Philosophy and Physics agree about God?

[_mikwut]

Hi DrW

In any case, should I take your response as a denial that thermal de-coherence does, in fact, impress strict limits on QM phenomena / behavior?

We haven't determined exactly what those limits are but that is not a denial of your statement, I certainly accept boundaries. The question is are the boundaries material or mental? Since were having a conversation, do you mind just stating your position on this so I don't have to jump all over the place on what your getting at. I don't want to go in detail of for example Henry Stapp and others concerning decoherence not being problematic for Von Neuman's position if that isn't what your getting at. Why do thermal de-coherence boundaries some how falsify idealism from your perspective?

My main question, again as posed upthread is, what practical difference does it make?

I don't know where to begin. Our sense of self, free-will, personal responsibility, meaning, my response to Doc above for more, you really don't see that you have no free-will in a physicalist universe? Your nothing but a biological robot? And that even if you somehow swim in those psychological realities healthily, that your an exception and not the rule?

Our worldviews, our basic fundamental ontology or what is at the base of our reality from which we construct meaningful and supportive existential truths we all ask like the basic what am I? where did I come from? what is the universe? fundamental questions that further beg what is the underlying nature of reality? what is the meaning of my existence? etc.. This existential structure and framework from which we can build on our greater worldview is a very important aspect of most peoples lives. Our worldviews affect our personal happiness and meaning and give us hope. Society's greater zeitgeist or predominant worldview affects culture, economics, education and media.

And, it's damn interesting to boot!

If you wouldn't mind answering a question since you seem at least open to a mind/mental universe. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Richard Conn Henry is quoted as saying, "The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy." My question is, if this ontology, this metaphysics, this worldview is a more human flourishing and satisfying view - why would it not receive our acceptance, until it is absolutely falsified? Is fear that some people having a little too much woo for you really not overridden by the much more fulfilling, satisfying and dare i say just downright healthier view that we have a real spiritual life to pursue and find meaning in? That shouldn't be taken to mean we need to kneel down and accept Jesus either.

The physicalist view of ourselves and the universe is downright depressing and so if it isn't absolutely verified and true I'm no masochist.

mikwut

[_Franktalk]

DrW,

There are real world consequences for the mind of man to fixate on a belief system. I will tell you that exmormons who have adopted science as their belief system are the worst people I have ever run across. They have no respect for anybody who dares to have faith in anything besides the physical world. This is the modern western thought. It is viewed by many around the world as the height of arrogance. Most groups of religious people put up with this situation preferring to turn the other cheek. But we have a group on this earth that is not turning the other cheek. They see what is happening around them and feel their culture and beliefs will be wiped out by this western thinking. To them it is war. All of this was predicted in the scriptures as a message to man as a warning. Men will rise up and in the scriptures they are called young lions. It does not matter how you feel about them. A big war is coming and it will not be pretty. And for what? So you and your kind can feel superior to the rest of the world?

This situation is not based on a physical universe. This is a war of creatures who are fighting over belief systems. Yes that part of the human condition that is intellect. The thing that transcends this physical universe. The power of the mind drives humans to act way outside of the realm of animals. And instead of seeing the human condition and admitting that something exist beyond the body you can't see the most obvious examples as they swirl around you. We are awash in proof of intellect and you can't see it. Blinded by your faith in the physical you and your kind risk the entire destruction of the planet just so you can have an ego moment.

The problem in the west is we as a people do not take care of the rest of the world. Even the so called Christians in the west turn away to watch football instead of dealing with poverty in the world. Science in the west is a product engine and as such makes money for investors. Our economic system makes us winners and the rest of the world losers. Then on top of this we step on the belief systems of third world countries. I will tell you that the French revolution was fought because of the haves and the have nots. Now we have a world in this situation and as the French King found out he should have not been so arrogant. We broadcast TV pictures around the world and show the world that we have cake and they do not.

You want to think of everyone as animals? Well don't be surprised when the animals rise up. And your weapons will mean nothing. The physical will not protect you. Because the intellect will find a way around the western defenses. You can't use bombs when the people who wish to kill you infiltrate your land and kill from within. This is intellect at work. The thing you say does not exist. The war started years ago and the west does not even know it. Just like you don't know anything about the human condition.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Because you have no answer to the analogy I described you run off on a tangent. Nice try at redirection. The analogy is true. Your failure to see it comes from being blinded by the paradigm you find yourself in. Any high tech device sent back a hundred years would be examined and the conclusions as to what it was would be incorrect. The analogy stands. The brain is assumed by scientist to be one way when it could easily be another.

