Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
58 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Phat, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,296 Year: 4,408/6,534 Month: 622/900 Week: 146/182 Day: 26/27 Hour: 8/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the implications of quantum physics II
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 21 (341167)
08-18-2006 6:18 PM


I noted the thread has slipped onto page 2. I'd like to propose it be moved here, or perhaps kept in both places.

Edit to add; mitchellmckain mentioned he'd like to keep the thread on the general forum, but that should not prevent duplicating the thread so far over here. I'd like to point out fo mitchell, that multiple posters can participate on a thread in this forum as well. They just have to ask first.

Post from the other thread....

Albert Einstein, with his students Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky, were the first to point out thats the mathematics of quantum mechanics entails apparent these apparent non-local connections. They used them to argue that the quantum theory must be incomplete. In an article known as the EPR paper4, published in 1935, they pointed out that by making a measurement of the momentum of one particle, it is possible to accurately guage the momentum of another with which it has previously interacted. This implies at least one of two things: Either the quantum theory is incomplete, and incorrect in its assertion that the second particle does not have a definite momentum before it is measured; or else the measurement of the first particle somehow determines the state of the other, however far away it is. Einstein called this ‘spooky action at a distance’ - spooky because there is no known mechanism for such an interaction, and because it would entail that things can be affected by events which, in some frame of reference, haven't happened yet. The paper concluded that a particle must have a definite state whether we look at it or not.

http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html

If measuring a particle causes the collapse into a definite state, then the entangled particle exists either in an undetermined state before the measurement, or is affected by the collapse instantly so that we see "spooky action at a distance" in a manner violating causality, right?

So particles either exist in an intrinsincly undefined state and take on form only upon some observation event, or the potential to be observed perhaps (some delayed-choice experiments suggest that), or they do exist in a physical state with some sort of non-local connection between the 2. Either way, causality is violated, correct?

And yet, despite the mountain of evidence demonstrating such violations of causality, it seems the scientific community is loathe to depart from the concept. My first question is why?

My 2nd question is if the human will by deciding to measure one way, has a determinative effect by the mere question it asks, then is the human will and consciousness not part of physical reality? In other words, a particle takes on form only when it is possible theoritically to determine what form it took, right? Some have posited an information exhange, the It from Bit line of reasoning. But without someone existing for that information to potentially be recognized by an observer, then matter doesn't exist in a form it seems? If that's the case, then one cannot claim there are only physical causes at work in observed physical processes, unless human awareness and consciousness are considered physical, and even then, it's not strictly deterministic unless the human will is deterministic, right? Believe it or not, that's all suppossed to be subsets of the 2nd question.

It appears QM demonstrates a deeper realm interacting within the subluminal or luminal universe we call physical reality, and we see that such interactions do not obey causality as we think of it, and indeed it appears that a later action can affect a prior state and history, or determine a definite history out of a multitude of potential histories, and so the past is affected by the present.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-19-2006 1:46 PM randman has replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 2 of 21 (341397)
08-19-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-18-2006 6:18 PM


Greetings
I don't even care any more. I posted a criticism of the whole set up of this EvC forum at Message 196 with the conclusion that the whole Evolution versus Creation debate belongs in Showcase.


See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-18-2006 6:18 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 08-19-2006 7:59 PM mitchellmckain has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 21 (341498)
08-19-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by mitchellmckain
08-19-2006 1:46 PM


I agree with your criticism of EvC
However, this is actually sort of an opportunity here, as we can discuss this without getting shut down by evo mods intent on limiting the discussion.

Although we agree on a lot, I'd like to throw out an idea where we may disagree and see what you think. One of the criticisms of ID as a conceptual approach is that thus far it lacks a mechanism other than indirectly looking for "design." Imo, you are quite correct to see QM as an area of interaction between the spiritual and physical, but I am not so sure that we cannot involve technology into that sphere as you are.

Specifically, I think QM suggests a potential ID mechanism that we may even reproduce and imo, thus substantiate IF far more than ToE has been, and yet I am not sure it will be recognized as such. Sometimes, I think the packaging is often the issue. To illustrate this, I asked son guku's opinion, a poster here that I believe is a physicist, if he thought it within the realm of possibility to directly engineer matter, sort of like the replicators on Star Trek, and he considered it potentially possible and would have to involve QM. I suspect many might consider this possible.

However if I said that perhaps when God creates, He also created the mechanism to create within the creation, and we could discover that, duplicate that, and thus "prove" ID by demonstrating the mechanism of direct engineering of reality, I suspect most scientists would dismiss this outright, but is that correct?

I mean who is to say we cannot test for and duplicate the mechanism of creation, at least in certain areas? That's a theological idea, not a scientific one. Imo, QM already demonstrates principles of the spiritual arena long held by man, and so we should accept that perhaps man's science will one day involve technology within what was formerly known as the spiritual realm.

I don't doubt God Himself retains a level of existence totally off-limits, at least for now, from us, but we need to be careful not to assume that God's presence and mechanisms are necessarily always outside of the observable universe. Certainly, as humans, we can and do experience these things, and so perhaps we can find ways to scientifically measure and quantify and utilyze some of these mysteries on how the real universe works.

Anyway, you have said some interesting things I will respond to as well in other posts, and others that are interested and welcome to come over here and discuss this topic. The implications of QM are more far-reaching, imo, than the scientific community has been willing to accept fully.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-19-2006 1:46 PM mitchellmckain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 12:28 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 4 of 21 (341568)
08-19-2006 10:31 PM


parasomnium
If a particle flies through space without interacting with anything, it may stay undetermined. But as soon as it interacts with something, be it a photon, another particle, or whatever, the interaction causes the wave function to collapse.

Are you so sure? Maybe it does, and maybe not. If we set up a measurement of a photon to if it shows wave-like properties, the photon passes along in a wave-like manner. Now, if we are saying the wave-function is indeterminate until measurement/interaction, then the collapse here is into a wave-like property, correct?

If we measure to try to see if the photon behaves like a particle, we see it behaving as a particle and not a wave, and so the wave-function could be said to collapse into particle-likeness, right?

I think sometimes people think of the collapse of the wave-function in terms of the particle being reduced from a superpositional direction, the wave-like pattern, into the unipositional state, like a particle, but if that is the case, then the photon is always in a determined state, and just switches from wave-like to particle-like. Of course, the other view and I think from what I can tell, the more dominant view, is that the photon exists as neither, but as a potential for either.

