine. Most of the real scientists I've ever known were quite personable, had real lives with real concerns, and didn't mind at all spending some energy on people who know less than they do about isolated subjects. How sad that you've only known childish 'scientists'.
No, going into vaudeville is a way of not growing up. Or running away with the circus. Or just being happy with what you've got, maybe eagerly seeking out knowledge you don't already have. None of the best scientists I've ever known suffered Peter Pan Syndrome. Some of the best humans I've ever known did, though.
Comment by Joy — February 6, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Joy:
It is, thanks. I have a massive jet-lag and I'm trying to stay awake so I can get into the "right" rhythm. This helps.
You should be. Excellent scientists hang out there. You could learn something.
On more than one occasion you have claimed to be a physics expert, but I'm too lazy to supply a link. Let the readers figure it out for themselves. I'm a biologist (zoologist) with a background in physics, combining field work and mathematical modeling.
I was referring to the childish curiosity that characterizes many scientists I know. It tends to correlate with childish behavior in other respects.
Comment by Raevmo — February 6, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Hi Raevmo,
It sounds like you have been busy.
Are you making any progress on Penrose's The Road to Reality?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 6, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I thought about what you said on the drive home from work. I think you got it wrong. I'm not effected by some past hurt, angered or disappointed in God, it was organized religion I felt let me down.
I'm actually ok with the various versions of God, including those that posit a tangible being. I really think it would be kind of neat if God actually exists and our universe is a kind of science fair project.
When I was quite young I had a Sunday School teacher tell my that the bible says "God is Love" (1 John 4:8), not "God is Loving". God is love, love is God. That made sense.
Substituting the concept of love for God makes a lot of sense, especially in the New Testament. But it even makes sense in some of the Old Testament. For example…
Love is my shepherd; I shall not want.
Love maketh me to lie down in green pastures.
Love leadeth me beside the still waters.
Love restoreth my soul
Love leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for Love's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for Love is in me
Love's rod and staff they comfort me.
Love preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies
Love anoints my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in Love's embrace forever.
This view of God worked well for me during my adolescence and is still somewhat with me today. It is what I think of as "true" Christianity.
No, it isn't God that treated me wrong. It was the keepers of the faith that I got disgusted with. My parents truly allowed me to think for myself although my mother encouraged (alright, forced) me to go to church but I was allowed to believe what I wanted to believe. When I was old enough to drive, but still living at home, I was permitted to go to whatever church I wished but was still encouraged to go to a church.
At first I went to a different, bigger, Christian Science church. While the attitudes and religion wasn't that much different, I was looking for a little more substance than my childhood church offered. This ended up with mixed results. I got into some very good discussions with adults ten to thirty years older than I was. They seemed impressed with me and wanted to help me understand. However, one of the older church leaders stepped in and decided to give me the facts of life. I was getting too old to continue being a Doubting Thomas and that it was time to decide whether or not I was going to be a Christian. Either I accepted that Jesus was God or I wasn't a Christian. She did this in front of several of my would-be mentors. They said nothing, even after the church elder left.
I was given a choice, I chose.
What I found was that there were a whole lot of Christian Churches that were of less tolerant than the one I grew up with. In one church, the adult in charge of explaining things to teenagers actually answered my questions by having his regulars recite prepared responses. There was no back and forth. I was told what I was supposed to think, end of discussion.
I ended up forming my personal religion, I was preacher, choir and sole member. You see, I thought it made sense that Jesus was a man and Christ was the ideal. Jesus taught us about love because Jesus was teaching us about God. God is Love. Imagine my surprise when I discovered during the centuries after Jesus' death many Christians had a similar view. Then you can imagine my reaction to the realization that these Christians were the ones labeled as heretics and killed by the organized Christians.
Yes, I am probably holding a bit of a grudge.
P.S. I appologize for unethically taking advantage of the guest hosting thread. But, I am naively thinking some people might have been interested in hearing this.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 6, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Raevmo:
No, thanks. I honestly do have better things to do with my time. When I want to know something, I usually go to the source.
Excuse me? I have had some education and training in physics as well as biology. Have mentioned that several times, along with the fact that I did spend some time working in a field of applied physics. It's not a secret that I was a health physicist (a sub of biophysics). I've not kept that hidden.
I have never rested on any "laurels" here (or anywhere else I'm aware of) on the internet, where ones' laurels and sheepskins don't count for shit – except on the subject of TMI, and there if they knew my name they'd never tell you. If I'm parsing correctly, Mike Gene – another notorious pseudonym of the Wild Winternet – wrote an entire book about ID without ever offering a CV to impress you with. Didn't need it. You are free to ignore anything I or anyone else here has to say about anything. Nobody really cares, you could be elsewhere.
Cool. So what can you offer in the way of substantive support or criticism of Orch-OR and how it may relate to biology? …Anything?
You obviously know younger scientists than I know. Most of mine are dead now anyway. Comes with the territory. On the long view, being child-like doesn't mean much. We all die anyway, child-like or not. Funny how that works. Sometimes ideas die too. I like to think the best of 'em somehow survive. That's evolution…
Comment by Joy — February 6, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
TP,
Since you offered, just for the hell of it, a response.
Unbelievably simplified, inaccurate history aside, the problem is that 'God is love' is great in the form of a simple saying. Catholics promote that view. So do many, probably most protestants. I'm willing to bet there are pagans, jews, and quite possibly taoists who would be comfortable with saying as much.
But the moment you start to ask what love is – what it means in the context of living your life, how people should be treated, how you should treat yourself, etc – it's no longer so simple. That's when the discussion comes in, along with the reflection, study, debate, and consensus. And you're going to find that 'organized anything', not simply organized religion, can and does fall prey to the same exact pitfalls at those stages. You'll even get it with individuals detached from a group.
In the end – you're holding a grudge because some authority figures in churches you went to got curt, and your reading of history is 'a group you like was persecuted for their beliefs by a group that were themselves persecuted for their beliefs'? As someone who has been on the receiving end of the former and is robustly aware of the latter, all I can say is: you may want to get over that. Healthy cynicism is one thing, but certain contempt is what leads to all these problems to begin with.
Comment by nullasalus — February 6, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Hey TP,
It might surprise you to know that I share your opinion of organized religion. Christendom is a glairing example of the fact that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why I use the name Fifth Monarchy Man. Only one person has the right to rule me and that is Christ. My loyalty is to him not someone who claims to represent him. The history of the world is nothing but a long series of folks usurping his authority. This is especially true in the organized Church.
I love nothing more than sticking it to the man especially when the man claims to be a Christian leader. Judging from what we know about Jesus I think he would approve.
