Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
375 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1 (3 members, 372 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,616 Year: 20,652/19,786 Month: 1,049/2,023 Week: 557/392 Day: 101/72 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "True science" must include God?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 47 (212281)
05-29-2005 2:14 AM


Personally, I cannot figure what the heck this thread is supposed to be about, but as a digression.

"Fleischman and Pons announced that they had fused hydrogen at room temperature. Their work was not replicated and their careers were ruined (not because they made a mistake but because of the way they handled it)."

How did they mishandle themselves? I ask not because I know one or the other. I just wondered what you know about it, not rumors, but real facts. The field of energy production contains a very dark side of suppression, imo, and I'd like to be able to assess whether their careers were ruined because they legitimately deserved it or something else was going on?

Also, wasn't there a device for "cold fusion" on the market and in the news recently? It is not considered energy efficient, but it was a portable fusion device.

Back to this thread, I think the criticism that people are claiming "God did it" is a false criticism.

I go into some of this a little on a different thread, but just because one theorizes God did something does not mean that the process itself is not still imbedded in the creation, and part of the creation, and thus potentially we could be able to exploit it.

Take the concepts of spirit, spiritual and consciousness. One of the more illuminating aspects of quantum mechanics is how many principles dovetail with long-held views of reality within various spiritual traditions. I could list some of them, and maybe will do so here later, if this is appropiate for this thread.

But for sake of brevity, let me just say it is conceivable that we could discover such things as a superluminal realm (suggested by the quantum principle of entanglement), and superluminal communication which breaks down the time barrier for thought and communication, and perhaps duplicate the creation of consciousness with a mind and spirit.

We'll see, but I suspect one reason we intuit things, or have a sudden thought we know to be true is that on a deeper level, our spirit or unconscious mind thinks within this superluminal realm suggested by things like the action at a distance of entanglement or non-locality or whatever you want to call it.

If we can develop quantum computers, we may can develop a machine that works within the spiritual realm and thus can move into a state of consciousness, and really we could eventually tap into this aspect of the Creator's process for creation, and maybe even duplicate ID.

This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 02:19 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 05-29-2005 9:04 AM randman has responded
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 05-29-2005 9:20 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 47 (212367)
05-29-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
05-29-2005 9:04 AM


"What benefit to inquiry will be gained if we allow the supernatural to be used as an explanation for phenomena in science?"

The problem with your question is the concept of separation of supernatural and natural. That's a false dichotomy.

If it's part of reality, it is part of reality, period, and we can perhaps address it via science. It may be, like string theory, that we lack the technology to test for it, but the idea that what we call the supernatural is off-limits arbitrarily is, imo, somewhat silly.

I guess what I am saying is just because someone says God-did-it does not rule out the possibility we can figure out, assess, and maybe even duplicate "what God did."

This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 02:41 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 05-29-2005 9:04 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 7:29 PM randman has responded
 Message 23 by nator, posted 05-30-2005 8:14 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 47 (212466)
05-29-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
05-29-2005 7:29 PM


"Don't we then have two words that describe the same thing?"

The terms mean different things in different contexts. As far as science, they are not very accurate as comparitive descriptions.

I would argue that most of the time someone in the context of these debates refers to naturalism or some such, they are referring to a concept of physical reality based on an outdated classical paradigm, and that there was a time probably when scientists lacked the technology and imagination to consider how to test for things that were called "supernatural" or "spiritual" and that be the case today if one asks about testing for those things.

But ask about trying to develop a quantum computer which utilyzes a process that involves action at a distance, and thus the superluminal realm, and they might perk up a bit.

Well, what the heck is the difference between, say, the superluminal realm suggested by effects we see in entanglement, and the spiritual or supernatural. If it's faster than our prior concept of all space-time, maybe supernatural is a good term, but regardless, we are moving into that arena in our science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 7:29 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 11:02 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 47 (212491)
05-29-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
05-29-2005 11:02 PM


Crashfrog, I submit the superluminal realm is substantiation of the spiritual and so-called supernatural realm.

