Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The God Hypothesis
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3570 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 64 of 150 (690205)
02-10-2013 4:36 PM


The Free Lunch Fallacy
Mark Perakh addresses William Dembski’s book about Specified Complexity quite brilliantly in his article ...
...There Is a Free Lunch After All:
William Dembski’s Wrong Answers to Irrelevant Questions
I bring this up because I do not think that ID has a proper understanding of "Intelligence" in the Universe. The ID debate is about Intelligence for a reason. To the ID proponent Intelligence must mean a conscious entity that can reason and make decisions. Most importantly their God Hypothesis rest on a sentient being that can plan.
But as I pointed out before ID Proponents can not be clear on whether their idea rest on a plan or on guiding a mechanism. To me they want it both ways. The Mechanism must be both designed for end results and be correctable by Guidance. In both cases the Designer is the God of religion and is a person like you and me. Or to put it in more Theological terms we are imperfect creations that resemble God superficially. Again they want it both ways .
As I see it in this debate the problem always comes back to Teleology. I can see that Teleology is the foundation for Theology whether it is used to justify Creationist Theology or the Pseudo Scientific ID movement. In fact the reason ID is seen as a Pseudo Scientific movement is inherent in the word Design.
ID Proponents may see Intelligence in nature as something testable but like their opponents the Natural Selection/Evolutionist they fail to see that The Hard Problem of Consciousness stands in their way.
If we can not scientifically solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness with Materialistic Reductionism that may seem on the surface a point for ID proponents but in reality you can not base a God Hypothesis on the fact that you do not know what consciousness is .
How can you stipulate that the Universe is designed when you can not state what Intelligence is?
If you can not explain what intelligence is in a human being you certainly can not postulate a higher being as an explanation for complexity.
We have not established the fact that Complexity is the origin of Intelligence. All animals are Conscious but we do not see consciousness that is dependent on Intelligence. What we see is quite the opposite that if anything Intelligence is dependent on Consciousness . This is significant because in Evolutionary terms Consciousness is the simpler product of Evolution and therefore is most likely found in Biological Evolution as a precursor to Intelligence. That is the simpler organisms from which all life evolved probably had nothing we would recognize as intelligence.
So the debate on whether we can form a God Hypothesis that can be examined based on Intelligence or Design is based on several false premises in Metaphysics predominately premises that are based on the idea of Teleology.
Simple Definition From Wikipedia states
"A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature."
I do not assume as both sides of the Debate seem to do that any God Hypothesis must see God as an "Intelligence" nor do I see evidence of Design as evidence for God.
Mark Perakh further breaks the problem down quite nicely in the same article.
"Biological evolution, however, has no long-term target. Evolution is not directed toward any specific organism.The evolution of a species may continue indefinitely as long as the environment exerts selection pressure on that species. If a population does not show long-term change, it is not because that population has reached a target but because the environment, which coevolves with the species, acquires properties that eliminate its evolutionary pressure on the species."
Basically the idea of Design needs a target. Again I see a bigger problem for ID proponents in the fact that they can not specify whether this target is something that appears all at once with a culmination of specifications being met or if Evolution is "guided" by a designer to reach a target.
Either way the implications of inherent Teleology is unavoidable. Unlike the ID movement based on a personal God or designer my God Hypothesis is not dependent on Teleological assumptions in anyway .
The question remains whether random chance and natural selection is the only viable alternative?
In both propositions of ID and Evolution/Selection we are encouraged to look at Evolutionary Ecology as a closed system. In both propositions Consciousness is seen as an Evolutionary Byproduct. The debate is on whether this byproduct serves a purpose beyond Evolutionary Fitness for survival.
On one side ID proponents argue that we are moral animals and consciousness without a source would justify seeing ourselves as onlyanimals with a higher form of intelligence and may the best man/woman win. Except the best man may not be a good man but simply a more intelligent man who is better at surviving. Theist are threatened by Moral Relativism and are more comfortable with a form of Moral Cruise Control. Only this Cruise Control affects steering rather than speed. Or maybe a better analogy would be a Moral GPS which guides us when we are lost. But this assumes that we are always lost and any form of freewill in this scenario is a joke.
