Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moving towards an ID mechanism.
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 76 of 141 (264219)
11-29-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
11-29-2005 4:56 PM


Re: where's the beef?
No, it is not moot. It is exceptionally important. Do you understand determinism? You cannot add information in a deterministic system. There can be no external influence.
So your argument is that God cannot exist according to physics?Interesting, but an unproven concept imo.
I think you also don't consider that God could be an integral part of the system, and conversely the system could be part of God, and so no outside influences exist because there are no influences outside of God.
But the idea that no external influences could ever exist because the universe is deterministic in the way you claim is somewhat outlandish of a claim, but let's go deeper into that.
That idea suggests very strongly then that all events and things already exist prior to their occurence, and I suppose viewing space-time as a whole, that makes some sense, but this should also include all ideas and designs. In other words, the designs and information would all need to exist within the deeper framework of the universe prior to their evolving, right? You can't add information to the system, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:56 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2005 5:41 PM randman has not replied
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 12:31 PM randman has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 77 of 141 (264221)
11-29-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by cavediver
11-29-2005 4:25 PM


Re: where's the beef?
cavediver writes:
There is no theory of which I am aware that is not deterministic.
Not saying much since reality is still relativley undefined scientifically . *excuse the pun* I remember reading that Dr. Hawking admitted that mental reality baffles him. The last frontier of the non-determinist. A complete theory of physics would have to explain all realities and physical objects it defines and perceptions of. We may be in for a wait. ***interesting subject btw. edit typos.
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 11-29-2005 05:33 PM

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 4:25 PM cavediver has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 78 of 141 (264225)
11-29-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by randman
11-29-2005 5:24 PM


Re: where's the beef?
and one such scientist at the Smithsonian was subject to an intense withhunt that included deliberate fabrications in an attempt to smear him
Hit the deck - that pig's flying awful low!
Edit: We probably shouldn't go off topic here - but I just wanted to note for the record not everyone sees it the way you do.
This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 11-29-2005 05:40 PM

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:41 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 141 (264227)
11-29-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by MangyTiger
11-29-2005 5:38 PM


Re: where's the beef?
I know. Just PBS, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the federal investigators, etc,...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by MangyTiger, posted 11-29-2005 5:38 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 80 of 141 (264228)
11-29-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
11-29-2005 5:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
randman writes:
So your argument is that God cannot exist according to physics?
God can exist if you define God as:
a)the universe = everything you perceive and.....
b)a powerful entity that would want to make such a universe.
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 11-29-2005 05:42 PM
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 11-29-2005 05:43 PM

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:31 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 81 of 141 (264229)
11-29-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Brad McFall
11-29-2005 5:15 PM


Re: where's the place?
Brad, just want to say that if I don't respond to your posts, it's nothing personal. They are just over my head. I can't figure them out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2005 5:15 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2005 9:22 PM randman has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 82 of 141 (264248)
11-29-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Brad McFall
11-29-2005 5:15 PM


Re: where's the place?
that provide the place to space in the redundant numbers that physics still does not use since it strove for a single dimenional analysis.
Don't be too sure of what is not used. These days we are finding use for just about everything. If Connes can get p-adics into physics, then nothing is sacred!
but the question of where is the good room that is free to Intelligent Design if God needs latitude as well as longitude?
Good point. I don't believe that God acts within physics. I've always thought of any interference, if it exists, is whole-scale changes in reality. I don't like the idea of God hiding in macroscopic thermodynamic noise, nor planck-scale quantum noise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2005 5:15 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2005 9:20 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 87 by mick, posted 11-30-2005 3:02 PM cavediver has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 83 of 141 (264332)
11-29-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
11-29-2005 6:10 PM


Re: where's the place?
Ok, great I wont stop at this place. I undestand "where you are coming from."
I would love to see some actual applied math use of Cantor's real number progression (A,B,C,...L) that Dauben
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/4740.html
restricted towards a discussion of Frege. Perhaps there are some and I just do not know.
In line with this thread prior, Cantor thought of opticks as a use for his numbers and Thom considered caustics
Images with caustics by Henrik Wann Jensen
to apply in the condition it was all light in the form, whether moved or stationary.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-29-2005 09:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 84 of 141 (264333)
11-29-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by randman
11-29-2005 5:43 PM