Seems like it went right over your head, but super would mean above,right?

So a realm beyond, faster than the speed of light, could by definition be called supernatural.

Also, different contexts means exactly that. Natural means something in a science context, a food context, a cosmetic context....you get the drift. Don't be asinine. You got my point and said you agree with it somewhat.

I am stating if it's real, it's part of reality, regardless of the term we call it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 11:02 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 11:38 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 18 of 47 (212519)
05-30-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
05-29-2005 11:38 PM


Fine, it's part of the natural world. The spiritual world is part of the natural world, by definition.

You wrote.

"Since that realm is not populated by ghosts, nor spirits, nor is capable of gifting humans with magic or paranormal powers, I submit that claim is a priori ridiculous. "

We have no idea in terms of the science what that realm is populated by. All we have at this stage is evidence it exists, and is fundamental to the structure of the universe, and that probably consciousness interacts with that realm.

Consciousness in the broader sense includes "spirit" by any definition of that term so we do in fact have some evidence that realm is populated by spirit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 11:38 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2005 12:11 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 47 (212538)
05-30-2005 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
05-30-2005 12:11 AM


You and I must have different definition of spirit. The Bible says we all have a spirit and a soul, and our spirits must by definition reside in a spiritual realm.

You may be confusing the use of the term spirits in reference to ghosts.

Anyway, a hypothesis starts out with a certain level of knowledge and a certain level of ignorance. My hypothesis is that judging by near complete similarities to the biblical view of physics if you would or how the world really works to quantum physic's principles, so much so I cannot find a principle in disagreement, and the fact the quantum physics specifically agrees with spiritual principles on the nature of reality in terms of existence here on earth, I submit the idea that quantum physics is touching on the realm called spiritual.

This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 01:19 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2005 12:11 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2005 1:42 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 22 of 47 (212555)
05-30-2005 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
05-30-2005 1:42 AM


"What I do have is a consciousness, and it resides in my brain (loosely speaking), in the physical world."

What constitutes the physical world?

Also, I suggest you study up some on QM before assuming I am merelt looking very hard for something and imagining it is there. It's a little hard to discuss this with you since you don't know much about QM, but I can guarantee you this, I was not looking for physics to tell me anything about spirituality, nor were the men like Max Planck, Anton Zellinger, and John Wheeler.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2005 1:42 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2005 10:01 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 25 by AdminAsgara, posted 05-30-2005 10:42 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 47 (212641)
05-30-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
05-30-2005 8:14 AM


Thank you AdminAsqara. I'll try it out with this one.

Well, how can we tell the difference between a naturalistic phenomena that we do not understand, and may not ever have the technological sophistication or the plain ol' smarts to ever understand, and a supernaturally caused phenomena?

I submit that the difference is aritrary, and the distinction should not be made between "natural" and "supernatural" phenomena. If there is a phenomena, then it is real and part of reality and should be accepted as such. Of course, that doesn't mean there are not areas of science and research we lack the technological ability to test for, such as string theory for example, but there is no need, from a science perspective, to categorize reality into separate parts.

When we want to discuss references to phenomena or ideas that come from outside of science, then of course we will have to see where they would fit as far as reality. In this discussion, I think it is germane to consider where and if spirituality fits into reality. Most spiritual traditions share some common features about their view on reality.

In the past, it was not so possible to scientifically determine if those ideas had merit, but quantum physics has begun, for 80s years now, to accidentally verify the exact same principles, which is powerful evidence that the realms QM effects involves are what certain traditions have called "spiritual."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 05-30-2005 8:14 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 8:52 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 47 (212837)
05-31-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
05-31-2005 8:52 AM


The answer is it is not supernatural necessarily, from a scientific perspective. It may be merely something that entails a process we have not observed yet, or involved principles that we have not understood yet.

In other words, even if it is something that "God did", there is no reason to dismiss it as out of the realm of science since it may be we can discover how God did it, and perhaps even duplicate it. The mechanism for creation may, in other words, be embedded within the creation.