On the other side the Evolution Proponent may argue that even if that is the case that even without a source called God we can create values that are beneficial to society as a whole. And that although religion has seen itself as the arbitrator or morality, religion in itself is not necessary and in no way guarantees a better moral society. Of course their substitute of Biological Determinism and Freewill Compatibilitism are no better offer and is an equally insulting solution to the freewill problem. And neither answer the hard problem of consciousness. And since Awareness is real The Hard Problem will not be going away anytime soon no matter how inconvenient it is to materialist.
The debate goes on based on the question of whether scientific materialism is only compatible with philosophical materialism or is neutral.
By making this a Theological argument on morality both sides conveniently ignore that this is a actually a Metaphysical question and therefore can not be answered directly through Theology or Scientific Analysis.
This is because Consciousness is not a byproduct. Awareness is an intrinsic property of the Universe. This is why no target has to be specified in advance in the Evolutionary process to create the Appearance of Design. Not because searching for a target would be evidence of a Designer.
"Dawkins (1996 [1986], 50) was himself the first to point out that his
algorithm differs from biological evolution in that it proceeds toward a target."
In this case Dawkins provides the target. But as Perakh points out this is only a model used to simulate natural selection.
"But then, a model is not supposed to be a replica of the entire modeled object or phenomenon (Perakh 2002c); models replicate only those features of the modeled objects that are crucial for analyzing a specific, usually limited, aspect of the modeled object or phenomenon and ignore all the aspects and properties which are of minor importance."
This is all based on a target of design. A plan. An artist does not need a plan. (Note I am not claiming here that God is an Artist but the Creative spark inherent in Awareness itself.) Usually intelligence does not enter into the creative aspects of a work of art. There is no Neurological Correspondence to aliveness or the organic part of art.
This is because because Awareness is not a material property. In fact although materialism describes a level of reality, materialism is not reality itself.
If materialism were interchangeable with Reality itself Quantum Physics would not be possible. Notice I am not saying Quantum Physics wouldn't have problems. Unlike Evolution I do not see the problems in Quantum Physics as Explanatory Gaps.
The problems in QM is not in a lack of Information but in the Metaphysical Implications.
The Metaphysical Implications of QM may be the death nell for Materialism but Theology based on a personal God that may have Designed or Guided Evolution does not fare well either.
If we are God then my God Hypothesis will not work within Theology. If the Universe is Aware and creates or interacts with life in order to make life self aware then I can not get you to this truth by reason alone.
If I see someone behind you about to hit you over the head with a heavy blunt object I can not prove this to you by reason alone. In order for you to become aware of this event which is happening at the same time as me and you are standing around talking...and with no apparent conflict beyond a disagreement on the nature of the reality we are participating in ...
... I must get you to turn around and Look
See
There Is a Free Lunch After All by Mark Perakh
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/chap11.pdf
The No Challenge Theory by Brian Gordon
To Think Or Not To Think: The No Challenge Theory (Misunderstanding of Science)
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typo
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2013 4:54 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied
 Message 69 by kofh2u, posted 02-14-2013 12:15 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3570 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 66 of 150 (690212)
02-10-2013 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by AZPaul3
02-10-2013 4:54 PM


Re: The Free Lunch Fallacy
I am going to assume that you are actually interested in knowing the Metaphysical Implications of QM and start off by stating that it is no coincidence that QM like Metaphysics in relation to the mind/body problem starts off with the problem of Dualism.
In this case the problem of Wave/Particle Duality.
The question of whether QM has Metaphysical Implications is based on QM Interpretations
"An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters." Wikipedia
Now already by discussing what is "real" you are entering into a question of Metaphysics.
The problems inherent in all Interpretations of QM are Metaphyiscal in nature.
"Problems of interpretation
The difficulties of interpretation reflect a number of points about the orthodox description of quantum mechanics, including:
The abstract, mathematical nature of that description.
The existence of what appear to be non-deterministic and irreversible processes.
The phenomenon of entanglement, and in particular the correlations between remote events that are not expected in classical theory.
The complementarity of the proffered descriptions of reality.
The role played by observers and the process of measurement.
The rapid rate at which quantum descriptions become more complicated as the size of a system increases."
So we already are bringing in an observer and have a problem of Dualism but do we have a Phenomenological problem as we do in Metaphysics?