But all that has nothing to do with the truth of the message of Christ. Either Christ is who he claimed to be or not. The corruption of his followers is totally beside the point. I think that folks like Dawkins are jerks but that has nothing to do with the truth of their claims.
Also you need to be aware of throwing the baby out with the bath water. We posers that call ourselves Christian have spent long years and spilled oceans of ink working thru the very issues you mentioned it would be a shame to disregard all that scholarship because we don't live up to our own standards. And it's no reason to separate yourself from the very folks who are trying trying to make sense of it all.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 7, 2008 @ 12:22 am
February 7th, 2008 at 1:18 am
TP:
That's more beautiful than anything I'd ever claim from you, TP. Thanks.
Comment by Joy — February 7, 2008 @ 1:18 am
February 7th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Hi Joy,
A quick note in the spirit of full disclosure.
The modification of the 23rd Psalm wasn't an original idea. I was taught that in the little Christian Science church I grew up with. The specific modifications are mine (I did a copy and paste from an on-line bible is did the modifications from memory). For all I know, this came direct from a handbook (Christian Science or otherwise) for the purpose of introducing God to small children.
However, I have come to realize there was more substance in that small church than my teenage mind could recognize. The small church doesn't exist anymore. The group moved to a "better" location and became larger and more "substantial".
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 7, 2008 @ 7:54 am
February 7th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Hi Nullasalus,
I recognize you were being tactful in your comment and I thank you for your concern, but that runs counter to your suggestion that my posting here doesn't require any courage.
I suspect you can tell these are my honest recollections and feelings. Just because I employ debate tactics to effectively communicate, doesn't make my communication dishonest. For example, I held off responding to your comment until after Fifth Monarchy Man responded (as I expected him to do). This allows me to more effectively explain my point of view.
First of all, let's dispense with trivial points. I would hope and expect you are aware that I am not naive enough to think "Love" is as simple as a seventeen year old would think it is. I also agree that "organized anything" can and does fall prey to Group Think along with a sense of empowerment and entitlement.
Nullasalus, you have a debate tactic that comes close to being a predictable signature. You strongly disagree with something and then try to immediately drop the subject. This goes beyond a single example like your Nazi allegory. In your last comment your "Unbelievably simplified, inaccurate history aside…" was typical of how you attempt to avoid issues that are obviously important to you.
It is consistent with your desire to "discuss rather than argue".
Remember when I wrote…
"I think I have a pretty good understanding of how complicated the world is. People tend to make things more complicated than they need to be in order to hide their lack of understanding or conviction."
I even pointed to where you said…
You might get away with that for history (even there, it shouldn't have been too difficult to offer your version of a straight-forward accurate account or to indicate a specific point you disagreed with), but you would have a tougher time doing that with the divine nature of Jesus Christ, so you didn't even mention this key point.
BTW, I give you credit for your courage (even if you don't recognize it) in at least trying to address this sensitive subject. Here we are in a roomful of people that obviously take to heart the modernized version of Romans 10:9-10.
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
This isn't a minor issue. A lot of blood has been spilt over whether or not it is ok to believe Christ's resurrection was spiritual and not physical. And then there is that filioque clause and the whole The-Holy-Trinity-means-Jesus-was-and-is-God-incarnate thing.
It takes courage to face hard questions that will get people riled up. However, I ask nothing more of other people than I ask of myself.
P.S. Once again I appreciate everyone's tolerance of this abuse of a Guest Host thread and, for the record, my expectation of Fifth Monarchy Man was due to his habit of showing he is a man of honest conviction.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 7, 2008 @ 9:02 am
February 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Thank you for commenting. I have come to think of you as an independent thinker willing to at least attempt to defend your personal beliefs, personally. So, no, I wasn't overly surprised but your comment.
Even though it is probably impolite of me to dredge it back up but a long time ago I got Doug mad at me because I pointed out the sadness of him asking me for details on who Augustine and Cyril were and what they thought. I did provide Doug some information and eventually we became the internet equivalent of friends.
I am also familiar with some of the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas.
But this isn't about what other people think, it is about what you and I think and can defend. Let me offer an easy puzzle that has been address by some of the "very folks" you were talking about (although the puzzle was framed differently).
1. If it is God's will that I know he exists, I would know he exists.
2. If it is God's will that I figure it out, I am doing God's will by not relying on faith.
The general answer offered for this puzzle is an uneasy argument that not even God can both allow us our own will while imposing his. Therefore, it is up to us to know it's God's will we have faith in him. In this simple form the non-sequitur logic fallacy is obvious. This causes "spilled oceans of ink" to be written to justify the faith that organized religions depend on for their political power.
BTW, if I were to go to any one organized religion for guidance, it would be Judaism. They have been spilling more ink, longer. All they ask is that I follow their traditions and laws whether I believe in them or not.
One more provoking thought to close with. Did you notice my passing reference to "Blessed are the pure in heart"¦" in this comment?
As I was writing that comment, I realized that if someone was dedicated enough in the pure pursuit of science to actually stand still in 4D space time he would come face-to-face with a timeless God if he exists. I thought it an interesting coincidence that "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8) could be interpreted as a prophecy along these lines.
A belief in something that happens to be true is not knowledge.
P.S. My continued thanks for the patience shown for this off-topic wandering.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 7, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
You're welcome and thanks for the sentiment.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 7, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
TP
This might be the general answer to the puzzle but it won't fly with the better of those inconsistent scholars I was talking about. It elevates the supposed autonomy of man over the sovereignty of God and It just won't do for hard determinists like you and me.
I would suggest you look into what the Calvinists have to say about this supposed puzzle. (hint: it has to do with the two wills of God and the bondage of the human will.) This is deeper stuff than you would expect to hear in Sunday school but well worth the trouble.
.
Now you sound like Alvin Plantinga You'll never guess what counts as knowledge in his view. It's yet more interesting scholarship from we poser Christians
Actually it's not off topic all. Remember Christianity is part of the Orch OR hypotheses if the moral law is real. How does it feel to embrace a theory that might spell the end of NOMA?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 7, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Maybe I have been too subtle. I don't care what other people have to say. I want to know if YOU can defend your beliefs. Telling me to go read a book is as bad, if not worse, than preachers preprogramming teenagers with the correct words to recite.
No need to get insulting here.
I've read a little from him too.
I'm willing to be convinced there is single, OMA Truth. But it will take a lot of one-on-one convincing.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 7, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 8:25 am
TP
Maybe I have been too subtle. I don't care what other people have to say. I want to know if YOU can defend your beliefs. Telling me to go read a book is as bad, if not worse, than preachers preprogramming teenagers with the correct words to recite.
Ok against my better judgment I'm going to try and condense a topic worthy of a series of volumes down to a couple of sentences don't say I did not warn you that it might seem sketchy
I often want two conflicting things at the same time for example right now I want to lose 20 pounds and I want to eat that honey bun in the cabinet. I genuinely want to be healthier but my desire for sticky goodness over rides that desire in this case.
