Creationists Should Learn to Play the Game Called Science

It's kind of worrying for a judge to deny mystical explanations, because judges should make mystical explanations for natural phenomena all the time in doing their job. Justice is not measurable, it comes from the heart, and mercy stands above law. We can be quite sure that this particular judge is a stickler for rules, and strives for conformity, not justice.In any case if mystical explanations are not allowed in science, is freedom then allowed to be acknowledged as real in science?In below theory by wellknown, awardwinning professor Dubois it is a total mystery which of the potentials will collapse into an actual state and why. This is not a case of lack of knowledge about initial conditions, but it is an essential part of this theory that such things are unmeasurable.(Dubois, Review of hyperincursive anticipatory systems)
"6.1 Free Will as Unpredictable Hyperincursive Anticipation Karl Pribram asked me (by email, after the CASYS'99 conference): "How can an anticipatory hyperincursive system be modeled without a future defined goal?". My answer was: an hyperincursive anticipatory system generates multiple potential states at each time step and corresponds to one-to- many relations. A selection parameter must be defined to select a particular state amongst these multiple potential states. These multiple potential states collapse to one state (amongst these
states,) which becomes the actual state.This reminds me the following comment an auditor made after a conference on anticipatory hyperincursion I made: "You have found the basic theory of free will".Indeed, the brain may be considered as an anticipatory hyperincursive neural net which generates multiple potential future states which collapse to actual states by learning: the selection process of states to be actualized amongst the multiple potential states is independent of the fundamental dynamics of the brain, independent of initial conditions and so completely unpredictable (and computable). The selection by learning deals with inputs from the brain itself (via the genetic code and selfreflection). These inputs are final causes at each time step.This creates a memory and at the same time a program, which give rise to the mind, what I called a computing memory. Each mind is unique in the sense that this is the subjective experience of each brain that actualized potential states. The free will means that we can choose a state amongst the multiple potential states emerging from the preceding already actualized states. The free will depends strongly on the history of all the past memorized events and is not identical for each mind. The free will does not means that the mind can make what he wants but that he can choose amongst multiple possible choices. For a human being, this is not possible to fly by itself, like a bird, but man invented airplanes to actualize that."It seems that such as above is not allowed as science, making the judge's view of science rather pointless. What caused the succes of the scientific revolution was not the adherence to factual evidence or natural explanations, it was the separation of fact from value. What caused the failure of the scientific revolution was the incorporation of value, the spiritual domain, into the sphere of facts, as by scientific racism, Darwinism, humanism, atheism, communism, nazism.

The statement "God did it", cannot be tested scientifically because God resides in the spiritual domain, where also the values of justice and mercy are. So we can discover those things subjectively, by decision, through faith.But we can prove as a matter of scientific fact that decisions are made in the universe, and what the outcome of those decisions are. And from thereon by art of reasonable judgement we can decide the spirit of such decisions, be they of God or the devil.It is inevitable that those scientists who don't believe in a spiritual domain, will come to see god, justice, mercy and the like as measurable. And that more then anything, to relentlesly insist on everything being measurable to the inclusion of good and evil, tears science apart and totally destroys it.In any case, as mentioned before, we now have mystery incorporated into science, and it is perfectly legal here in Europe, and the main thrust of scientific progress.

You post too fast, not reading very well.I said by art of reasonable judgement we can find the spirit. It is an art, not a science, I did not offer proof, I offered judgement.As a matter of scientific fact we can't discover justice without faith. Or so to say it is a matter of scientific fact that we can't look, nor could ever possibly look, inside decisions. It is proven that decisons come from nothing, and are nowhere, which in mathematical terms means that the quantity, and position of decisions revert to zero. So it is impossible for science to say anything about justice, or anything of that kind.I wonder what "rational rules" you had in mind. In this context it seems you derive those rational rules from science, the science of good and evil. Ofcourse you also state that you are against a science of good and evil, but on the other hand you deny a spiritual domain, and deny faith as the right way to justice. You see when you would admit a spiritual domain, I would be much more trusting that you don't surreptiously have some kind of science of good and evil. But when you talk about rules that are "rational", then it seems to me that you derive the rationality of the rules from the rationality of science.

Without faith justice would be fully rational, and totally explainable by science, but then that wouldn't be justice but just a measure of conformity to specified rules and goals. You are playing wordgames with the definition of justice, because you refuse to define justice as spiritual, so you leave it in the middle whether or not you have a science of good and evil.A system of justice must always allow freedom for the judge, because without decision we can't get to the spiritual realm where justice is. This freedom is best transferred to a jury, so the emotional burden doesn't get too heavy on the judge.What you are talkig about as justice, zero sum games, in this context it is basically a science of good and evil, how could I conclude differently?Faith implies a set of beliefs about the spiritual, and a commitment to those beliefs. Right you can't have any society without that, I don't think so, I've never seen it, but what you can do, is to leave those beliefs free eventhough they are neccessary for society.

I connected it to the subject at issue with argument, the mystery, so it is legitemate. Asking for decision to be confined to a thread, is like asking that you would confine cause and effect in the universe to a single thread.

Creationists do have a valid science, which is the science about decisions. Apart from that valid science creationists also entertain an art of reasonable judgement of the spiritual.It seems to be implied that living is good, and dying not good, or either it is preservation of genes or something like that, in your science. You mentioned this in the context of justice, so that's why I assume it is a science of good and evil.

Gee, let's not do that. I have previously referenced a science paper which says decisions are real by an awardwinning wellknown professor, besides there is widespread precedent from common knowledge, and religion, that freedom is in fact real. So the basis is already well established. It would be unreasonable to hold freedom in such doubt, to confine it to a single thread, and a single person, although on the other hand I would be very much honored to be given such a tremendous authority.

If you can show me that you support science about decisions, and that it is basically different from mine, then I will confine myself to a single thread. But otherwise I conclude that you wish to oppress knowledge about decisions altogether, and I won't confine myself to a single thread, and request that you be stopped from oppressing an entire category of knowledge.But I know that you don't have any science about decisions, because you don't seem to know anything about the theory I referred to, which I know to be the only theory in science that confirmed free will. And that theory is by an awardwinning professor, and you don't seem to be an awardwinning professor yourself.

You and the other guy need to state your science about decisions, I've already done so.

No, you just do a googlesearch on "hyperincursive" if you want more information on that new theory.And there would be little use to argue that I have misunderstood that theory, because even the scientist that applied the theory to the biological realm got accused by her peerreviewer of supporting intelligent design. So I will just keep on arguing on the basis of the fact that freedom is real, and request that any discussion about freedom being real or not altogether be consigned to a single thread, which there already is one I'm sure.You can't expect for a creationist not to mention freedom and decision, since creation is universally understood as a free act. You can't oppress an entire category of knowledge.

Yeah, I already got consigned to the showcase forum years ago for things just like this. But it is not my fault. It is your fault by for example saying that you do not understand that creation is a free act. It is not credible to me, that you do not understand that creation is a free act. And if true such would be a horriffic ignorance in my opinion.In any case if I would be consigned to the showcase forum again, we would have to make it convincingly clear that such does not mean that all knowledge about freedom and decisions is oppressed on this forum.I do not actually seek out strange ideas, I just proceed on the basis that freedom is real. I take the logic about freedom from the most common knowledge, and very common religion, and for some time also from that single science theory which confirms it is all true.For example I have been saying for a long time that decisions come from nothing. Now I read the abstract of a science paper by one of those anticipation scientists, which says that decisions come from nothing and are nowhere. While actually I had been arguing that decisions have a location, but close enough. It is all perfectly reasonable, and there is no good reason to oppress it.