Can you restate your analogy because I'm not following it in real terms or real-life application. For example, I was an expert in the use of, understanding of, and deployment of various electro-magnetic collection and jamming devices. It took years of training and usage to master not only the use of these devices, but understanding the physics behind them. Are you stating, for example, that the lay man couldn't conceive of signal harmonics even though it's a real thing, thus we can't conceive of God's ways because we don't have the 'training' necessary to do so? Basically, I'm not following your position... Can you dumb it down for me because I'm pretty slow on the uptake.

- Doc

[_DrW]

Hi DrW

In any case, should I take your response as a denial that thermal de-coherence does, in fact, impress strict limits on QM phenomena / behavior?

We haven't determined exactly what those limits are but that is not a denial of your statement, I certainly accept boundaries. The question is are the boundaries material or mental? Since were having a conversation, do you mind just stating your position on this so I don't have to jump all over the place on what your getting at. I don't want to go in detail of for example Henry Stapp and others concerning decoherence not being problematic for Von Neuman's position if that isn't what your getting at. Why do thermal de-coherence boundaries some how falsify idealism from your perspective?

My main question, again as posed upthread is, what practical difference does it make?

I don't know where to begin. Our sense of self, free-will, personal responsibility, meaning, my response to Doc above for more, you really don't see that you have no free-will in a physicalist universe? Your nothing but a biological robot? And that even if you somehow swim in those psychological realities healthily, that your an exception and not the rule?

Our worldviews, our basic fundamental ontology or what is at the base of our reality from which we construct meaningful and supportive existential truths we all ask like the basic what am I? where did I come from? what is the universe? fundamental questions that further beg what is the underlying nature of reality? what is the meaning of my existence? etc.. This existential structure and framework from which we can build on our greater worldview is a very important aspect of most peoples lives. Our worldviews affect our personal happiness and meaning and give us hope. Society's greater zeitgeist or predominant worldview affects culture, economics, education and media.

And, it's damn interesting to boot!

If you wouldn't mind answering a question since you seem at least open to a mind/mental universe. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Richard Conn Henry is quoted as saying, "The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy." My question is, if this ontology, this metaphysics, this worldview is a more human flourishing and satisfying view - why would it not receive our acceptance, until it is absolutely falsified? Is fear that some people having a little too much woo for you really not overridden by the much more fulfilling, satisfying and dare i say just downright healthier view that we have a real spiritual life to pursue and find meaning in? That shouldn't be taken to mean we need to kneel down and accept Jesus either.

The physicalist view of ourselves and the universe is downright depressing and so if it isn't absolutely verified and true I'm no masochist.

mikwut

Mikwut,

If you can give me a day or two (or perhaps three) I will gladly respond. This discussion, and your POV, is of real interest. However, as I have yet to enter (hopefully mindful) retirement full time, there is still (real physical) work to do.

When I get back, it is likely that the questions of mind without matter will come up. (These would include the issues of consciousness without a brain, the identification of specific consciousness generating centers within the brain, and the earliest point in evolution - lowest point on the phylogenetic scale - at which consciousness emerges or plays a role).

Thanks for your patience.

[_mikwut]

DrW,

From a mindfully retired, you take all the time you need I look forward to an interesting discussion.

mikwut

[_deacon blues]

Thanks Rockslider, for posting the video. I am watching it in five minute blocks, and find it fascinating. It's way, way, way..................over my head but I trust science, more than good old fashioned revelation. Why? The book of Jeremiah talks about prophets in ancient Judah disagreeing, and that is still happening today. Science sometimes builds consensus through reason. Religion (organized) seems to build consensus mainly through authority-- Not a reliable process.

I'll read the comments, after I watch the rest of the video.

[_Franktalk]

Can you restate your analogy because I'm not following it in real terms or real-life application. For example, I was an expert in the use of, understanding of, and deployment of various electro-magnetic collection and jamming devices. It took years of training and usage to master not only the use of these devices, but understanding the physics behind them. Are you stating, for example, that the lay man couldn't conceive of signal harmonics even though it's a real thing, thus we can't conceive of God's ways because we don't have the 'training' necessary to do so? Basically, I'm not following your position... Can you dumb it down for me because I'm pretty slow on the uptake.