Re: where's the place?
It's no water off my back, back in one, two....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:43 PM randman has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 85 of 141 (264443)
11-30-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
11-29-2005 5:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
So your argument is that God cannot exist according to physics?Interesting, but an unproven concept imo.
That's not my argument. But as you bring it up... no, I do not believe God can exist according to physics. That would leave the door open to us creating God, given sufficient control of the physical universe...
However, I think what you meant was that [my argument was] God cannot interact with the universe via physical mechanisms. I think I agree with that. I see the universe totally self-contained, running on physical principles. I would probably place any divine intervention in the realm of "global changes to reality" (as I was discussing with Brad). This keeps God's activities out of science and back into Goddidit and faith, which is where I personally believe all such musings belong.
I think you also don't consider that God could be an integral part of the system, and conversely the system could be part of God, and so no outside influences exist because there are no influences outside of God.
I do sometimes think along these lines, but primarily focus on God being outside the physical universe.
But the idea that no external influences could ever exist because the universe is deterministic in the way you claim is somewhat outlandish of a claim
Not at all outlandish. I would claim the opposite based on the opinions of the physicists I know. My outlandish view would be that there are external divine influences DESPITE the universe being deterministic...
That idea suggests very strongly then that all events and things already exist prior to their occurence
I agree, it is very suggestive. But there are alternatives...
and I suppose viewing space-time as a whole, that makes some sense
A bit more than some... it is the fundemental basis of General Relativity. It is rarely pointed out, but GR is the ultimate physics of pre-destination.
In other words, the designs and information would all need to exist within the deeper framework of the universe prior to their evolving, right?
Possibly, but who's to say that "your" designs are not created by "your" thoughts in the process of creation of the universe? Creation of the universe is not a matter of when and where. Creation is all around you... it is the existence of the universe.
You see? We can babble bollocks about existence without bastardising physics...
You can't add information to the system, correct?
Not via physical mechanisms, no... at least, that's what it look like.
This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-30-2005 12:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by randman, posted 11-30-2005 2:47 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 89 by randman, posted 11-30-2005 3:16 PM cavediver has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 86 of 141 (264504)
11-30-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
11-30-2005 12:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
God cannot interact with the universe via physical mechanisms. I think I agree with that. I see the universe totally self-contained, running on physical principles.
Since the universe is all space-time, I don't see how God could have created the world according to what you have claimed. According to you the system could never have had any input from outside, and knowing that all points in time are part of the universe, then doesn't that preclude the idea God could have created the universe?
Btw, and this is a side issue, but your belief would also rule out God raising Jesus from the dead, or doing any miracles on people's behalf, answering their prayers, etc,....
I do sometimes think along these lines, but primarily focus on God being outside the physical universe.
Can't it be both? God within and outside the universe, but then again, I still don't see how one can believe in God at all and hold to your beliefs. If God cannot in anyway interact with the universe because that's adding input from outside the system, then really He is prohibited from creating this universe and certainly from doing things with people in it, like answering their prayers, etc,...
A bit more than some... it is the fundemental basis of General Relativity. It is rarely pointed out, but GR is the ultimate physics of pre-destination.
Agree on the physics of predestination, but disagree, as stated above, that at the creation point of the universe, you would have input from God and so the view that input cannot occur has to be wrong if God created or creates the universe.
My point is I think the evidence is there for the physical universe not to self-exist at all, but is in a state of being created every moment in one sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 12:31 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2005 7:36 AM randman has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 87 of 141 (264509)
11-30-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
11-29-2005 6:10 PM