But here is my question. Every particle has interacted in some way with the physical universe. If measurement only means interaction, then all photons should exist in definite form, and the idea that photons particles are in an undefined state until observation doesn't seem to hold up. So once again, the wild card of somewhere there needing to be an observer or potential observer, a conscious one at that, comes back into play.

However, regardless of whether the photon exists in superposition or as merely the potential for physical superposition or particle-like, there is this issue of causality. Delayed-choice experiments have shown that even if we set up an experiment to determine which way the photon went, after it went a certain direction, the photon BEFORE THE MEASUREMENT collapses into particle-like behaviour. That to me is evidence of backwards in time causality, from our vantage point. Of course, maybe for the particle or from that vantage point, no time has elapsed and so it's not backwards in time causality from that perspective.

After all, we've only been in the universe a fraction of a second on a twenty-four hour scale. What happened to all those undetermined states before consciousness arose in the universe? Did they remain undetermined for aeons and aeons, waiting to be observed until we came along?

Perhaps. Of course, one could posit a Universal Observer and even say God fills that role, but if that is the case, why do OUR QUESTIONS affect what state a particle exists in. Maybe all possible worlds exist into observation, and as observation takes place, there is a narrowing down of those possibilities, and perhaps there are ways the world (historical time-line of past, present, and future) expands or changes holistically as well.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 5 of 21 (341578)
08-19-2006 10:47 PM


GDR
It seems that interference can occur not only through space but across time as well. As Greene says, "the future helps shape the story you tell of the past".

Yep. It's something we are going to have to come to grips with. QM's been around for over 80 years and keeps being confirmed with experiment after experiment, but it's implications are so astounding that we have had a difficult time accepting it.


mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 6 of 21 (341734)
08-20-2006 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
08-19-2006 7:59 PM


Re: I agree with your criticism of EvC
randman writes:

Although we agree on a lot, I'd like to throw out an idea where we may disagree and see what you think. One of the criticisms of ID as a conceptual approach is that thus far it lacks a mechanism other than indirectly looking for "design." Imo, you are quite correct to see QM as an area of interaction between the spiritual and physical, but I am not so sure that we cannot involve technology into that sphere as you are.

You are right and I fear it will be a sore one for you for I have had friends with similar hopes and they have not been happy with my opinion that what they hope to make their life work, is foolish. Another is your use of ID which includes the word "design" of which I am passionately opposed. You have not responded to the questions which I raised which I think your position requires answering in Message 22.

Why would things of the spirit be quantifiable? Doesn't our experience of love, God and other things of the spirit suggest otherwise? Why do you think the scientific method and rationalism should apply to the spiritual reality? Do you think that Christianity is deficient, that mathematics is a better language for the things of the spirit?

Edited by mitchellmckain, : dBCode reference


See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 08-19-2006 7:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 4:24 PM mitchellmckain has replied
 Message 8 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 4:30 PM mitchellmckain has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 21 (341764)
08-20-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mitchellmckain
08-20-2006 12:28 PM


Re: I agree with your criticism of EvC
Why would things of the spirit be quantifiable?

Because they are part of the human experience.

Doesn't our experience of love, God and other things of the spirit suggest otherwise?

I don't think so. Let's look at the arena of physical and mental health. There are studies that seek to answer if faith in God, feelings of purpose in life, loving relations with others, etc,....have an impact on emotional and physical well-being. So we can indirectly study aspects of those things by studying people that interact with them.

Well, everything we know about spirit, whether God's Spirit, our spirits, spiritual realms, etc,...is that spirit is somehow connected to the our world, to the physical world. Heck, most people have sort of a vague faith in this whether they believe in God or not, as most believe in some sort of retribution, what you sow is what you reap, or often expressed what goes around, comes around, karma or whatever. There is a sense that is a hidden order within the universe that controls events and is causal, but we are not sure how it works.

There is some sort of mechanism in place that affects the world we live in, but takes place within the spiritual realm. So why should we expect that to be off-limits to scientific inquiry forever? It may be that science cannot assess something at any one time, and you are right that we should never assume science can answer all of our questions, but stating science cannot address some part of reality ever is an assumption that is not empirically-based, and imo, is theologically misguided in some respects. We need not fear that science could potentially expand into the spirit. If it does, it does. No big deal.

Another thing to consider is QM is the study of what "material" or "physical" actually consists of. Spiritual traditions, more or less, if one looked at them as scientific predictions have been remarkably accurate. They predict that at the heart of everything is a quantized information set, a "word", that is the root of each thing; that what we thought of as the physical world was not the hard, unviolable thing classical physics made it out to be, but could be violated and was violated (miracles), and definitely some traditions suggest the world in terms of matter is more illusory and truly consists of energy at different vibrational frequencies, which seems to be actually what the universe does consist of.

I don't want to go on too much of a tangeant, but as science has dug more into what the universe is, science is now much closer to what spirtual traditions have said all along. At the heart of things is specific information that gives rise through energy (spirit?) into the thing itself. God said, "Let there be..., and it was."

So I think our experience of God tells us 2 things. God is both transcendant, and immanent. It is an error, imo, to view God as so transcendant that we think of His substance so separated from this universe, it plays no part in maintaining things as they are. "Love believes all things"....into existence and allows them to stay there for however long they are ordained.

In other words, to take your view strikes me as saying the universe self-exists moment to moment now that God has created it, and I don't think that's the case. I think it takes continual faith on God's part to maintain the universe in it's present state, and that out of His love and faith, the universe is manifested as real by the presence and action of God's Spirit.

So what I would say is there there is an immanent aspect to God that could potentially be studied or accounted for. I'd even go a step further and say that God has created spiritual realms as part of this universe just as He has created the physical and the quantum, and these realms are tied together. So although science is always limited and we will always need faith if we want to fellowship with and operate with God in our lives, that doesn't mean that certain principles cannot be illuminated and studied by science.

Do you think that Christianity is deficient, that mathematics is a better language for the things of the spirit?

I think I've been too longwinded, but keep in mind that just because we discover scientifically that extra dimensions formerly known as spiritual realms exist does not mean that everyone will think science has proved that God exists, or Jesus is Lord, or a great many things. I just believe, and apparently you do as well, that QM shows an interaction between the physical and the spiritual realm. In some respects, this could be somewhat of a dangerous development.

What if we discover that consciousness is in part the result of a superluminal, or instant communication, within one's being via quantuam mechanics. We may well see the advent of AI that genuinely develops spirit or soul. Personally, I think we will.