According to at least one Interpretation we do
"The de Broglie—Bohm theory of quantum mechanics is a theory by Louis de Broglie and extended later by David Bohm to include measurements. Particles, which always have positions, are guided by the wavefunction. The wavefunction evolves according to the Schrdinger wave equation, and the wavefunction never collapses. The theory takes place in a single space-time, is non-local, and is deterministic. The simultaneous determination of a particle's position and velocity is subject to the usual uncertainty principle constraint. The theory is considered to be a hidden variable theory, and by embracing non-locality it satisfies Bell's inequality. The measurement problem is resolved, since the particles have definite positions at all times.[10] Collapse is explained as phenomenological.[11]"
Now let us contrast Science Phenomenology with Metaphysical Phenomenology.
Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. This phenomenological ontology can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.
I am already noticing the similarity in the debate on QM Interpretations and the measurement problem in QM with the Phenomenology debate in Metaphysics.
"Particle physics phenomenology is the part of theoretical particle physics that deals with the application of theory to high-energy particle physics experiments. Within the Standard Model, phenomenology is the calculating of detailed predictions for experiments, usually at high precision (e.g., including radiative corrections). Beyond the Standard Model, phenomenology addresses the experimental consequences of new models: how their new particles could be searched for, how the model parameters could be measured, and how the model could be distinguished from other, competing models. Phenomenology forms a bridge between the highly mathematical world of theoretical physics (such as quantum field theories and theories of the structure of space-time) and experimental particle physics."
Obviously Science Phenomenology differs greatly from Metaphysical Phenomenology. But considering the problems in QM interpretations which are partially based on Wave/Particle Duality and partially on The Uncertainty Principle a case for Metaphysical Implications can be made.
Also Nonlocal Effects in QM are the "Ghost in the Machine" where the machine is materialism. That is materialist challenge Dualism on the basis that the mind being nonphysical of of a different substance can not interact with or influence the material world. And yet in QM we have Entanglement which does precisely that in the subatomic world.
The Measurement problem which debates on what effect if any the Observer has on what is being measured has been accepted as a Metaphysical question as well.
Most Scientist are Atheist and do not believe in the soul. To them Awareness is just another word for Consciousness so there is no problem. But The Copenhagen interpretation is not the only interpretation in QM and the issue is far from settled.
Where there may not be a controversy in Evolution on natural selection not being enough to explain the complexity of life ..you can not claim the same in the Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Physics.
To recap
Quantum Probability & the Measurement Problem
Quantum physics is defined mathematically by the Schroedinger equation, which depicts the probability of a particle being found at a certain point. This probability is fundamental to the system, not merely a result of ignorance. Once a measurement is made, however, you have a definite result.
The measurement problem is that the theory doesn't completely explain how the act of measurement actually causes this change. Attempts to solve the problem have lead to some intriguing theories.
I have already stated my answer to the measurement problem
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
The physicist Werner Heisenberg developed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says that when measuring the physical state of a quantum system there's a fundamental limit to the amount of precision that can be achieved.
For example, the more precisely you measure the momentum of a particle the less precise your measurement of its position. Again, in Heisenberg's interpretation this wasn't just a measurement error or technological limitation, but an actual physical limit.
Unless the Universe itself is Aware there would be no uncertainty on this level is such a precise discipline as Quantum Physics
Quantum Entanglement & Nonlocality
In quantum theory, certain physical systems can become "entangled," meaning that their states are directly related to the state of another object somewhere else. When one object is measured, and the Schroedinger wavefunction collapses into a single state, the other object collapses into its corresponding state ... no matter how far away the objects are (i.e. nonlocality).
All Psychic Phenomena including Precognition "knowing" when the phone will ring and Telepathy the ability to sense emotions other than your own or hear a thought of someone else are made possible if the Universe is an aware Phenomenon and Boundaries are actually agreements rather than physical laws of materialism. Nonlocality demonstrates that these boundaries that separate one aspect of physical reality from another are more apparent then real when looking at the fundamental nature of reality itself.
Buddhism calls this Interbeing
Einstein, who called these influences "spooky action at a distance," illuminated this concept with his EPR Paradox.
And yes...we are still left with
Quantum Consciousness
In attempts to solve the measurement problem in quantum physics (see above), physicists frequently run into the problem of consciousness. Though most physicists try to sidestep the issue, it seems that there is a link between the conscious choice of experiment and the outcome of the experiment.