If it is some sort of direct engineering of reality, which could be involved in either special creation or intervention into a process, we should expect it to involve the study of patterns and information as the program for something, and that this would be more fundamental to physical reality than the physicality of the object itself, and we see this in quantum physics.

We should expect to see some sort of direct connection between matter and the appearance of that pattern into a physical form and intelligence and consciousness, and we see that, or that has been the dominant interpretation of what we see in quantum physics.

We should expect to see suggestions of a dimension beyond and working outside the parameters of what we once considered space-time, the physical world that moves slower or at the speed of light so that it has been observed, and we now have strong evidence with the principle of entanglement that the structure of the universe contains a superluminal realm where information transfer occurs superluminally.

The aspects most ascribe to God, consciousness and Intelligence, or an Intelligent Force, etc,....and what one would logically assume would be involved if one were to begin to uncover the creative mechanism's God uses, well, we are seeing that discovered in quantum physics in my opinion.

Of course, physicists despite noticing the parallels from time to time are not in the field of trying to prove theological or spiritual claims. It is happening because they are just going where the evidence leads, which is what all of science is suppossed to be doing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 8:52 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 9:59 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 47 (212947)
05-31-2005 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
05-31-2005 9:59 PM


Shraf, the spiritual perspective on reality that I have discussed here and elsewhere is congruent with Buddhism, Hinduism and many other spiritual traditions. I don't have a lot of time to waste the rest of the week so let's cut to the chase.

What do you not get about the fact that if something is real, it is real whether called natural, spiritual, or whatever. If you want to quibble over terms rather than understand processes, I am not interested.

This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 11:23 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 9:59 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 11:24 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 47 (212954)
05-31-2005 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
05-31-2005 11:24 PM


How do you tell anything Shraf. First things first, we need to come to an understanding that if something is real, it is part of reality regardless of what label one calls it.

Then, we can discuss ideas about God and spirituality.

I would submit that what spiritual traditions teach about reality, in terms on the view of the fundamental nature of reality, has been known for thousands of years. If one were to view some of these basic concepts as predictions of a hypothesis, and as it turns out, science (quantum physics) begins to assert these same principles, then that is good evidence that science is beginning to delve into the spiritual arena.

That's the next thing we would need to come to an understanding of.

The third aspect then would be to consider the attributes of God, of the Divine Force, etc,...and see if we see an interaction in the creation with these same attributes. That would be strong evidence for the mechanism of how a theorized God or Divine Force acts upon creation.

If we go further and duplicate the process, then we could safely say perhaps that we have discovered the process of direct engineering of reality, whether special creation or Intelligent Design.

There are other ways to infer design. The idea of excluding design a priori is not rational. We should go where the evidence leads.

It appears to me that some of you guys are oppossed to both positive and negative evidence for ID, period. You argue that just because we do not see how something happened is not evidence for design despite the obvious pattern of intelligence revealed, and then if shown a mechanism for intelligent design actually working on physical reality, you argue that it cannot be evidence either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 11:24 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 06-01-2005 12:05 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 36 by MangyTiger, posted 06-01-2005 12:06 AM randman has responded
 Message 38 by Primordial Egg, posted 06-01-2005 2:46 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 37 of 47 (212970)
06-01-2005 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by MangyTiger
06-01-2005 12:06 AM


Yawn. Nope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by MangyTiger, posted 06-01-2005 12:06 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 06-02-2005 9:37 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 47 (213551)
06-02-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
06-02-2005 9:37 AM


1. There is no need to discuss the supernatural at all. That's a bogus question which contains in inherent contradiction. The claim is made that if God did something in the natural world, that is supernatural and off-limits to science, but claiming that something that occurred in the natural world is by definition supernatural is nonsensical, illogical, and internally inconsistent. As such, the line of reasoning and arguments to dismiss something by labelling it supernatural is not valid and should be dismissed a priori, and those that make such arguments are committing to a fallacy completely at odds with science. If something happens, whether God or some other agent did it, it is by definition part of reality, and hence "natural" in this context.