One thing I believe the Lord shared with me is that we would see astounding technological advances in my lifetime that would shake the faith of some who held dogmatic positions. Consider this. What if your position is that science cannot delve into certain areas, cannot delve into the world of spirit, and then when science does, there are those with a loss of faith because their view of that arena is that it was so God-controlled that man couldn't enter, and now that man has, one wonders if this God stuff was ever right in the first place or if we just called something God that we all felt, the universal, quantum connections or something else, and so a great many people could lose faith when in reality the immense advances should be a delight to the Christian, if used properly, and something to be thankful to God for and something that strengthens our faith, not disheartens it.

Be a little more open-minded. God said man didn't have many limits at the tower of Babel.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 12:28 PM mitchellmckain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 5:26 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 21 (341765)
08-20-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mitchellmckain
08-20-2006 12:28 PM


Re: I agree with your criticism of EvC
btw, message 16 is my post.

I am just saying that there is no need to flatly proclaim that nothing is random. It contradicts both scientific evidence and human experience that much is random. It enough to say that randomness is not universal or neccessary. Any particular event could be truly random but it also might not be.

Maybe we should do another thread on randomness. I am just not so sure it truly exists. Randomness exists as a relative aspect, but not sure as an absolute quality. With more information, perhaps we can know the exact cause and predict the exact course of everything. Certainly, I think God can.

Science is not equivalent to truth.

Keep in mind that I am not saying it is.

There is a mathematical description of the interaction and it is called the uncertainty principle.

There is a lot more to QM than the uncertaintly principle, and I do think in many respects the uncertainty principle is eclipsed by non-locality.

But the quantification of the interaction does not quantify the source even in an interaction between two physical objects.

That's true, but it suggests a source or mechanism exists, and this mechanism has definite repeatable properties, right?

I do not think that quantity or measurability is inherent in energy itself

Why not? Energy works with different frequencies and vibrations, correct?

and I certainly do not think that these are properties of spiritual forms of energy. Why would it be? All my experiences of spirituality suggest otherwise.

Because spiritual forms of energy are discrete forms in their own way. The spirit of an angel or a demon or of God or a person are not all the same. So they are measurable, and our experience tells us we measure them in fact. We intuitively, probably by our spirit, take stock of these different forms of energy and presence. Now, perhaps this is beyond every person's experience, but by all accounts of people, different spiritual realms are different in their energy projections. Heaven is different than Hell, and there are different parts of Heaven as well. There are spiritual realms that contain great spiritual warfare where angels and demonic principalities war, and there are other places in where peace rules and no evil at all is allowed.

So I think man's experience of spiritual things suggest spiritual energy has different forms, is recongnizable, and so theoritically could be discerned technologicially, or parts of it could.

Macroscopically the universe is quite deterministic.

But the question was on the human will? And I don't think you can say science shows the human will is deterministic. There are no math forumulas for that yet, are they? And so if the human will and our decision of what sort of question we ask of the universe plays a role in determining what the universe is, as we see when our mode of questioning determines the particle as either more wave-like or particle-like, then we can't say everything is deterministic. We see a non-deterministic mechanism at the heart of what consistutes reality.

Wonderful. Such agreement is more than I could ever expect. Someone else who believe in the operation of natural law in the realm of the spirit is a rare treasure. I feel that any disagreements we could possibly have are dwarfed into insignificance by comparison.
Off the topic comment: An eternal hell could make sense as a consequece of a natural spiritual law even though it makes no sense at all as a punishment from God.

Glad to see we are getting along, although "natural law" sort of throws me here. I think the Bible says some things about God doing this in reaction to that, and God feeling this, etc,...in a manner that is meant to reveal a limited perspective on an aspect of God, and this gets back to my overall point. I don't think laws, truth and principles hold together on their own, ever. I think when Jesus said He was the truth, that He was saying, I am the reality. I am what is real. The word of God is what is real, and everything that exists at it's root is a word from God defining what that thing is, and the Word is Jesus and vice versa. It's God's power holding things together. They cannot and do not self-exist.

So in a sense, when someone dies and falls into their core which has become corrupted, and the light in them is darkness (meaning the original word that is them is darkness to them now), then how great is that darkness. But since God holds these principles together, in a sense God sends them to hell. So both are true. Let me put it this way. If God says you jump off of this building, and you die, and you do it and die. God in a sense killed you because He didn't break the laws of gravity to save you. I think there is an element like that with Hell, but at the same time, I think it's a little more than that. Suffice to say, God's love is permanent and unchanging, and the more emotional depictions of wrath or whatever are real, true, and valid, but perhaps a more limited yet very important perspective on God since there is a sense of God as a force that won't change, and so we do need to fear God in that sense. God won't break the rules or lie to save us. He will be just regardless of His love for us.

We need a new thread for that probably.

Never read that in the Bible. Strict is not the same thing as quantifiable. Is love quantifiable? Which of your children (family members if you have none) do you love most? How much more? Without quantity, mathematics does not apply. Are you really looking for spiritual truths in mathematics? God is not quantifiable, that I know for sure. Is anything about God quantifiable? And if nothing about God is quantifiable, then I think it is strange to that spiritual things are quantifiable.

What I am referring to are things like the principle of sowing and reaping. It suggests a mechanism within creation that affects the physical out of the spiritual. The math that suggests extra dimensions to make the data work, imo, is math already quantifying the existence of spiritual realms.

I think you have become a little shell-shocked in your battle with atheists, desperately chanting that spiritual things are just as real as physical things. ....relax.... Of course they are.

It's not that, and keep in mind many pr maybe all spiritual things are more real than physical things. I think that's something that QM shows too. I think everything has a spiritual root, it's identity stemming from the Word of God, and it is then a word from God that is what the thing is. Physical form and reality arise out of that, and that's what we see in QM. A particle, for example, can be real even when it has disappeared and then reappears. I know cavediver talks of quantum fields and so maybe that's not the best answer. Another way to say it is that the wave-function describes the particle's physical and non-physical state, and the physical is the secondary or derived state.

The thing with me is I never expected science to get into spiritual principles. My beliefs about the time-line not being static and many other things stemmed from other areas, from my Christian walk really. So when I started seeing certain things in QM, it blew me away the parallels involved, and so much so that imo, I think it's reasonable to conclude QM studies some spiritual principles in operation. I didn't come to this from debating with atheists.