for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
Hi cavediver,
I gather that you know a great deal about physics. As a personal favour, could you tell me whether quantum physics "necessitates" the existence of an observer in order for physical events to occur?
In a previous post, I said:
mick writes:
Does quantum mechanics require the existence of a conscious observer in order for the physical form of entities to be made apparent? I don't think so. First of all because quantum events are resolved into classical mechanics at the macroscopic level (so the wave function must collapse "naturally" at some point. For example if I hold a brick in my hand, it appears to manifest itself as a physical entity with distinct physical properties without my observing every single electron, neutron and proton in order for them to become real). Second (and I'm not certain about this one) because the "observer" is surely any entity that causes a wave function to resolve itself - and couldn't that be an inanimate object such as a photographic plate or some equipment left running in a lab without conscious agents being present?
Is any of that reasonable, or is it just nonsense?
I have tried to look up information on quantum physics on the web, but it's either too mathematically advanced for me or it's written by new-age Christian types who argue that quantum physics necessitates the existence of God.
I would like to understand this stuff. Can you recommend a textbook of moderate difficulty (say, an undergraduate textbook)?
Or, more realistically, could you recommend a maths textbook that would give me the basic grounding for understanding the simplified version of the physics? I am not entirely hopeless at maths and would enjoy some abstract fun in my spare time.
Cheers
Mick
This message has been edited by mick, 11-30-2005 03:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 3:16 PM mick has replied
 Message 141 by Son Goku, posted 12-18-2005 3:15 PM mick has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 88 of 141 (264512)
11-30-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mick
11-30-2005 3:02 PM


Re: for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
As a personal favour, could you tell me whether quantum physics "necessitates" the existence of an observer in order for physical events to occur?
Hmmm, not sure... that's a pretty big favour if you ask me... you'll owe me
Your view is quite in line with the majority view of physicists, certianly those working on the underpinings of qunatum phenomena. Conciousness is not a required part of classical emergence from the quantum realm. I like your point about the brick. So, not nonsense at all!
I would like to understand this stuff. Can you recommend a textbook of moderate difficulty (say, an undergraduate textbook)?
I've never found a QM textbook I really like... I'll have a think...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mick, posted 11-30-2005 3:02 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by mick, posted 11-30-2005 4:20 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 91 by JustinC, posted 11-30-2005 5:14 PM cavediver has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 89 of 141 (264514)
11-30-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
11-30-2005 12:31 PM


Re: where's the beef?
Not via physical mechanisms, no..
One more note...I think the term "physical" may be poorly defined. Really, physical in the broader scientific sense should just mean anything real, at all, right?
But in terms of what we think of as physical, I am not so sure how information plays into this. Is information physical? Information appears to play a role, right?
More to the point, in what way is the deeper reality you admit is indicated by QM and other areas necessarily "physical"? It's physical in the broad sense if you define any real thing as physical, but the very fact both you and I refer to it as a deeper reality indicates it is in a different context.
Let me be more explicit. One property of spirit or spiritual things is energy by all accounts. God has energy. Consciousness has energy. People's spirits have energy. Thoughts seem to have energy. Angels have energy. This assumes these things exist. So maybe these things are "physical" or "marterial" in the sense of being a real part of the universe, but just within this deeper reality.
Terms like "physical" and "spiritual" were around before modern science, and as technology increases, we are expanding beyond the original limits of what "physical" and "material" are, and in QM, we see principles and basic states that are not what we expected based on our former ideas of what constitutes physical.
Take non-locality (entanglement). Our physical perspective suggests there is a superluminal transfer of information going on. The way to resolve this is to say there is a non-separable aspect for entangled particles, right? That means there is a deeper reality than the physical perspective we have as human beings. That deeper reality we are testing for, imo in all likehihood, includes all realms whether called physical, spiritual, mental, informational, or whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 12:31 PM cavediver has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 90 of 141 (264538)
11-30-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by cavediver
11-30-2005 3:16 PM


Re: for cavediver: what is the "observer" in quantum physics
cavediver writes:
I've never found a QM textbook I really like... I'll have a think...
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by cavediver, posted 11-30-2005 3:16 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024