More importantly we want to know the truth about God but we can't because our love for our own sin overrides our ability to think rationally in these matters.
In the same way God genuinely wants all people to know him and to come to him willingly but his desire to be glorified in his fullness is primary. His fullness includes more than his kindness and love it also includes his Justice and wrath against rebels.
Therefore in order for God to be known in all respects his mercy and his wrath he overpowers the desire for sin and restores the ability to have true knowledge of him in some folks in a process know as regeneration.
For everyone else he leaves them to pursue their sinful desires and to face the inevitable consequences.
That way he is known (observed) in all his attributes something that ties in quite well with Orch OR wouldn't you agree?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 8, 2008 @ 8:25 am
February 8th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Consider me warned and thank you for the comment.
I understand the term "dialectic" refers to opposing arguments both being true. Is that what you are talking about?
Ok, presuming that, where does the leap of faith in knowing what God desires or doesn't desire come from?
Not only are you sure it is God's desire, but that it is God's PRIMARY desire. Maybe his primary desire is for us to think for ourselves.
I suggest we leave the possibility of God having petty desires for "Justice and wrath" for later discussions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 9:28 am
February 8th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Tp
Where did you hear about a leap of faith? I can assure you it was not from the Bible.
Faith is a gift from God it's not blind leap its trust based on evidence. In this case evidence that flows from the Christ event that is part of the Orch OR Hypothesis you are advocating.
I only know this because God has chosen to reveal it to us. Through the Christ event and the information that flows from it.
Maybe but such a claim would require evidence. Do you have any or is it just your desire that he would desire that?
Sounds like a leap of faith to me. I would much rather stick to the evidence
Your referring to certain desires as petty even if they are God's only proves to me that you believe the moral law to be real.
Remember if the moral is real the Christ event in nessarly true in an Orch OR world.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 8, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I take it that the phrase "leap of faith" bothers you. It was not my intent to anger you, I am sorry.
(Actually, I was thinking about the Indiana Jones movie when I chose the phrase, not exactly an authoritative source).
The evidence for hypotheses concerning God's Will is via observation.
The most direct observation I can make is that I think. In fact, it is probably the most fundamentally trustworthy observation I can make. "I think, therefore I am".
I really don't know if I exist beyond that. My arms and hands may be illusions. I may only think I am typing these words. So, at the most basic fundamental level, if God exists it is his will for me to think. Now it appears to me that other thinking entities may exist. However, this could just be God's way of training and testing me in the proper way of thinking. Observation and experience shows me that letting others do my thinking for me ends in contrary, illogical and downright harmful results. Therefore, the prima facie evidence is that if God exists, it is apparent that it is his will that I think for myself.
This bring us to the possibility that other thinking entities exist, including one known to me by the label "Fifth Monarchy Man". Does this entity actually exist? Does this entity thinks he (or she) has arms and hands and types words the same way I do? I don't really know the Truth, but it doesn't matter because observation and experience tells me that this is a good working presumption and is useful in the quest to expand my abilities to think for myself.
However, I do have to guard against such thinking entities lulling me into letting them overly influence what I should think, thus bypassing the process of actually understanding and thinking for myself. I need to guard against it because it is very tempting to take the easy short cut and just accept something as correct without doing the work needed to understand it. As I indicated earlier, acceptance without understanding usually ends in contrary, illogical and downright harmful results.
But, the rewards outweigh the risks in communicating with most of these other thinking entities. They not only provide information and new ideas, they help test my understanding, because if I have trouble explaining why I think the way I do, I probably don't understand it as well as I think I do.
However, these thinking entities are sensitive creatures. They can get downright skittish about certain topics. While I would think they would be just as interested in testing their knowledge as I would, this is often not the case. Many, if not most, of the times I try to bypass the standard philosophical smoke screen generated by "oceans of ink" they get hostile, but if I don't we end up just contributing more ink to the oceans and get nowhere because their patience runs out. So I try to walk the fine line between to two. For example, I started this comment with"¦
I take it that the phrase "leap of faith" bothers you. It was not my intent to anger you, I am sorry.
then end with"¦
Fifth Monarchy Man, you appear to be certain of the existence of an absolute "moral law" and that, somehow, this necessitates that Jesus is the divine chosen one as opposed to Buddha, Mohammed of even me. Can you explain what appears to me to be a leap in logic without sending me off to the "oceans of ink".
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 9, 2008 @ 10:51 am
February 10th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Hey TP
Hows it going?
It bothers me only in the sense that it is inaccurate. I took no leap of faith nor be I believe God requires one. It is such terminology that puts Faith in opposition to reason in my opinion.
The fact is we all have faith in many things. In your post you mentioned your faith that I exist but you did not say you took a leap of faith in my existence.
Your faith in me is based solely on the evidence. The same goes for my belief in God. No leap required
That you think is beyond dispute that you think independently is another question on that the jury is still out.
Again this is a topic worthy of volumes but I will try to give you a very brief outline so you understand where I'm coming from. Don't blame me if I miss something
1 Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is an ethical theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere
2 The implied penalty for violating this law is death
3 This law also implies that evil should be punished proportionally
4.Unfairness and injustice are evil acouding to the moral law
5 The universe (God ) does not always punish unfairness and injustice. Often the guilty live long happy lives for example
6Therefore God (the universe) is in violation of the natural law unless there is a willing substitute for unpunished violations of this law
7Christ is the only entity in the universe qualified to be that substitute
Please understand this is the readers digest version of the crib notes of the argument. If you wish to think independently about a topic like this you need to understand it better then we can accomplish in an internet chat room
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 10, 2008 @ 8:30 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You asked…
I'm doing well this Sunday morning. I hope this is a good morning for you too.
Consider me warned.
To me, this isn't about blame; it is about understanding and testing.
I thank you for your efforts.
I immediately noted you used the term "ethical theory" here. I can relate to the idea there is some inherent ethical gene in some animals, including us. Here is a link to a scientific paper on that.
Now to call it a "Law" makes the subject sound unyelding, which is probably the purpose behind assuming the existence of "Natual Law". It makes for desirable conclusions that appear to be unquestionable.
So, if you are suggesting "lex naturalis" is a given, you have assumed your conclusion and the rest of the logic chain is superfluous. Therefore, I will read this as there is evidence that there might be a natural law.
There is some evidence that ethical behavior is beneficial to a species.
Excuse me, but your terminology is a play on the words "law" and "penalty". It is almost to the point of an equivocation logic fallacy. Scientific laws don't tend to have a "penalty".
There is some evidence that enforcement of ethical behavior is beneficial to a species.