I gotta go, but will address the rest later. I do think it's easier for one to understand QM if you have more grounding in spiritual principles. It's not so weird then as these things are already part of one's life, and I think that's why we agree on some basic things about it.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 12:28 PM mitchellmckain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 7:22 PM randman has replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 9 of 21 (341772)
08-20-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
08-20-2006 4:24 PM


Re: I agree with your criticism of EvC
randman writes:

I just believe, and apparently you do as well, that QM shows an interaction between the physical and the spiritual realm. .


Again let me repeat, I believe no such thing. QM merely shows a limitation to physical causality. It represents a limit to which the methods of physics can reach. There is only a hole or lack of causality in which you can see nothing or something. On faith religious people see meaning where there is no proof. Therefore religious people can fill the lack of causality in QM with a faith in non-physical causes. But they cannot use QM to produce a scientific proof of what they believe in. There is no shortcut around faith.

I rejoice in this discovery of the limits of science for it validates my experience of life that tells me that the reality of science consisting only of the quantifiable, the objectively observable and the measurable, is not a complete picture. Your hope for a scientific grasp of spiritual phenomena only tears down that clarity which keeps science from dictating the ultimate nature of reality.

randman writes:

What if we discover that consciousness is in part the result of a superluminal, or instant communication, within one's being via quantuam mechanics.


That makes no sense. No part of quantum mechanics violates the Minkowsky structure of space-time (what you call superluminal).

The communication or interaction between physical and spiritual does transend time and space and thus could conceivably be a means of comunication that disregards such limitations, but it is also submerged in a sea of randomness as well as being effected by subjective factors and so it can never be reliable. It could never be objectively verifiable. Success can always be dismissed as coincidental. This is the nature of spiritual phenomena.

randman writes:

One thing I believe the Lord shared with me is that we would see astounding technological advances in my lifetime that would shake the faith of some who held dogmatic positions.


Well that is a safe bet because scientific/technical advances does tend to do that. But no threat or fear will make me abandom my reason. When such evidence comes then I will adjust my point of view, but I no more expect this than I expect the earth to suddenly stop rotating.

randman writes:

Consider this. What if your position is that science cannot delve into certain areas, cannot delve into the world of spirit, and then when science does, there are those with a loss of faith because their view of that arena is that it was so God-controlled that man couldn't enter, and now that man has, one wonders if this God stuff was ever right in the first place or if we just called something God that we all felt, the universal, quantum connections or something else, and so a great many people could lose faith when in reality the immense advances should be a delight to the Christian, if used properly, and something to be thankful to God for and something that strengthens our faith, not disheartens it.


The truth is always better than getting carried away by fashionable enthusiasms which have no solid foundations. The increasing amount of pseudo-science will no doubt give birth to an increasing number of anti-scientific groups like the flat earthers and anti-relativists. There are already a lot of people who are half inventor and half con-man who make extravagant and fraudulent claims.

What are you expecting or hoping for: machines to measure the quality of peoples spirit so that we can usurp the position of God in judging people? pills that will make sins go away? mechanical devices to let us see and communicate with God? a telephone number for deceased loved ones? or just some proof to shove in the face of those who ridicule you? or to make that little nagging feeling of doubt go away?

randman writes:

Be a little more open-minded. God said man didn't have many limits at the tower of Babel.


There is a difference between being open minded and having an undisciplined mind. I see a whole range of documented spiritual phenomena from ghosts to ESP and spiritual healing. I have no skepticism in regards to these things because they all share the fundamental characteristics of spiritual phenomena. It is only when such things start to seem reliable that I become skeptical and expect an investigation to show that they are products of fraud. I believe in the power of the mind and spirit (on these I place no limits) and greatly criticize the narrow mindedness of Western medicine for example. But when people start talking about perpetual motion machines and other things which violate physical laws then it is no longer a matter of open-mindedness but ignorance.

Edited by mitchellmckain, : grammar


See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 4:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 6:32 PM mitchellmckain has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 10 of 21 (341782)
08-20-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mitchellmckain
08-20-2006 5:26 PM


motives
I rejoice in this discovery of the limits of science for it validates my experience of life that tells me that the reality of science consisting only of the quantifiable, the objectively observable and the measurable, is not a complete picture. Your hope for a scientific grasp of spiritual phenomena only tears down that clarity which keeps science from dictating the ultimate nature of reality.

You are misunderstanding me here. I don't need or hope for a scientific grasp of spiritual phenomena. It's just that science appears to be at the threshold of investigating the spiritual aspect of the framework of reality. I think you should be more open-minded that this may be what is going on.

It represents a limit to which the methods of physics can reach. There is only a hole or lack of causality in which you can see nothing or something.

I don't see this at all. QM is used in applied technology. It's not a hole that has to be filled with nothing or faith, but a description of working principles which we can harness to do amazing things, and we are already harnessing the principles and effects of QM. It may violate linear causaility time-wise from our vantage point, but that does not mean there are no causes for the effects within QM. Moreover, those effects are predictable as well.

rejoice in this discovery of the limits of science for it validates my experience of life that tells me that the reality of science consisting only of the quantifiable, the objectively observable and the measurable, is not a complete picture.

The way I look at is I don't need to invent an artificial boundary or assert a boundary to know science is limited. Science is limited by technology and by man's perceptive abilities, and that's enough right there to tell you it's very, very limited. Trying to draw a line saying science can investigate this, but not that, is going to lead to an error in some respects. I hear what you are saying in reacting to people that erroneously think scientific conclusions are valid in areas where they are not. Science indeed is misused in that regard, but think of it this way.

If your doctrine is science can never investigate aspects of spiritual things, then what is science does investigate those things but calls them by another name? Suppose science can create a conscious mind via quantum computers harnessing principles taken out of the extra dimensions formerly known as spiritual? Are we going to say that since man did this, God could not have done it by spiritual means since the 2 are separate?

That makes no sense. No part of quantum mechanics violates the Minkowsky structure of space-time (what you call superluminal).

Say what you want, but non-locality does from our perspective. Like I said, maybe from the particle's perspective, there is no violation, but the reason Einstein called it "spooky action-at-distance" is because of this very thing, the action appears instantaneous or non-local.

And if you think about this, you can see this exact same thing in either your own life or other people's. Ever known instantly that something happened to a loved one, or talked with people that have. I have. That knowledge is essentially superluminal from our perspective. We feel it when it happened, and somehow know the truth even though there is no observed physical connection.

