Did Einstein try to destroy science?

Do you mean you're logging in and out? If so, you're admin and regular accounts are linked. That means, among other things, that on the page where you type the text of messages there's a line at the top of the box for selecting the author ID. You should see two ID's up there, one for Phat and one for AdminPhat. The account you're logged in to will always be listed first. Click the box for whichever ID you want the message to be from.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Particular physics aside, even though Bohr may have retorted not to tell God what to do, Kant in a THOUGHT towards universalization splits a judgment into moral, art, and a concept in nature which *may* be Spinozian. Einstein had the audacity to have already judged.Martin Nowak's statement,

quote:

---

"making it unnecessary for God to play dice"

---

and

quote:

---

This very brief and incomplete account of the evolution of evolutionary dynamics brings us to the present book. It has fourteen chapters. Although there is some progression of complexity, the chapters are largely independent. Therefore, if you know something about the subject, you can read the book in whatever order you like. My aim has been to keep things as simple as possible, as linear as possible, and as deterministic as possible. I will start with the basics and in a few steps lead you to some of the most interesting and unanswered research questions in the field. Having read the book, you will know what you need to embark on your own journey and make your own discoveries.

---

see at

quote:

---

Chapter 9 gives an account of evolutionary game dynamics on spatial grids. The primary approach will be deterministic, discrete in time, and discrete in space. This approach brings together game theory and cellular automata. We will observe evolutionary kaleidoscopes, dynamic fractals, and spatial chaos. There is all the complexity one could ever wish for - making it unnecessary for God to play dice. Moreover, cooperation can evolve on spatial grids, This is the concept of "spatial reciprocity."

---

quote:

---

pages 5&6

---

can be read biospatially EITHER as Einstein's or Bohr's depending how stochastic factoring is related in theory.Einstein thought all the forces could be unified but unless scientists agree that biology is distinct from physics and supervienent logically or else it relates translation in space and form-making to actual physics forces (universalized (how many origins of life?)) the subtle division in art will preempt the percept that whether morally superior or simply idiosycratic the determination has yet to be made. Thus I would not suggest Einstein was destroying science but as with Godel he WAS subjectivizing time. Anyone is prey to such in the academy.

What the heck are you talking about? You think Einstein didn't believe in God? He most clearly did. The fact His God was not a personal God you should pray to for favors in no way lessens His belief in a Divine Spirit Creator.

randman I beg to differ but the impression of a spirit called God was evident in the quote I posted. You are ,however, correct that mysticism does not enter into it though mystery does.
I find nowhere that the God he describes is something more than matter and energy but rather a sense of order that emerges from the understanding of matter and energy. I do not see this to be the case at all. Let us examine another quote. It is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.This, then is the crux of the matter.A God that cares nothing about the ongoings of men and their affairs and the moral proclivities thereof is hardly a God in the sense as is commonly used in practice by most people. Metaphor is an apt term since God is used only as a stand in for the personal feeling of appreciation for the structure that science unveils when proper questions are asked.Now as to the quote in the original post concerning dice. It has been subsequently found that the quantum mechanics to which it refers successfully describes the world to an accuracy not matched anywhere else.
That the nature of that which quantum mechanics describes is completely beyond our ability to visualize or really understand in the sense that we do classical physics is not a fault of the theory but of the fact that things on such immensely small scales operate in ways that we cannot resolve completely. That the world operates in a way that is beyond our meager senses ability to bring into focus is a result of the structure of the world itself.
It is the fact that the quantum mechanics violated the sense of comprehensibility of the universe that I think was of personal importance to Einstein and that this is the source of his reaction to it. In todays world of applications of quantum mechanics in realms of technology then Einstein would have to learn to reevaluate his conception of what constitutes a God.

I'd suggest rereading some of the links. He specifies "spirit" for example as something real. Einstein being a scientist was well familiar with the distinction of words like matter and energy, and chose a religious term to describe God, not a scientific one.Moreover, some of the posters here thus far have a misunderstanding of Spinoza and what he and Einstein as well believed. For example, both believed God was supremely intelligent and had divine force, causation and spirit. To say they simply meant the inanimate universe was the same as God and so using the term "God" meant nothing more than a reference to matter and energy is completely and wholly wrong. Thier idea of God encompassed the physical world but every other world as well.