"Law", "penalty" and now "punished proportionally" are a play on words.
Where did evil come from? As in, what definition and logic are you using?
Is "evil" just a term for "unethical behavior"
"Law", "penalty", "punished proportionally" and, now, "injustice" are a play on words.
"Unfairness" is what some species have an innate ability to detect and react to.
Up to this point, it appears you have been trying to support your presumption of the existance of Natural Law, complete with penalties and a need for enforcement.
This major point can be (and has) been argued for thousands of years. So let me help move things along by just agreeing to disagree. I think ethics and morality are separate. I believe what you call "Natural Law" is on the philosophical side of the NOMA divide. Since you have indicated you don't agree with NOMA, then it would make sense that you would combine the two.
There are ramifications to rejecting NOMA which will probably become apparent in follow on conversations. Meanwhile, I suggest we pretend that you can make a fantastic argument for the existence of an absolute Natural Law which I will stubbornly disagree with.
I am interested in seeing what follows…
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence!
You skipped a step. Your statement implies that the universe (God) sometimes punishes unfairness and injustice.
This you will have to provide evidence for.
A kid tortures puppies, the puppies' mother bites him. Is this punishment and justice?
If an evil person lives a solitary life and dies by falling off a cliff. Is this punishment and justice?
I understand that several religious people suggest the universe (God) made the 9/11 fires extraordinarily hot to punish evil. Is this punishment and justice?
I suggest the evidence shows that living things are the enforcers of any "Natural Law" that might exist, not the universe in general.
Hmmm, doesn't this assume God (the universe) is a living thing under the same absolute code of conduct as the rest of us living things?
BTW, I am interested in your answer of whether a dog biting an "evil" child is punishment or not.
There are a couple of big leaps here.
Why must the substitute be willing?
How does an extreme violation of a code of conduct erase violations of the code of conduct?
Continuing from the previous point…
What was wrong with all those innocent goats, sheep and virgins?
Now if Christ was chosen because, by some twisted logic, God was punishing himself, you might have a point. But this hardly puts everything back in balance.
I also question that this was the "only" way to do this.
For example, something similar could have been done today (timing shouldn't be an issue for a timeless being).
"…Israel, four BC, had no mass communication!"
(I get my inspiration for multiple places, including a Rock Opera)
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 10, 2008 @ 11:53 am
February 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
TP
I have to pull another Sunday shift no rest for the wicked
Sure they do by definition the penalty for violating a scientific law is non existence. The same Goes for the moral law no equivocation here we are talking about the same concept in both cases
No its shorthand for a violation of natural law
It's not a question of the strength of my argument you have already shone that you believe the natural law to be real by your describing certain desires as petty even if held by God. It's too late I've already won the natural law argument. The only question is can you be consistent or will you allow your emotions to cloud your judgment.
consistency requires immediate death for violations of the natural law would a machine that violated the second law of thermo dynamics but later needed repair be acceptable to you as an engineer? Or would you assume that something was amiss in the universe?
Yes that is the definition of a universal law you accepted as much. If you like we can discuss how God can be bound by a law that he instituted and yet be omnipotent but that is delving even deeper into theology. How about we tackle the basics first?
Because to be unwilling is itself a violation of the natural law
Since when is self sacrifice a violation of natural law? I would go so far as to say it's highest expression of natural law
They were not The God Man and
were not a valid federal representative(I can explain if you like)
were not with out defect
so they could not therefore qualify as a substitute for God or Man.
In a sense that is exactly what happened (Romans 3:25-26)
Why not?
I'm not saying it had to happen when it did only that it had to happen. Life could have happened at a different time or place but according to our theory it had to happen.
If you believe that life could occur in a different way than it did the burden of proof to on you to show how.
The same goes with the Christ event if you don't think Jesus of Nazareth is uniquely qualified the burden of proof is on you to bring forth your candidate and see if God (the universe) accepts his sacrifice
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 10, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I'm sorry to hear you pulled the Sunday shift.
Thank you for commenting, but I hope you aren't losing your patience because it looks like you are trying to take some liberties on what I have and have not agreed to.
I wrote…
Scientific laws don't tend to have a "penalty".
The "penalty" for a violation of a scientific law is that the law gets changed.
Is "evil" just a term for "unethical behavior"
In your opening definition, you wrote "Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is an ethical theory…" I took that to mean you are talking about an absolute code of conduct. So I took "unethical behavior" to mean the same thing as "violation of natural law" and visa versa.
So, is a "violation of natural law" something more than "unethical conduct", "immoral conduct" and/or "violation of an absolute code of conduct"
If so, please explain.
Nice try, but I am hardly an authoritative source. I think it is "petty" for a timeless being to even be intelligent much less have desires of wrath. My opinions are just that, opinions.
All I have done is agree to disagree with the concept that there is an absolute code of conduct. If you really want to revisit this, shall we start talking about the conduct of Spartans throwing babies off the cliff? Surely an absolute code of conduct wouldn't change over time, especially if it effects a timeless being.
If you want to try and parley my opinion that it would be petty for a timeless being to have desires into some argument for the existence of an absolute code of conduct, be my guest.
While I agreed to disagree, I still disagree.
To my…
A kid tortures puppies, the puppies' mother bites him. Is this punishment and justice?
If an evil person lives a solitary life and dies by falling off a cliff. Is this punishment and justice?
I understand that several religious people suggest the universe (God) made the 9/11 fires extraordinarily hot to punish evil. Is this punishment and justice?
I suggest the evidence shows that living things are the enforcers of any "Natural Law" that might exist, not the universe in general.
You didn't answer the questions or provide your own examples.
Instead you responded with…
Depending on how you define things, machines temporarily violate the second law of thermodynamics all the time. It is closed systems that can't violate it. But that probably isn't the point you are trying to make.
Like I indicated earlier, if there was a "violation" of a scientific law, it wouldn't mean the violator needs punished or fixed or that the universe was amiss, it is the law that would get changed.
For example, Mercury violates Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
As I suggested earlier, your play on words about laws and punishment doesn't apply to scientific laws. Scientific laws aren't absolute and don't "punish" anything with "non-existence".
…doesn't this assume God (the universe) is a living thing under the same absolute code of conduct as the rest of us living things?
Again, nice try. Even if you twist my words into something they were not, I never accepted that God was living much less under the same code of conduct. I will make it easy for you. Please assume all my discussions about God include the disclaimer "If God exists, is living and intelligent…" Retroactively, I am modifying my previous statement to read…
I "…suggest we leave the possibility of God having petty desires for Justice and wrath for later discussions…" assuming God exists, is living and intelligent.
My point was that you need to establish that God is living before you can expect him to follow a code of conduct like other living, feeling things.
Why must the substitute be willing?