Whether you want to call inseparability, non-locality, or entanglement, there is an instant effect. That doesn't mean it is superluminal in the "physical" universe, but we already agreed that the universe is not just physical. The key point is that there is a connection that is constant regardless of distance (and apparently time as well).

The communication or interaction between physical and spiritual does transend time and space and thus could conceivably be a means of comunication that disregards such limitations, but it is also submerged in a sea of randomness as well as being effected by subjective factors and so it can never be reliable. It could never be objectively verifiable. Success can always be dismissed as coincidental. This is the nature of spiritual phenomena.

And it was once impossible to fly. Over-the-horizon radar was against the laws of physics, and due to the uncertainty principle and other things, we could never figure out a way to test QM fully as to whether the physical interaction or something else caused the collapse of the wave-function.

Keep in mind both the physical and spiritual are informational realms, which is why both meet in the mind realm of human experience. Imo, this informational aspect will and has begun to bridge the gap between the 2.

What are you expecting or hoping for: machines to measure the quality of peoples spirit so that we can usurp the position of God in judging people?

What's the point of a question like that? It's somewhat offensive. There is no hope here that science would advance this far. It is a recognition that it already has advanced into seeing the need for the spiritual dimensions to explain the data.

I do think though that more recognition of universal principles advances mankind. Recognition that man was created in the image of God led to recognition of a type of equality and human rights. Much of that actually stemmed directly from the Christian concept of freedom of religion.

I think as various spheres such as science and politics come to grip with the fact the spiritual world and it's rules including morality and justice is directly intertwined to what we think of as the physical world, that this greater understanding is beneficial to mankind. Truth is better than a lie.

I see a whole range of documented spiritual phenomena from ghosts to ESP and spiritual healing.

We are not really talking of spiritual phenomena. We are talking of what constitutes the fabric of the universe, energy, matter, etc,.... The simple fact is that science already is talking of extra, non-observed dimensions, the fact that things at heart are an informational/energy design rather than a physical form, etc,....already demonstrate science has delved into the spiritual dimensions of reality.

But when people start talking about perpetual motion machines and other things which violate physical laws then it is no longer a matter of open-mindedness but ignorance.

This is something different, but in reality, no one talks about perpetual motion machines that violate physical laws. They may say that, but there is always a constant source. Take the scientists that say they discovered accidentally recently how some rotating magnetic fields create more energy than is being put into them. It wouldn't surprise me at all because conventional scientists are too ignorant to realize there are ways to use elctromagnetism to tap the existing energy within the vacuum, or as Telsa called it the aether or abundant, ambient energy. There is no violation of physical laws. It's just that we refuse to accept physical laws despite the fact physics has already demonstrated the vacuum has energy. Moreover, the earth spinning, the sun, and the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine for all practical purposes. There is abundant energy everywhere. We just have't developed the means to fully tap it.

Btw, maybe you can help me with this? When a wave-function (a particle) collapses to a state, where does the energy come from if the particle is in an indeterminate state. Also, the change from either a superpositional state or an indetermined state, whichever is the right view, is an informational response. The response is based on the inquiry, correct? What sort of energy can react seemingly knowingly to the response? What's going on here?

as

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 5:26 PM mitchellmckain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 11:59 PM randman has replied

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 11 of 21 (341787)
08-20-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
08-20-2006 4:30 PM


Re: I agree with your criticism of EvC
randman writes:

There is a lot more to QM than the uncertaintly principle, and I do think in many respects the uncertainty principle is eclipsed by non-locality.


Of course there is, and most of it is about predicting the results of experients like the rest of physics and none of it has anything to with any interaction between physical and spiritual. It is the difference between making careful claims that no one can argue with and making extravagant claims that simply prove your lack of understanding of the science. There is no mathematical description of anything nonlocal in physics.

randman writes:


That's true, but it suggests a source or mechanism exists, and this mechanism has definite repeatable properties, right?


No because any such repeatable mechanism would be a hidden variable and the existence of these has been disproven.

randman writes:

Why not? Energy works with different frequencies and vibrations, correct?


Well sure, or more to the point all energy in physical phenomena has a definite quantity. There is a measurable amount of energy. But this and all other aspects of quantity are a direct consequence of that energy being part of the mathematical form which is the physical universe. All these mathematical aspect are not really inherent in the energy itself but only control its relationship and function in relationship to the rest of the physical universe.

randman writes:


Because spiritual forms of energy are discrete forms in their own way. The spirit of an angel or a demon or of God or a person are not all the same. So they are measurable, and our experience tells us we measure them in fact.


NO. Discreteness and difference is not the same as measurable and measurable is not the same as real. Love is different from hope which is different from faith, but the difference is not quantifiable, numerical or measurable. To believe in the reduction of spirit to numbers and measurable quantities is disgusting to me. It is demeaning. It is no different than materialism. I might as well believe that my children are nothing but a collection of elementary particles. I do not think you see the consequences of what you are proposing. If spirit is quantifiable there is no reason to believe in it at all.

randman writes:


So I think man's experience of spiritual things suggest spiritual energy has different forms, is recongnizable, and so theoretically could be discerned technologicially, or parts of it could.


Of course all energy has different forms. That is what energy does - what energy is for. But this has nothing to do with quantifiability or measurability. In order to be discerned technologically there would have to be un unbroken chain of absolutely deterministic causality between the detector and what is detected, which would either put all of spirituality under the rule of deterministic causality or simply redefine what you think is spiritual. It would not prove that spirituality is real but just the opposite. It would prove that what people thought was spiritual has a materialistic cause after all.

randman writes:


But the question was on the human will?


I also told you that living things were an exception. But the only gap in the chain of deterministic causality is found in quantum mechanics. It is the nonlinear mathematics of far from equillibrium systems like living organisms that can amplify such uncaused events to effect large scale phenomena.

randman writes:


It's God's power holding things together. They cannot and do not self-exist.


Well I think you are confused about the meaning of "self-exist" for this only means uncaused. Only God self-exists. All other things are created. But it would limit God in the extreme if He could not create anything that would not fall apart the moment He turns His attention from it or stops supporting it. Even human beings can create persisting works and automation. If a man stands in front of you holding up beams and panels and says I have finished building your shed, will you pay him? If you say that God cannot create things which do not require Him to sustain them then I think you deny His power of true creation and all you are allowing Him is imagination. This is not only extremely repugnant but it is not in the least bit Christian. It is pantheism. If God cannot create things with independent and autonomous existence then all He can create are no different than figments of His own imagination and everything is merely parts of God Himself.