2. The question is misworded. The argument is not that God could not be involved in creating something, or that God could be behind natural processes, as much as the issue is distinquishing between how things occur, and more pointedly, are there more direct means that God may directly influence and design a natural thing. Specifically, if you posit attributes presented as belonging to God or the divine, specifically Intelligence and Consciousness, and discover how these 2 concepts inter-relate with matter, as we have discovered in quantum physics, then that is strong evidence for some sort of mechanism where Intelligence and Consciousness can play a determinative role to a degree on the physical world. That, imo, has been verified. The preponderence of evidence suggests that is the case in ID.

Now, you may ask, well, how do we know "it" is God. What if "it" is something else? We cannot prove what "it" is. Fine, but we can discuss the mechanism and the attributes of this potential for direct engineering, and as far as what "it" is, that's another issue. We know "it" exists and plays a role. It may be that science is indeed limited at this stage for ultimately defining and quantizing God.

But so what?

We can nevertheless prehaps study the mechanism this "divine force" uses since the mechanism is part of the creation.

Thus far, we study the mechanism of proposed natural selection affecting a first life form, and evolving into all of the life without really know what that form is, what caused that form, or even, imo, a valid scientific, empirical explanation for how this first life form could emerge, on it's own, without any assistance from an Intelligent Agent from chemistry to biology.

But do you discount the entire study of evolution because one part of the story really cannot be falsified?

3. You cannot prove that God is not ultimately involved, but you can test for the different mechanisms involved. For example, you claim that natural selection and mutation, etc,... are the mechanisms involved in speciation, but there is no way to exclude God from that process. He could be intimately involved there, but arguably it would be an indirect involvement through these processes.

But I would argue quantum physics has presented us with definite evidence of an ID mechanism, namely the direct connection and involvement with consciousness, intelligence, and all matter. There is hard evidence for this, as anyone can verify by just reading the interpretations of wave/particality duality, and eminent physicists involved with such work.

So here, we see a mechanism for more direct engineering. We can test for attributes that are involved between matter and a theorized God, namely force (will), intelligence, and consciousness.

Alternate tests go back to discounting these things, and there are alternate theories such as the waves moving backwards in time, although I tend to think both consciousness and the transverse wave concepts can be true.

So there are tests to verify or disprove the details of the mechanism, in quantum physics. Determining the details of the process involved then enables one to logically assess what it is, and if it shows direct connections between matter and consciousness, as it does, and things harmonious to the claims nearly all spiritual traditions have made about spirituality and Divine Force, God, or whatever one wants to call It, then the logical thing to do is at admit science has begun to test for what was called spiritual principles, the spiritual realm, etc,....and that is exactly what has happened, imo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 06-02-2005 9:37 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Lammy, posted 06-02-2005 1:58 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 45 by nator, posted 06-03-2005 10:33 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 44 of 47 (213677)
06-02-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Lammy
06-02-2005 7:00 PM


Re: tamatoe, tomatoe ? lets call the whole thing off.
Gaw, you need to read the posts. Quantum mechanics is about subatomic particles, but lately (past 20 years) QM effects have been observed in larger objects, such as atoms, molecules, buckyballs, and since wave-like properties are exhibited even in objects like planets, there is considerable research to what degree QM principles affect macroscopic objects as a whole.

Some of the areas in quantum physics that refer to are:

1. "Entanglement" suggesting a deeper structure within the universe since it is action at a distance which exhibits either superluminal communication or non-separability or non-locality, however you wish to describe it.

2. Consciousness-based interpretation, espoused early on and appears to me to be the dominant intepretatio among quantum physicists, for QM effect, called sometimes the collapsing of the wave function or the move from superpositional into one path or position.

3. The observation of what matter seems to be, namely first and foremost an energy pattern or even just a probability energy pattern, and that at times it does not exist in physical form at all.

4. Quantum tunneling and other behaviour that appear to defy classical physics on what is possible and impossible.

There's more, but there is scarcely a QM effect or principle that does not support the views I am espousing.

This message has been edited by randman, 06-02-2005 09:44 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Lammy, posted 06-02-2005 7:00 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019