Killing a willing victim is ok? I think Dr. Kevorkian would like to know that.
Suicide is ok too. Got it.
What was wrong with all those innocent goats, sheep and virgins?
You are skipping a step. I was talking about an absolute code of conduct for all living things. You appear to be limiting it to just man. You need to justify that. I think this probably goes back to evidence of who and/or what enforces the absolute code of conduct. This may also provide clues as to what and/or who must follow the code of conduct.
At the very least, monkeys seem to follow a code of conduct similar to ours.
Now if Christ was chosen because, by some twisted logic, God was punishing himself, you might have a point.
Fifth Monarchy Man, I have been impressed by your restraint in trying to use the bible to argue from authority. As you know, I look at the Bible as more of a history book. I also think it was created by fallible humans thinking for themselves, trying to make sense of things. That being said, let's look at the passage you mentioned…
I read this to suggest we are all sinners are judged unworthy of God's glory. That God is justified in his judgment because redemption is available though Jesus Christ whom God sent forth to allow redemption through faith in Jesus' blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins…
I'm not sure where you are coming from unless you are suggesting "his blood" was referring to God's blood.
However, I think this is an opinion of a fallible, thinking human. It is not a recollection of a historical event. I don't see it as evidence of much more that the opinion of someone who lived 2000 years ago.
"But this hardly puts everything back in balance."
Why?
I also question that this was the "only" way to do this.
Sorry, but you did say in your previous comment that…
I noticed you said "Christ" instead of "Jesus". I happen to think of Jesus as the man and Christ as the ideal. There is evidence that a wander Rabbi lived 2000 years ago and probably would have been forgotten if not for the actions of his bother and a very talented Hellenistic Jew.
Your statement now is…
What was YOUR argument again?
I have ample evidence that I am a thinking person.
I deduce, and have evidence, that I can think for myself.
Therefore, I deduce that if God does exist, it is his will that I think for myself.
Now, I have agreed to disagree that there is an absolute code of conduct I should be following.
I don't see how that changes any presumption that if God exists, it is his will that I think for myself.
You appear to be suggesting that the "ONLY" way the code of conduct can exist is that God exists and that he sacrificed a wandering Rabbi 2000 years ago.
And, then, somehow this will point to how God's will is something different than I presume.
The burden of proof is on you to explain why.
However, if you want another candidate, I suggest me.
Dear יְהֹוָה, (Jehova),
Please accept this willing sacrifice so that others can know and glorify your name.
I have lived a long and fruitful life and would be humbled and honored to give up the remainder of it for this noble cause.
Sincerely,
(you know)
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 10, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Hey TP
TP
How ya doing?
We seem to be drifting all over the map here I realize you have many problems with my argument but I believe it would be best to take them one at a time. We should really try and focus if we want to continue to try and condense years of study into a couple of minutes on a science site.
Forgive me if I don't address all your issues this time it's in the interest of clarity and we can pick them up later if they still bother you
That is not true a scientific law never gets changed it's only our understanding of it changes we think that the law of gravity means that what goes up must come down and later we decide it means
Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses:
We did not change the law we changed our understanding but the penalty for violating it remains non existence.
The natural law is an absolute code of conduct and to commit evil is to violate it
My point is that when we judge others by a standard we are assuming that that standard applies to them this is the essence of natural law theory. I understand you claim not to believe in a natural law but your actions prove otherwise. It's your choice whether you want to your words and actions to be consistent but I've won the argument your actions are all the proof I need. I know this fact angers you and I'm sorry but sometimes tuff love is the best love.
See above machines or planets may appear to violate natural law but in fact never do.
Please feel free to substitute "universe" for any time I use the term God. In your theory the universe creates itself and is therefore God
Gotta run More later
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 11, 2008 @ 8:33 am
February 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Very nice work, FMM.
My compliments (echoing TP's remark) on your patience and restraint.
Comment by Pez — February 11, 2008 @ 11:53 am
February 11th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I am doing fine today. I hope you are too.
Thank you again for commenting. Believe it or not I see some forward progress in our "drifting all over the map".
I noted you ended with "more later" but I thought I would respond to what you did write.
I'm not angry, I am more disappointed. I have attempted to explain the situation from my viewpoint, but you appear to want to claim victory by fiat. Oh well, I still disagree. And if you think you can bully me into not thinking for myself with "tuff love", I will simply smile. My interactions with After the Bar Closes was a walk in the park compared to other exchanges I have had during my reasonably long life time. It has been explained to me multiple times that I am going to hell even if I don't believe in hell. More than one person with supposedly Christian values appeared to be pleased with the though of that outcome.
However, our exchange did illuminated some things. You wrote…
It is becoming apparent that your absolute code of conduct (i.e. Natural Law) applies to non-living things as well as living things. Now I will leave open the possibility that I am misunderstanding what you said, so please correct me as appropriate. I don't find much value in declaring victory by fiat.
Your concept that there is a TRUE set of flawless laws but our understanding of it is flawed isn't unexpected since your belief system appears to be mostly based on Western Philosophy that can be traced back to Plato.
This paper has a reasonable summary of Plato's ideas.
Plato (Greek philosopher, c. 428 BC – c. 348 BC) is often considered the first idealist philosopher, chiefly because of his metaphysical doctrine of Forms. Plato considered the universal Idea or Form, sometimes called an archetype"”for example, redness or goodness"”to be more real than a particular expression of the form"”a red object or a good deed. According to Plato, the world of changing experience is unreal, and the Idea or Form"”which does not change and which can be known only by reason"”constitutes true reality.
Sobottka also has some thought provoking ideas about Quantum Mechanics and presents a view that is contrary to embracing NOMA. It bothered me for a while, until I figured out where the leap across the NOMA boundary occurred. You may want to read it.
At any rate, until you explain otherwise, I am going to presume your absolute code of conduct is more like an ideal understanding of reality (ala Plato).
This would equate to my concept that the universe is a single, wavefunction in 4D spacetime. Everything is part of the wavefunction.
I still chaffe at your wording that there are penalties for not being part of the wavefunction. If something is not part of the wavefunction (Natural Law of the universe) then it doesn't exist. Violations don't exist. "Evil" (defined as violations of Natural Law) doesn't exist.
So, here we sit in Plato's cave looking at shadows on the wall trying to figure out what are reflections of reality and what are only shadows of nothingness.
I think.
I think for myself.
I think that thinking for myself is part of the wavefunction making up reality.
I see a shadow that appears to be thinking.
Instead of "wavefunction" this shadow uses the term "Natural Law".
This shadow says some other things that I don't agree with, so I ask questions…
I understand that several religious people suggest the universe (God) made the 9/11/2001 fires extraordinarily hot to punish evil, others called the act itself evil.