No one is suggesting that there is any natural law that is not a creation of God. But the commonality which I was seeing (hoping to see?) between us is this idea that spiritual existence is not just ruled by the whim of God but by a rule of law, purpose, and meaning that operates autonomously. That the commandments of God all have reasons behind them.

randman writes:

If God says you jump off of this building, and you die, and you do it and die. God in a sense killed you because He didn't break the laws of gravity to save you.


Children think like this, but it is wrong. For example suppose your son has no drivers licence yet, so you refuse to let him drive your car, so he blaims you for standing up his girlfriend. By this kind of logic God is responsible for every evil and I deny this. God like any parent makes rules for a reason and the refusal to break those rules does not make them responsible for the consequences of not taking those rules seriously.

randman writes:


Suffice to say, God's love is permanent and unchanging, and the more emotional depictions of wrath or whatever are real, true, and valid, but perhaps a more limited yet very important perspective on God since there is a sense of God as a force that won't change, and so we do need to fear God in that sense. God won't break the rules or lie to save us. He will be just regardless of His love for us.


Exactly. Punishment is for the purpose of behavior modification. Eternal punishment is therefore nonsensical. Eternal consequences, however, are only natural, for without them our choices ultimately have no meaning or at least none of our choices have any significant seriousness.

randman writes:


What I am referring to are things like the principle of sowing and reaping. It suggests a mechanism within creation that affects the physical out of the spiritual. The math that suggests extra dimensions to make the data work, imo, is math already quantifying the existence of spiritual realms.


But reaping what you sow is not a mathematical truth and that is why atheists can come up with an endless list of counterexamples. Spirtual truths are not objectively testable. A evil man will ask someone for a kindness in order return the favor with robbery, rape or murder, and such evil men are not always caught. We must have faith that it is true in spite of such evidence that it is false. This is always the nature of spiritual things so it is obvious that there is no mathematical mechanism involved. Expectations of mathematically just reward is repudiated in the Bible. "Those who are first shall be last and those who are last shall be first."

randman writes:


Another way to say it is that the wave-function describes the particle's physical and non-physical state, and the physical is the secondary or derived state.


Of course I utterly deny this. I think it is terribly confused. The wave function and particle is pure physics, they have no spiritual aspect. Only in very special phenomenon like living things is there any spiritual element involved and sure there is a definite sense in which the spiritual is real thing, for the physical part is really just a bunch of elementary particles behaving according to mathematical laws but the spirit IS NOT. The spirit is given form not by any deterministic mathematical laws. It is given form by the choices the living organism has made. The deformed freak in the circus is not really the material form which you can see and which repells you but the kindnesses that he has done for others, for they are what has given his spirit form and make him who and what he truly is.

Edited by mitchellmckain, : mistakes

Edited by mitchellmckain, : No reason given.


See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 4:30 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-20-2006 8:34 PM mitchellmckain has replied
 Message 15 by randman, posted 08-21-2006 12:05 AM mitchellmckain has taken no action

AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 12 of 21 (341795)
08-20-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mitchellmckain
08-20-2006 7:22 PM


Mathematics of the nonlocal
There is no mathematical description of anything nonlocal in physics.

Bell's inequality describes nonlocal phenomena and has been quantitatively tested. Also, Newton's theory of gravity is both quantitative and nonlocal. In fact, his own criticism of his theory was its 'action at a distance' aspect, which Einstein was parodying with his 'spooky action at a distance' remark.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 7:22 PM mitchellmckain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 9:38 PM AnswersInGenitals has taken no action

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 13 of 21 (341804)
08-20-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals
08-20-2006 8:34 PM


Re: Mathematics of the nonlocal
Answers writes:

Bell's inequality describes nonlocal phenomena and has been quantitatively tested. Also, Newton's theory of gravity is both quantitative and nonlocal. In fact, his own criticism of his theory was its 'action at a distance' aspect, which Einstein was parodying with his 'spooky action at a distance' remark.

It does no such thing. Bell's inequality is a mathematical relation which must hold in a collection of the simultaneous measurement of a both particles sharing the same wave function assuming that reality is local and that there are hidden variables which determine the outcome of the measurements. Experimental tests of this show, however, that Bell's inequality is not obeyed, forcing us to conclude that one or more of the premises from which Bell's inequality was derived is incorrect. So either there are no hidden variables (and thus determinsm is dead) or the understanding of reality in physics as local is incomplete, or both. There are are many solutions including the idea that reality is nonlocal but there is absolutely no proof that reality is non-local. Furthermore this idea that reality is nonlocal not only has no verifiable mathematical description, but this solution is utterly unacceptible to the physics community, and so a solution that presumes that reality is non-local cannot be called a physics solution.

So the only definite conclusion of the failure of the experiments to uphold Bell's inequality is that there are no hidden variables to explain quantum mechanics and that determinism in physics is dead. There are means to preserve determinism outside the local realism of physics such as in Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. At least this MWI preserves mathematical determinism and continuity, although what are percieved of as event by observers are just as lacking in deterministic causes from their point of view.

Newtonian gravity mathematically models a very limited range of physical phenomena and it does explain anything. The action at a distance which you describe has been proven to be one of the things in Newtonian gravity which is wrong. Locality was only given a mathematical definition by the special theory of relativity and no one in the physics community has any doubt of this theory. Only nut-cases like Flat Earthers and Trekkies insist on stubbornly refusing to bow to the overwhelming evidence for the Special Theory of Relativity.


See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-20-2006 8:34 PM AnswersInGenitals has taken no action

mitchellmckain
Member (Idle past 5661 days)
Posts: 60
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 14 of 21 (341837)
08-20-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
08-20-2006 6:32 PM


Re: motives
randman writes:


It's just that science appears to be at the threshold of investigating the spiritual aspect of the framework of reality.


What are talking about? Science is not on the threshold of any such thing. This is your imagination.

randman writes:


I don't see this at all. QM is used in applied technology. It's not a hole that has to be filled with nothing or faith, but a description of working principles which we can harness to do amazing things, and we are already harnessing the principles and effects of QM.


But QM has nothing to do with spirituality. It is physics plain and simple. It is already doing all the things you say. Quantum physics is not new. All the new technology of the last eighty years is based on QM. The scientific and technological developments have accelerated beyond anyones wildest dreams. And none of it has anything to do with spirituality or ever will. This expectation is a product of your misunderstanding.