There is no quote of Einstein's, either here in this thread or anywhere else, to indicate that he believed in a Divine Spirit Creator. Einstein wrote voluminously, so I am sure he made many statements of a sufficiently ambiguous nature with regard to God that they could be considered consistent with a Divine Spirit Creator, but when Einstein spoke specifically about God he said he was a Spinozan or described beliefs that were Spinozan. Another aspect of Spinozan philosophy I didn't mention earlier is that it was often seen as the atheist's alternative. There is no hint of a Divine Spirit Creator in Spinozan philosophy.Regarding the actual title of the thread, it makes me wonder if you accept any mainstream interpretation of anything. Whether it's Wheeler or Einstein or Spinoza or whoever you somehow always manage to come up with some oddball interpretation from way, way out in left field, one that even the person's own words can't dissuade you from.Here's another Einstein quote for you: --Percy

Actually, that's quite wrong. First Spinoza did not just believe the material universe was God as you suggest, but that God caused the material universe. You have some false concepts of Spinoza.Moreover, the quotes already provided amply show that Einstein believed in God as a spirit. He used that exact term, spirit. Moreover, he referred to our connection via that spirit through subjective feeling which he said all true scientists had to connect with, but also suggests can come through objective study of the universe.But hey, I'll give you a chance. Substantiate your claim's on Spinoza. I think what you fail to realize is that by claiming that Nature and God are synnomous, he was presenting a non-scientific perspective of Nature, not as inanimate devoid of spirit and intelligence, but as something that possesses intelligence and spirit. He also claims that God causes the material world, and so does argue for a Creator as does Einstein.The following article on Spinoza may help. Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Proper debate form would be for you to find the supporting statements you're referring to and quote them here, providing the links to provide both reference and context. Here you go riding off on your irrational horse again. You say Einstein tried to destroy science by mixing God and science, then when it is pointed out that this is obviously wrong just from Einstein's own words declaring himself a Spinozan and since you can't say Einstein was wrong when describing himself, you next go off and misinterpret Spinoza.This is from Wikipedia: This is from Britannica: This is from the Columbia University Press Encyclopedia: Dwell on the last phrase of the above excerpt for a while: "Nature is not the product or agency of a supernatural God."This is from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: I can't even guess where you got your weird ideas about Spinoza from, unless it's the only way to avoid being wrong about Einstein, and of course we all know that Randman can never be wrong.--Percy

No, Randman, it is you who have false concepts of Spinoza. Read my previous post, it provided many excerpts making clear how wrong you are. This is just you misinterpreting what someone said again, something you do all the time. If you want to provide quotes and supporting argument go ahead, but don't bother urging others to go find your evidence for you. Oh, gee, hey, thanks, oh arrogant one. Again, see my previous message. Oh, it helped a great deal. It helped show that you didn't bother reading the next paragraph: Spinoza did not view God as the divine creator of the universe. He viewed God and universe as one and the same. By the time you get to proposition 15 distinctions are being sliced pretty finely, and you're reaching an unintended conclusion by somehow assuming that the finer distinctions made later invalidate the overarching declarations made at the beginning.--Percy

Hi Randman,Here's more from further on in the same Stanford article ( Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ): If you read the whole section on "God or Nature" you'll get a much better idea of the Spinozan position on God and the universe than you will by just cherry picking paragraphs that in isolation might seem supportive of God as the creator of the universe.--Percy

There is no cherry-picking on my part whatsoever, and it baffles me that you would say so. Here is your quote: What I think you are missing is that Nature here includes spirit, consciousness, intelligence, laws, etc,.....it's not strictly just the physical that Spinoza is speaking of. In fact, part of the immanent aspect of God I discuss as being central to what holds all things together is very similar to what Spinoza is speaking of, and yet you and others are dismissive of that. Spinoza and Einstein are enemies of the sort of thought advanced by most evos here as far as what constitutes real science, and that's because they see the creation as also part of the Divine, and that spirit is real, and not just some religious fantasy.Note the phrase: brought into being by Nature. He does not simply say that what you see is all there is of God, but that what you see is brought into being by God and that God is in everything.