Do you consider what happened on 9/11/2001 to be part of Natural Law or a violation of it?
I consider all things (including what happened on 9/11) to be part of the universe's wavefuntion is 4D spacetime.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 11, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
TP wrote:
Not if you define it the way scientists do.
The 2nd Law can be expressed in terms of closed systems, but also in a more general form that applies to all systems. Neither form is violated by machines.
The only known possible violations of the 2nd law, as conventionally expressed, occur over extremely short time and distance scales.
Comment by valerie — February 11, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Hey TP
Perhaps I should address you most recent comments first and wait to move on until we completely understand each other
Notice how I simply point out inconsistencies between your words and your actions and you take it to be bulling. This is what I meant by letting your emotions cloud your judgment
Notice my suggesting that you really do believe in natural law despite what you say is taken by you to be the equivalent of my telling you that you are going to hell and being happy about it. I find the connection between these two very different things in your mind very telling…….. very telling
You are correct Plato is my homeboy. And the wave function would equate to natural law for our purposes.
You are correct in the long run but you must remember the wave function has not completely collapsed yet. There is still some fuzz to be cleared up.
Lets see
The planes obeyed natural law when they slammed into the buildings.
The buildings obeyed natural law when they burst into flames and collapsed.
The victims obeyed natural law when they died from heat or crushing or smoke inhalation.
The terrorists disobeyed natural law when they deliberately took innocent life
God (the universe) disobeyed when some of those responsible continued to live after they disobeyed natural law. That is unless God (the universe) made a compensating sacrifice in exchange for this grace.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 11, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Hi Valerie,
Thanks for the helpful link.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 11, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Thank you for commenting.
For some reason you felt your actions were making me angry (via frustration). That is the general goal of bullying, which is why I said "IF you think you can bully me…"
For the record, it was not my intent to imply your were saying I was going to hell, I was using it as an example of people trying to bully me in the past.
Good, that helps somewhat with the confusion. However, you appear to jump back and forth between Natural Law being an "ethical theory" (your words) and a hard and fast scientific law.
And you continue your jumping back and forth between the law being hard and fast, and flexible (fuzzy?).
Wave-forms collapse into particle-forms. A wavefunction just is.
A wavefunction in 4D spacetime doesn't "collapse" because collapsing is something that happens over time. Time is one of the wavefunction's dimensions.
IMO, spacetime is NOT 3D Euclidean geometry clicking by frame by frame. Observations like GPS clocks show that spacetime is truly four dimensional, not 3D + time.
I happen to think there is no randomness and, thus, no quantum fuzz.
While we can't know what the future is, the universal wavefunction is already fixed (hard and fast). I will make arguments backed up with quantum experimental data if and when it becomes needed.
And those that consider us infidels and themselves the followers of the true law think we disobey the law.
Why are you right and they wrong?
In my terms, no action can "disobey" the wavefunction.
There is no imbalance that needs to be corrected, because the wavefunction is timeless and fixed.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 11, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Hey TP
I think you are almost at the point of understanding my argument. It actually went faster then I thought it would. Maybe folks can communicate over the internet.
You consider expressing an opinion about your future that is contrary to yours to be bulling. I did not know you were so fragile. I once saw a kid beat up because he was mentally handicapped now that was bulling!!
No jumping on my part the moral law is hard and fast the "ethical theory" is our attempt to understand it.
Your right I stand corrected I meant to say that from our prospective there still was some fuzz. From Gods timeless prospective there is no fuzz and evil (violations of natural law) does not exist. Romans 8:28, Genesis 50:20.
This can be established with a simple empirical test. Simply have a more moderate Islamic group kill their women and children in the name of Allah and see if they complain.
I agree but from our prospective it can appear that there is disobedience. Remember your example of the machine that appeared to violate the second law. If there is a net loss of entropy in one part of the wave function it must be compensated by a gain in another inorder for the wave function to be consistent with itself.
The same goes for violations of the moral law
But is it consistent with it's self? If it is then the Christ event has to happen and Christianity is necessarily true
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 12, 2008 @ 8:02 am
February 12th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Thank you for the continuing conversation.
You wrote…
The existence of the mentally handicapped can be disturbing to those used to black and white thinking. The same reaction happens with the unusual kid that is quiet and thinks too much. I have had more than one black and white thinker show me some "tuff love" so I would learn to act normal. Nothing serious, usually a punch to the stomach occasionally a black eye.
I got a little more vocal in High School. One day we were having class discussions about the benefits and drawbacks of our system verses the Soviet Union's. I was the only one making suggestions of the benefits of the other side. As Nullasalus might say, I riled most of the rest of the class by not joining the Group Think. Eventually, someone sitting next to me said something to the effect that at least we aren't going to hell in a rather angry voice. I responded with the statement that in my religion we don't believe in hell. Even though he was no more that three feet away from me, he yelled at the top of his lungs "WELL, YOUR RELIGION IS STUPID!" It was apparent that the rest of the class generally agreed with him and continued their condemnation of me for defending a godless system. BTW, I felt the teacher sympathized with me but she too was bullied. She was new and properly assumed that these kids' parents would have demanded she be fired if she tried saying anything close to what I said. Our school was conservative and Conservative.
When I was in college, I had a lab partner who was foreign. One day he came in black and blue and bandaged. He was obviously beat up pretty badly (took several weeks to heal). He wasn't mugged for money. He was a college student, he had no money. He was mugged because someone with black and white thinking was disturbed by his presence.
I don't know if my lab partner's mugger was religious, but I assume he was. We were all religious. Even hippies were religious. And the guardsmen who shot the hippies were religious too. One day at Kent State the organized bullies in guardsmen uniforms shot people who were protesting against black and white thinking. However, some of the victims were simply students minding their own business going to their next class. They weren't handicapped, at least they weren't before they were shot.
But enough about bullying, let's continue discussing your suggestion that the death of one wandering rabbi out of many two thousand years ago brought balance and sense to our universe.
Good, I got a little confused because it sounded like you were suggesting evil (violations of Natural Law) existed. BTW, Penrose embraces the idea of a Platonic World too.
Hopefully, we now agree that the events of 9/11/2001 were just as much a part of the universe (aka wavefunction, aka God's will) as any other events on any other days.
However, when I asked…
…those that consider us infidels and themselves the followers of the true law think we disobey the law. Why are you right and they wrong?
You responded with…
And they can say something to effect to having Americans do to Chicago what that did to Fallujah and see if they complain. "Good" and "evil" tend to be terms used by those who are comfortable with absolute black and white. Now that we established "evil" doesn't exist, everything is consistent with the wavefunction (aka universe, aka God's will).