What has proceeded much more slowly is the understanding and realization of the philosophical consequences of QM. Partly because of resistance to QM within the physics community itself.

randman writes:


The way I look at is I don't need to invent an artificial boundary or assert a boundary to know science is limited. Science is limited by technology and by man's perceptive abilities, and that's enough right there to tell you it's very, very limited. Trying to draw a line saying science can investigate this, but not that, is going to lead to an error in some respects. I hear what you are saying in reacting to people that erroneously think scientific conclusions are valid in areas where they are not. Science indeed is misused in that regard, but think of it this way.


I can see that you do not understand but I do not know how to remedy it. The funny thing is that your reluctance is so similar to the reluctance of physicist to accept what QM is saying. Except that you don't understand QM at all.

It is not I that draw such a boundary it is QM. Einsein could not accept this either. He thought that physics could provide all the answers and he refused to believe what QM was saying, because QM was saying that physics could not provide the answers. Not because of any limitation in human technology or understanding, but because according to QM the answers are not even there. That is what QM is saying that is so significant. It is saying there is no reason at all why some things do what they do!

I don't believe what QM is saying because I deny that the description of reality in physics is complete. All physics does is discover the mathematical relationship between measurable quantities. If you believe that everything can be described in this way then you have no choice but to believe what QM is saying, that there are ultimately no reasons why some things do what they do.

It is so weird that you are all excited by QM and all the while you are really repudiating what it says because you misunderstand what it is saying. If you keep doing this then like so many non-scientists you are using quantum physics as a magical word for the purposes of rhetoric without understanding anything about it.

randman writes:


If your doctrine is science can never investigate aspects of spiritual things, then what if science does investigate those things but calls them by another name?


What if there is no spirituality? What if there is no God? What if this life is all there is? Do you think I have not been asked these questions before? The crazy thing is that you are asking me these same questions and you do not even know it.

randman writes:


Suppose science can create a conscious mind via quantum computers harnessing principles taken out of the extra dimensions formerly known as spiritual?


Oh but I think this is very possible. I even know how. It doesn't have anything to do with extra dimensions. It doesn't have anything to do with any scientific investiagion of the spiritual. You cannot do it like you are thinking. Consciousness is life. It is a very specific process and I know what that process is. The method is the same as God's method. But before you go any further you should read Mary Shelly's book, "Frankenstein" and tell me what you have learned from it.

randman writes:


Are we going to say that since man did this, God could not have done it by spiritual means since the 2 are separate?


Huh?

randman writes:


Say what you want, but non-locality does from our perspective.


I am not sure you know what locality is. Ok let me test your understanding. Consider this. A black marble and white marble are placed in two boxes by some random process that nobody sees. The boxes are then separated by a distance of light years. In both locations nobody know which marble is in the box they have, it could be either one an equal probility of black or white. But now one of the boxes is opened and found to contain white. This intantly changes the probabilities of finding either color of marble light years away. Is that correct? Is this a nonlocal phenomenon? Can you explain why this is not a case of non-locality and can you explain what difference QM would make in this situaltion?

randman writes:


That knowledge is essentially superluminal from our perspective.


No two points on the earth requires more than a twentieth of a second for light to travel from one to the other so I am afraid this is a very poor example. Besides I have already said I have no doubt any such thing. But all attempts to make objective measurements of this have failed. Why?

randman writes:


What's the point of a question like that?


The point is to figure out what aspect of spirituality it is that you think isn't spiritual. Because as I explained before that is all any scientific investigation of the spiritual could possibly succeed in proving.

randman writes:


Btw, maybe you can help me with this? When a wave-function (a particle) collapses to a state, where does the energy come from if the particle is in an indeterminate state. Also, the change from either a superpositional state or an indetermined state, whichever is the right view, is an informational response. The response is based on the inquiry, correct? What sort of energy can react seemingly knowingly to the response? What's going on here?


Where does what energy come from? What kind of superposition state? The collapse of the wave is the result of an interaction - a disturbance of the wave that occurs in the process of getting that information. The information only exists because the interaction destroys the superposition state. There is nothing conscious about the behavior of wave or particle.


See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 08-20-2006 6:32 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 08-21-2006 12:49 AM mitchellmckain has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 21 (341839)
08-21-2006 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mitchellmckain
08-20-2006 7:22 PM


Re: I agree with your criticism of EvC
No because any such repeatable mechanism would be a hidden variable and the existence of these has been disproven.

Really? So what is the mechanism involved with entanglement? Entanglement is also referred to as non-locality or inseparability, right? I don't know if you want to call the mechanism involved hidden or not hidden, but it's apparent and real either way.

But this and all other aspects of quantity are a direct consequence of that energy being part of the mathematical form which is the physical universe. All these mathematical aspect are not really inherent in the energy itself but only control its relationship and function in relationship to the rest of the physical universe.

I am not sure if I get what you are saying, but I do get the assumption that if something can be described via math, you exclude it by definition for being something spiritual, and yet math has resulted in positing extra dimensions, which are invisible and yet are connected to the 3 dimensions associated with everyday life. These dimensions are not observed, right? So math can describe and point to the existence of non-observed, non-physical (layman's expression) realms or dimensions. Sounds like math is describing the structural relationshio between the "physical" and spiritual realms to me, at least the ones connected to this universe.

Love is different from hope which is different from faith, but the difference is not quantifiable, numerical or measurable.

You say that, but the fact we can distinquish them shows they are indeed identifiable and can be distinquished. If you want to say they cannot be measured with current technology, fine, but you cannot say they can never be measured or quantified somehow. You don't know if that can happen or not.

To believe in the reduction of spirit to numbers and measurable quantities is disgusting to me. It is demeaning. It is no different than materialism. I might as well believe that my children are nothing but a collection of elementary particles. I do not think you see the consequences of what you are proposing. If spirit is quantifiable there is no reason to believe in it at all.

Well, I don't "believe in spirit" as you say. I beleive spirit exists just as I believe anything exists. I believe in God, and though He is a Spirit, He is not just spirit. Spirit and God are not the same thing.

I think you are just not seeing what we are discussing here. We are discussing a highly technical aspect of the mechanisms between the different dimensions that consist of reality. Some of these dimensions are spiritual. The Bible says that, and I think you believe that. Now, science strongly suggests that there are hidden and extra dimensions, but they are unobserved. You think it makes more sense to consider them non-spiritual and something physical in the same sense of the 3 dimensions being physical, but we cannot see these dimensions. They show up in math or in the effects of QM. I think it's more reasonable to think they are some of the spiritual dimensions that we have heard of for thousands of years and have some experience with.