- Doc

You are obviously not dumb. Sorry my analogy was not clear. Let us say we go back a hundred fifty years before modern electronics. So no one would be trained on any electronics of any kind. If a modern device was placed in front of the most educated among the population of men they would find the task of figuring out what the device was beyond a challenge. Because they lacked the true nature of the device they would venture into the arena of guessing as to its function. These men would use their current understanding and place what they saw into a framework based on what they knew already. What I am saying is their best guess would be wrong. Not because they were not smart. But they lacked the proper knowledge to correctly analyze the device.

Now we jump to today and examine how a scientist of today would figure out the function of a device they also did not fully understand. Using the brain as the device I think it is obvious that anyone doing research would in fact view the brain in terms of their current understanding of how things work. As they probe around and learn various aspects of brain function they would tie what they observed to a theory about brain function. Not knowing how it works they would start to build a framework of functionality based on their best guess. As time passes and more is learned the framework would be refined and would drift towards the true functionality of the brain. What I am saying is that we are at the early stages of research and we are more likely to be wrong than right.

Let us take the new research discussed in the news about a possible new fifth force of nature.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... of-nature/

It is brand new and as such there is wild speculation about what some data may mean. This is normal. I have no problem with wild speculation. It leads to ideas that can be tested. We may find that the whole thing is but an equipment problem. I sure don't know. My point is we are in the infancy of brain research. To make wild statements that declare we know enough to think the science is settled is irresponsible. My comments to DrW about his steadfastness in the purity of the physical brain with no possibility of a spirit connection were to compare his statements to the actual history of discovery.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

DrW,

There are real world consequences for the mind of man to fixate on a belief system. I will tell you that exmormons who have adopted science as their belief system are the worst people I have ever run across. They have no respect for anybody who dares to have faith in anything besides the physical world. This is the modern western thought. It is viewed by many around the world as the height of arrogance. Most groups of religious people put up with this situation preferring to turn the other cheek. But we have a group on this earth that is not turning the other cheek. They see what is happening around them and feel their culture and beliefs will be wiped out by this western thinking. To them it is war. All of this was predicted in the scriptures as a message to man as a warning. Men will rise up and in the scriptures they are called young lions. It does not matter how you feel about them. A big war is coming and it will not be pretty. And for what? So you and your kind can feel superior to the rest of the world?

This situation is not based on a physical universe. This is a war of creatures who are fighting over belief systems. Yes that part of the human condition that is intellect. The thing that transcends this physical universe. The power of the mind drives humans to act way outside of the realm of animals. And instead of seeing the human condition and admitting that something exist beyond the body you can't see the most obvious examples as they swirl around you. We are awash in proof of intellect and you can't see it. Blinded by your faith in the physical you and your kind risk the entire destruction of the planet just so you can have an ego moment.

The problem in the west is we as a people do not take care of the rest of the world. Even the so called Christians in the west turn away to watch football instead of dealing with poverty in the world. Science in the west is a product engine and as such makes money for investors. Our economic system makes us winners and the rest of the world losers. Then on top of this we step on the belief systems of third world countries. I will tell you that the French revolution was fought because of the haves and the have nots. Now we have a world in this situation and as the French King found out he should have not been so arrogant. We broadcast TV pictures around the world and show the world that we have cake and they do not.

You want to think of everyone as animals? Well don't be surprised when the animals rise up. And your weapons will mean nothing. The physical will not protect you. Because the intellect will find a way around the western defenses. You can't use bombs when the people who wish to kill you infiltrate your land and kill from within. This is intellect at work. The thing you say does not exist. The war started years ago and the west does not even know it. Just like you don't know anything about the human condition.

Fascinating. So in your opinion, is it permissible to burn a witch on the weight of spectral evidence alone? Or would it be better to corroborate spectral evidence with physical manifestations like a Devil's teat before igniting the faggots?

[_Franktalk]

Fascinating. So in your opinion, is it permissible to burn a witch on the weight of spectral evidence alone? Or would it be better to corroborate spectral evidence with physical manifestations like a Devil's teat before igniting the faggots?

I try and live by the golden rule. So I try to avoid doing to others things I would not like done to me. You are free to live by any rules you may deem appropriate. We do have free will. But sometimes there are consequences in exercising our free will.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Fascinating. So in your opinion, is it permissible to burn a witch on the weight of spectral evidence alone? Or would it be better to corroborate spectral evidence with physical manifestations like a Devil's teat before igniting the faggots?

I try and live by the golden rule. So I try to avoid doing to others things I would not like done to me. You are free to live by any rules you may deem appropriate. We do have free will. But sometimes there are consequences in exercising our free will.

Exactly...because we're talking about witches! It's a matter of self defense, silly. So what say you on the question of spectral evidence?