There are oscillations in the wavefunction due to actions and reactions. The boy teases a puppy, the puppy's mother bites the boy. Oscillations tend to either escalate or dampen. A damping oscillation would be the boy learning his lesson. An escallating oscillation would be a powerful country engaging in a pre-emptive war against a country that had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/2001.
That is a testimonial assertion on your part.
I could just as easily say that the events of 9/11 had to happen and Islam is necessarily true.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 12, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
TP
You have some serious issues with religious folks. I suggest you learn how to get past them. So much pent up hostility is bound to come out in other areas of your life. I say that out of genuine concern for someone that I enjoy talking to. Bitterness is like a cancer it will eat you up in the end.
Looks like you DO understand this universal moral law stuff, if it's wrong in Chicago its wrong in Fallujah. And you thought the moral law was subjective. It's really simple if you just let it be I'm glad we are on the same page.
Here is where we need to clarify. A puppy teaser bitten is not a oscillation in the wave function its just a bite from a dog. The penalty for violating a natural law is not a bite from a dog or even pain and embarrassment it's death(non existence).
Natural law is not like karma it's like math. there is only one satisfactory penalty for violators.
Remember a perpetual motion machine can't exist in a consistent universe. End of story
If I invented a truly perpetual motion machine that functioned adequately but occasionally over heated and rattled. Would you believe that you were witnessing an oscillation or would you conclude that something was wrong with the universe.
I'll bite. How does the events of 9/11 compensate for the continued existence millions of entities that violate natural law? It seems to me to add to the tally of evil rather than subtracting from it. What am I missing?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 12, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
I have issues with folks who think in terms of "Good" and "Evil". Framing things in black and white categories shortcut's the thinking process. After all, once one decides we are one nation under God, trusting in God, why would they question the correctness of our actions?
Once again, you appear to think I am angry. I'm not. I'm being provocative.
Did I indicate either position being right or wrong? I wanted to know why you thought you're right and they are wrong. Rather than simply saying neither, you claimed a hypothetical as "empirical evidence". I suggest your hypothetical was worthless.
Both sides are equally right and wrong. The wavefunction just is.
There you go with your "penalty" again. There are no violations of the wavefunction. There is no evil. There is nothing to penalize.
Saying it is "just a bite from a dog" is the same as it is "just slow torture from a sadist".
At some point, you may want to explain why you seem to treat human behavior as something special from the behavior of other things, living or not.
I agree, the oscillations I was talking about is like math in a fixed wavefunction (e.g. a sine wave).
There are no violations of the wavefunction, as you said "end of story."
All events are equally important parts of the wavefunction. There are no violations of the wavefunction, "end of story."
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 12, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Good morining TP
Everyone thinks like that we can't help it is one of the best evidences that the moral law is real. You do this as well TP except for you good and white equals tolerant and Evil and black equals intolerant.
It must be very difficult having issues with yourself. This partially explains the obvious bitterness that comes through somtimes in your writing.
I would agree that both sides are equally wrong It's a standard Calvinist doctrine called total depravity I don't however see much evidence of either side being right however, at least when it comes to the killing your enemies part.
There are apparent violations all over the place if the moral law is real. and I've already established that both of us believe it is real.
I don't treat human behavior as different you do. As far as I'm concerend A violation is a violation whether it come from a boy or a perpetual motion machine. In either instance the penalty is non existence.
But there are apparent violations all over the place. Remember your physics TP for every decrease in entropy in one part of the system there must be a corresponding increase somewhere else in order for the universe to be consistent with itself.
Where is the event that compensates for all the apparent violations of natural law we see all around us. If there isn't one the wave function is inconsistent and as you said the wave function will do anything to be consistent.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 13, 2008 @ 8:07 am
February 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Good Morning to you too.
All animals (including humans) tend to try to catagorize things as either dangerous or not dangerous. It is a survival mechanism. If an animal stubbornly catagorises all humans as dangerous, humans will decide that animal is not trustworthy and probably kill it (ironicly making the animal's assessment correct).
You wrote…
I would say I tend to think of hypocrasy as evil. I recognise it is a weakness and I try to compensate for it. I think it is good to have issues with yourself, it keeps arrogant behavior in check.
Your insistance that I am angry is obviously becoming important to you. You really want it to be true. Are you working up to a point where you can rationalise I am a danger (to myself and others). Are your defensive mechanisms starting to kick in?
I want to take this opportunaty to thank you once again for your continuing participation in our conversation and to compliment you on your patience and tolerance. It is my hope we can continue.
I suggest, the evidence shows both sides were correct in their assessment of the other side (making them "right"). Just like the dangerous animal is ultimately proven to be right if and when he is killed.
Holistically, the wavefunction (aka universe, aka God's will) just is. Both sides are equally "right" and "wrong" because their actions are all equally part of the wavefunction. There are no violations of the wavefunction.
You have claimed to know what I believe by fiat (defense mechanisms kicking in?). I disagree that there is an absolute moral law deciding what is "right" and "wrong". That being said, I admit to a weakness in thinking that inconsistant behavior is wrong. Words like "hypocritical", "unethical" and "petty" are just some of the ways I express this.
What I should be saying is that a consider inconsistant behavior to be evidence of untrustworthiness. I can trust things that act in a selfish manner, because their actions are predictable. While I may cuss a rock I stub my toe on, but I can't fault the rock for selfishly existing. Living things are different. They are more complicated. If I give a dog some food and treat it nicely, it may bite me anyway because it decided I was dangerous regardless of the evidence. Humans are one of the more complicated animals.
Human's set up codes of conduct and promise "penalties" for violations. Some people recognise this as just a necessary part of getting along and there is even evidence our brains are wired to trigger a negative reaction to violations of agreements. So by instinct and habit we see "apparent violations all over the place" that aren't there. There are no violations of the wavefunction (aka Natural Law, aka God's will).
Thank you for clarifying that human behavior has no separate status from other behavior, living or not.
Then call it oscillations and balance, not penalties. Penalties need to be enforced. Oscillations and balance are the result that violations of the wavefunction (aka Natural Law, aka God's Will) can't happen. As you said earlier, it's math.
Are you talking about where I said…
If I understand you correctly, my usual answer is that even if a rock (or a cup of tea) is interconnected with the whole of the universe, there isn't much it can do about it. Living things are more useful for fulfilling a universal purpose if such a purpose exists. My modest philosophical suggestion is that a possible purpose of the universe is to do whatever it takes to exist and be consistent with itself.
As for God"¦
If God is a timeless being his view of the universe would be holistic. He would see the entire 4D spacetime geometry for all space and all time. God would create one big wavefunction ""¦And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Gen1:31.
And to this engineer "good" means an invention that is complete and logical (i.e. is consistent with itself).