Let me put it this way. One could quantify aspects of my wife via science, her health, psychological and mental stregnths, her personality, etc....., but that doesn't mean I love her and appreciate her any less. Nor do I think science can quantify every aspect of her, and nor do I think science can tell us whom we should love and marry (though perhaps science could help us identify some we should consider not falling in love with, but maybe not even that).

You see my point? Just because general aspects of the spiritual structures and dimensions interacting with the 3 dimensions we knew before as the physical world, does not mean the mysteries of God or of the things of God can be reduced to exact scientific analysis and quantification. Another example might be art. Science can assess a painting's physical traits, but really still doesn't touch the art aspect of the work.

I also told you that living things were an exception. But the only gap in the chain of deterministic causality is found in quantum mechanics. ]

Yea, but that's a big gap. QM shows us what reality consists of, and it shows something different than science and materialists expected.

But it would limit God in the extreme if He could not create anything that would not fall apart the moment He turns His attention from it or stops supporting it.

See, I think your theology is getting in the way here of objectively considering these things. You act like God is limited by omniscience, as if He has limited energy and power, and so it would limit Him to have to keep up with and maintain everything He creates, but that's just you applying human weakness and limitations to God. Jesus Himself tells you that even a sparrow falling to the ground concerns the heart and mind of God. There is nothing He isn't minutely aware of, and the Bible flat out states "He works all things after the counsel of His own will" (Ephesians 1:11), and that he upholds things by the word of His power. It's very clear God is connected to, aware of, upholds the existence of, etc,...all things, period. It's not a strain or burden for Him in terms of His power.

Maybe He gets a little frustrated with us at times though....;)

If you say that God cannot create things which do not require Him to sustain them then I think you deny His power of true creation and all you are allowing Him is imagination. This is not only extremely repugnant but it is not in the least bit Christian. It is pantheism.

Once again, it's theology getting in the way here. I didn't originate the ideas that God is everywhere, upholds all things, works all things, believes all things, etc,..... The word of God says these things. If you have a problem with this, I suggest maybe you fail to realize that God can create something requiring His presence and love to be maintained, and it be more than His imagination. You are applying false standards here. God grants some independence in the sense of will, etc,...no doubt, but you are saying the physical world must be so separated from God that it would continue to exist if God quit maintaining it, and that to say God is here all the time is pantheism.

But immanence is not pantheism. The Bible says the whole earth is filled with His glory, and it is. The wonderment you see in the creation is the glory of God just as much as His presence is in worship, though one is more perhaps more personal. But that doesn't mean the clouds are gods or some such. Pantheism and many errors are usually the result of simply taking something that is true, and making it into a lie by stretching it beyond it's truth, and that can be done via the transcendant aspect of God as well.

God is here, all the time. His very glory fills the creation. His word is the root of all things. He works all things in His own fashion, but at the same time, there is a distance created by sin. It's a paradox, but not too difficult to grasp when one understands there are different aspects to God, and He can be both here and away at the same time, depending on what aspect we are talking of.

Moreover, the spiritual dimensions are created things just like the physical ones and so this aspect of God's immanence is somewhat irrevalent. God's glory is within and part of the earth, right? The earth is filled with His glory. So why should we deny His glory or something of Him cannot be in the invisible spiritual realms, or some of them anyway.

But the commonality which I was seeing (hoping to see?) between us is this idea that spiritual existence is not just ruled by the whim of God but by a rule of law, purpose, and meaning that operates autonomously.

Well, I agree with you there. I think God Himself is bound by His own laws. God cannot lie, for example, but God in human terms has loopholes, not immoral ones, but He is a creative God and understands how all these things work better than we do. For example, God did not just end the existence of the law of sin and death, but rather provided us a higher law, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, to overrule the law of sin and death. God's ways are never a zero-sum game, imo.

By this kind of logic God is responsible for every evil and I deny this.

I think you missed the illustration. People are responsible for their own sins and rejection of God, which is why people go to hell. I am not denying that. What I am saying is that one reason Jesus says to fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell in reference to the same God and Father that He teaches loves the world unconditionally is that God has set up the laws of the spiritual world just as the laws, which are lesser laws in that they can be broken, of the physical world, and so maintaining those laws, God does indeed send people to hell, but they are responsible since it is their own actions that created this situation.

God though has provided a way out of this situation.

Exactly. Punishment is for the purpose of behavior modification. Eternal punishment is therefore nonsensical. Eternal consequences, however, are only natural, for without them our choices ultimately have no meaning or at least none of our choices have any significant seriousness.

Well, I agree with what you are saying although less than eternal consequences, such as those in this life, are still serious matters, just less so.

But reaping what you sow is not a mathematical truth and that is why atheists can come up with an endless list of counterexamples. Spirtual truths are not objectively testable.

Well, let me put it this way. If we can establish or discover, for example that thoughts can have an effect in some energy field within QM, then we may have actually proven this principle because if thoughts can have direct effects; then certainly thoughts and actions do in the same manner. Now, this could be a long ways off from doing, but it is not outside the realm of scientific possibility.

The wave function and particle is pure physics, they have no spiritual aspect.

You say that but then go on to discuss a different and highly specialized aspect of spirit, namely the spirit of living things, and that's not what we have been discussing. Take the creation of things by God in saying "Let there be" and there was. The Bible says the word of God creates every thing that has ever been created, but we can see examples of how things are created without seeming to need the word of God. People are created via sexual reproduction, but the Bible says that everyone is created via the word of God.

Maybe the Bible is suggesting that God has to a limited degree and perspective delegated to things the ability to create, and He creates via His word along with those actions, unless perhaps there is some other principle limiting that creation. Nevertheless, we see the word of God, which is a spiritual thing, is at the root of everything, and that means at the root of a particle's existence is the word of God.

Now, isn't it interesting that it appears particles have an informational aspect to them; that they appear to be one thing or another based on the questions asked of it....Hmmm...Isn't it interesting that energy and particles and things appear to be quantized. Information being the root of something is a very old idea....it is the idea that the word of God is what creates everything that exists. By the way, that was pointed out by Anton Zellinger, a quantum physicist and experimentalist.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-20-2006 7:22 PM mitchellmckain has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022