I have already provided them, and in fact everything quoted thus far only supports my view. You have created a straw man, erroneously claiming I assert Einstein believed in a personal God, and so continually argue against a fantasy of your own making.You also seem to suggest that Spinoza and Einstein rejected intelligence and spirit as a property of God, and that is wholly false. I don't know what to say, except words have meanings. If they viewed the material world as the only thing God is, they wouldn't really be using the term "God."You are just wrong here, percy. You hurl baseless accusations and make senseless posts such as the following: I have never in my life said such a thing, nor do I believe it. The absurdity of your comment is mind-boggling.Let's look at the quotes more closely. That's true, but you fail to see the significance of that. You fail to realize that by claiming this Spinoza specifically claims intelligence and spirit are part of Nature. His view of Nature is wholly different than the materialist's view. For example, read again the quote you implore me to read. Is this a materialist position? Do you, for example, percy accept spirit, mind, ideas and matter to all be of the same substance? What you fail to realize is that by rejecting the supernatural, he is also elevating the natural to include things like love, principles, soul, consciousness, spirit, etc,.....He is not advocating atheism or strict materialism, but is doing exactly what you preach against, stating that the spiritual, mental, and physical worlds are all one and the same. Try reading Spinoza, and if we are going to be insulting, brother, I can guess actually where your idiocy and refusal to accept truth stems from.Here is another quote of Spinoza: What do you think he saying percy? He is saying the substance of the universe is uncaused and is God Himself. He also says, as I provided earlier, that everything is caused by God....Heck, this part is not really so different from Paul's statement "In Him we live and move and have our being" except Paul's theology, of course, moved way beyond immanent theology.Let's put it this way. Intelligence, matter, and all things that are stem from this God, this substance, according to Spinoza. He suggests though a more organic, non-teleological growth of the universe, and that the universe consists of God, but to pretend he is asserting a materialist notion where the universe has no consciousness, but is strictly matter and energy is absurd. There is no division within Spinoza between the world of thought, soul, will, spirit, and matter and energy. It is the modernist world that splits these things into separate matters and claims we cannot see the workings of God, say, in something like quantum mechanics, because somehow God is so separate as to be indecipherable.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

The problem is you don't seem to grasp what Spinoza means by Nature or the universe. He is not just talking of things like matter and energy. Sure, he thinks those things stem from the substance of God and so are God in a sense, an outgrowth of God, but the material world is not the whole of God. That's not what he says, and you have provided nothing to show that. In fact, one of your quotes shows the exact opposite, that Spinoza viewed the non-material world as of the same substance. Ideas, love, spirit, consciousness, intelligence, morals, ethics, law, order, principles, soul, beauty, etc,....and all non-material things are equally God and Nature.Perhaps though, your hatred of me clouds your ability to agree with me here. Let's look at something another poster has stated so you know these are not my weird ideas, but actually the ideas of people educated on this subject. This comes from anglehard's post. In other words, Spinoza really has sort of a New Age concept of reality, and Einstein adopting that is really mixing religion and science, and doing unabashedly. He sees distinctions between the 2, but believes they must work together, affecting each other's fields of study even.He rejects the division of the material and spiritual worlds as different. In other words, he completely rejects your sort of thinking.

So you think that Spinoza and Einstein believed there was a God who created the universe, just like standard Christian theology?--Percy

I already read what you provided, they didn't support your view, and I already successfully rebutted them. All you're really doing is declaring yourself judge in the debate: "My arguments already carried the day."Debates move forward to explore new contexts. You made the point that you thought earlier points were effective, so it is incumbent upon you to bring those points forward into the current context and test them in it to see if they are any more effective now than they were before. Just telling people to go off and read your old posts, especially without any specific links at all, just isn't going to accomplish anything.Just an aside: this is another reason why debate with you is so difficult. It doesn't take any time at all before it breaks down into arguments about how to properly approach discussion, causing discussion itself to fall by the wayside. Uh, have you noticed the title you chose for your thread: Did Einstein try to destroy science?Yes, you are mind-boggling. No, you're wrong about my beliefs. While I don't think I could state my beliefs as simply as this, it's fairly consistent with what I believe. Oh, boy, here we go! Yes, I know you found words that could be interpreted that way, but only by ignoring the overarching context. If you conclude that Spinoza believed that first there was a God who then created the universe, then you're wrong. That's the Christian view that Spinoza strongly opposed. Spinoza was a favorite of atheists, not of Christians (or of Jews), and there's a good reason for that. I guess some might think that way. I certainly don't, but as I said before, my beliefs don't lend themselves to simple expression.--Percy