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.
Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2013 4:54 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2013 11:42 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied
 Message 73 by frako, posted 02-19-2013 9:10 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3570 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 68 of 150 (690312)
02-11-2013 5:32 PM


The Conscious Universe: Where Buddhism and Physics Converge
Below is a transcript of Of An Alan Wallace Talk This transcript is partial and is not his whole talk and youtube made a lot of mistranslations so I tried to clean it up.
Notice these videos are NOT< presented as Proofs of anything.
The first Video is a Buddhist Scholar presenting his researched point of view which define a new Metaphysics based on convergence between 2 ideas .
If you really want to get into Buddhism and Quantum Physics I will provide another link at the bottom of this post where the Dalai Lama answers specific questions about Quantum Physics
In this second video a Quantum Physicist pursues a sharing of ideas with the Dalai Lama about Quantum Physics based on Metaphysical the Implications of Quantum Physics
But let me give you the transcript of the first video first
To listen to the whole talk http://youtu.be/FEftG26r1Tc
The Conscious Universe: Where Buddhism and Physics Converge
The topic for tonight is one that i think should very properly arouse strong sense of skepticism
where Buddhism and physics converge How could they possibly converge?... and that is if you look at the methodologies how do traditionalist Buddhist monks yogis is and so forth how are they inquiring into the nature of reality merely by way of meditation
and the primary emphasis of that is looking into the very nature of
awareness itself
Not exclusively but thats certainly a central theme
so we have you he's living in caves in himalayas
or little grass huts in india fifteen hundred years ago
meditating allegedly making discoveries
but in terms of sheer methodology
also contemplative methodology
and then we have to possess going back to the time of Galileo
what it where they directing their attention?
not to their minds at all they directly no tension family outwards and moreover that directing their attention outwards by way of increasingly sophisticated technology
Galileo with his twenty power telescope right onto the Hubble telescope
doesn't have nothing like that the asian indians nothing remotely like that and then this marvelous quantitative analysis that it's characteristic of all branches a physics
Buddhist just don't have any of that so how could there possibly be any convergence?
1:21
the methodologies are so different
1:24
just for starters and then we take Buddhism
a lot of people particularly people don't understand
regardless and generically as a religion
1:35
physics is just a paradigm of science
so again people approaching
understanding of reality by way of religion
1:44
that pretty much always until some appeal to authority Buddha or god or Jesus for Mohammed
1:49
but somebody who really knows what's going on and then we take their word for it the physicists tried in just the opposite of that
they're appealing to nature
and if you want to get a Nobel prize in physics
refute your mentor
2:03
refute find the highest mountain behind you
2:06
whether it's whether it' newton whether it's maxwell max plank whether it's Einstein i say if you can refute them and do it in a compelling fashion
2:16
hopefully for you
2:17
yet i know those rights
2:19
you don't to appear too many Buddhist getting a Nobel prize for a refuting the Buddha
2:25
and so far people following something that
certainly has is that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck
in some respects Buddhism took a lot in some respects like a religion
2:38
how could there be any convergence ?
2:40
this not just smoke and mirrors
so shall we stop there?
2:45
i'm inviting you to be skeptical
and in terms of
presenting my case that there is in fact
at least a possible meaningful convergence
2:56
the power of what I'll be presenting if there is any power to it at all will not be the power of shear reasoning
3:02
if you'll go out of there or that i anticipate or even hope you are here
thinking by gum he's right everything you say it was so compelling we argued it must be right
3:10
I don't think so
3:11
what i am suggesting is that they are avenues of empirical inquiry
that may give rise to empirical insights that may suggest a profound convergence so this is not just an exercise in philosophy
This is an opening of a strategy for combining integrating methodologies from physics and Buddhism and see where that might take us
Ok now for the second video ... The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics
http://youtu.be/Zjd26JSaq64
Sorry no transcript Just a summary of the main points
Uploaded on Jan 8, 2011
"Maybe knowledge is as fundamental, or even more fundamental than reality." (A.Z.) The austrian quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger explains to the Dalai Lama some basics of quantum physics and some results of the last 9 years of experiments in quantum mechanics. Themes: Atomism, randomness, the phenomenon, interdependence, the role of the observer in quantum physics and buddhism (Parts 1-3)

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024