As I said, I have a weakness in philosophically thinking of consistency as "good". I know postulating a universal purpose around it is a violation of my NOMA principles. I hope you can forgive me for my indiscretions in this area.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 13, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Hey TP
wassup
No it's just that you constantly feel it necessary to complain that religious folks are bad because they kill people or because they called atheism stupid or mugged your friend etc. and because you think of it as bullying when someone tells you they think you are going to hell. This kind of thing sounds to me like the complaints of some who has a chip on his shoulder. I could be wrong and you are being perfectly rational by bring up a conversation between teenagers that happened years ago when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand but I doubt it.
No I claim that your actions demonstrate that you believe in the reality of the moral law. This is not fiat is just an observation. You can continue to claim that you don't believe in the natural law but if your actions say you do how do I know whether you are lying or just inconsistent? And why should I care what you think if you don't have the ability to live by your own convictions in this matter.
Can you not see the blatant disconnect here? If there is not a law (standard) how do you determine what is wrong? You can't. There must be a standard even if that standard is you.
I realize you don't like the term "penalty" perhaps because it doesn't sound tolerant I can call it cream cheese if you like but the result is the same. Every apparent violation must be compensated and every real violation has an immediate one way ticket out of existence. A murder in my state is often oscillated using the electric chair
You still haven't proposed a valid event(s) to compensate for the apparent violations of the wave function. I would like you to address that before we lay this topic to rest.
Until you do I stand by statement that in your theory if the moral law is real Christianity is true nessarily.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 13, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Thank you again for your continued conversation. I think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. I hope you have a better understanding of mine. Even though it is looking like we may be getting to a forced impass I have been impressed with how far we managed to get. I will try to kick start it again, but I won't be surprised if you decide you have had enough.
You wrote…
Maybe I was being too subtle, because I think examining extreme behavior has quite a bit to do with the subject at hand.
I noticed you have dropped our examination of the behaviors surrounding the events of 9/11/2001 and the war in Iraq. Let me repeat the key point…
Holistically, the wavefunction (aka Natural Law, aka God's will) just is. Both sides are equally "right" and "wrong" because their actions are all equally part of the wavefunction. There are no violations of the wavefunction. There is no "evil" if "evil" is defined as a violation of Natural Law.
You also skipped over the biased dog sliding into the human behavior example (taking advantage of your agreement that there was nothing special about human behavior). I was looking forward to your reaction that…
"I can trust things that act in a selfish manner, because their actions are predictable."
Obviously, that is a reference to the unpredicability of people trying to follow an unseen code of behavior. You never know when they are going to decide which moral imperitive will cause them to act against their own interest. Be it trusting a complete stranger based on a presumption he is a "good christian" to strapping dynamite to their chest and blowing themselves up.
This is playing games with terms. We have agreed on a definition of Natural Law (aka wavefunction, aka universe). Therefore, I have agreed with Natural Law. We have agreed that violations of Natural Law (aka wavefunction) are impossible. If you are equating "moral law" to Natural Law, then everyone is moral. We have no choice, because violations can't happen.
I note we haven't gotten into the subject of free will yet. I have no problems with the concept of free will in a fixed wavefunction. I wouldn't be surprised if you don't agree. If this is the case then I suggest there might be a difference between Natural Law and what you call moral law.
To me saying…
I disagree that there is an absolute moral law deciding what is "right" and "wrong". That being said, I admit to a weakness in thinking that inconsistant behavior is wrong.
You wrote…
I can't determine what is absolutely wrong. I have feelings that are the result of how my brain is wired and out of habit. Spiderman has a supernatural sense of danger. I sometimes feel I can intuitively sense danger (get scared for no reason), does that mean I have spidey-sense?
Subjective judgements of right and wrong are easy to explain. A dog catorgizing dangerous from non-dangerous makes that kind of subjective judgement.
APPARENT violations don't need to be compensated because they are only illusionary. Real violations of Natural Law can't happen. Your equivocation of the scientific meaning of the word "law" with jurisprudence, while slightly amuzing, is immaterial.
Defense mechanisms kicking in?
This wasn't about me trying to convert (deconvert?) you. I have no illusions about trying to convince you to give up Christianity. This is about independent thinking.
I think.
I think for myself.
I think that thinking for myself is part of the wavefunction making up reality.
I see a shadow that appears to be thinking.
Instead of "wavefunction" this shadow uses the term "Natural Law".
He says Natural Law can not be violated.
Then he says violations of Natural Law (which can't happen) must be compensated for.
This is somehow supposed to mean real Christianity is truly neccessary.
I wait to see what the shadow has to say about free will.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 13, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Hey TP
wassup
I'm very busy so I'm not going to waste any more of our time time arguing with you about the reality of natural law because
1 I feel that I've already won that argument.
2 You have a powerful incentive not to acknowledge that fact ever.
Let's just agree to disagree on this one OK. I feel like a parent who is arguing with a kid with cookie crumbs on his face about whether or not he has been stealing Oreos. Absent regeneration I know you are never going to admit that I'm right. You've got to much invested. I think it's best to just move on.
as to the rest of our discussion.
It is possible even probable that dogs have a moral standard to their behavior but I since I'm not a dog would have a hard time determining what it was absent special revelation. I can give you a bibical anwser but since this is a science blog I will refrain.
Of course you're right but you seem to have have completly missed my point
I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at perhaps becaue you are confusing our prospective from the prospective of the wave function.
If I see what looks like a perpetual motion machine as one who believes in the consistency of the universe I have two options
1) I can confidently say it's not really a violation of the 2nd law simply because there are no violations of the 2nd law and go on my merry way.
2) I can find out where the lack of entropy in this object is being compensated from. I know there must be compensation and I can endeavor to find it.
As an independent thinker I would opt for option 2 wouldn't you?
Your NOMA is causing you confusion again. This is not about conversion of deconversion It's about a scientific prediction
If the Moral law is a real part of the universal wave function then there must be a Christ event
Therefore…
if Christ is not raised then Orch OR is false.
I'ts that simple
Nothing special I'm a typical compatibilist
Thanks again it's been fun
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 14, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Like I said, my compliments on making it this far. It is probably for the best that we end here. It will be interesting to see how our future interactions happen based on this foundation building.
You wrote…
I think you felt you "won the argument" before we started. However, if you review the thread. This wasn't an argument. It was a discussion about independent thinking. I was trying to get you to explain your chain of logic by explaining mine.
My incentive is in trying to think for myself. I have no aversion to believing in the existance of God. I even have a concept of God I believe in.
My only aversion is accepting someone else's Truth.
I think,
I think for myself.
I think that thinking for myself is part of the wavefunction making up reality.
I think if there is a God, he created the wavefunction so I could think for myself.
I think that love gives purpose to my life.
I think God is love.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 14, 2008 @ 9:36 pm