Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Hard physical evidence demonstrates that reality is nonlinear (c squared, r squared etc) and discontinuous (quantum). However the human mind is not capable of rational nonlinear and discontinuous thought. Instead we think sequentially and in a linear straight line (A is followed by B which is followed by C etc). The Theory of Evolution portrays a linear and sequential natural world and is most likely in just another limited human construct and not a accurate representation of the ultimate reality of nature
What do you propose is the ultimate reality of nature, no1nose?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Revelation is the only way we can see what is real. The Bible is the prime example of revealed truth. We are living in darkness.
The Theory of Evolution is something that exists in our minds. It is how some people interpret observations made of the natural world. The question for me is whether our minds can make sense of the real world without making fundamental flaws in its interpretations. And which case Evolution, like all human world views, will fall short of explaining the world around us.
Are our minds capable of interpreting observations of the real world correctly? The answer to this is no. Our minds function at least one level below the real world. We think sequentially and in a linear straight line from one observation to the next whereas the real world is both linear and nonlinear and at time discontinuous.
Quantum mechanics shows us that nature is discontinuous. An electron can exist around an atom only in certain places and the space between these places is forever empty. In space electrons pop in and out of existence from seemingly nowhere. Evolution predicts a smooth sequential and continuous transition of life. But the fossil record does not match this prediction. Instead our record of the natural world is discontinuous and at time non sequential and at times non linear. The natural conclusion to this is that the Theory of Evolution is a product of our minds and does not define the natural world with any great accuracy.
The point is that our minds are incapable of mirroring the real world. The information we take in through our senses and from experience is simplified into a continuous sequential and linear thought form that are built up into world views. In the past history has shown us that these world views have always proven to be false. And without a doubt evolution with also fail.
Simply put experience tends to reinforce our prejudices. And this leads us away from the truth. The only way to get in touch with reality is through revelation. Revelation blows us out of the rut that we are in and gets us in touch with what is real.
Quantum mechanics shows us that nature is discontinuous. An electron can exist around an atom only in certain places and the space between these places is forever empty. In space electrons pop in and out of existence from seemingly nowhere.
Natch, that would be the Bohr model, which in fact is experimentally invalid. In fact, when you use the Schroedinger equation to analyze the hydrogen atom (or any equivalent hydrogen-like model of the atom), there are an infinite number of possible states which have no nodes - i.e. the electron can truly be anywhere in the universe (although with a vanishingly small probability outside the "confines" of the atom), in continuous fashion.
By the way (and this is one of my massive gripes with non-mathematicians who try to use mathematical language without giving squat about what it actually means) "discontinuous" is not equal to "nonlinear". Plenty of nonlinear functions are continuous.
Mathematical excursion:
Linearity is roughly "additivity": loosely speaking, a linear function (or functional, or space, or whatever) is one for which it doesn't make a difference whether you add things together before you throw them into the mathematical machinery, or after. The temperature scale between inches and centimeters is a good example of a linear scale. Suppose I have a 3-inch-long stick and an 8-inch-long stick (curses on you Americans!). I add them together, and then convert to centimeters: an 11-inch-long stick is 28cm. Now let's convert to centimeters, and then add them together: 3 inches is 7.7cm, and 8 inches is 20.3cm, and so the total length is 28cm. It doesn't make a difference whether I add before converting or after: the conversion is linear.
In contrast, a good example of a nonlinear scale is the decibel system. A typical person talks at a volume of 50dB; a jackhammer blasting 1m away drills at 100dB. Egads! Does that mean that two people talking at me at the same time have the same loudness as a jackhammer? (Joke punchline: Depends on the person.) In reality, the decibel scale is a logarithmic scale, and thus 50dB worth of sound + 50dB worth of sound is not 100dB worth of sound. It makes a difference whether I add sound together before measuring their decibel strength, or whether I measure two sounds' decibel strengths and then "add" them together.
Continuity and discontinuity, by contrast, have to do with whether you can draw a "smooth graph" of a function. Here's a decent example: let's say I had $100 in my bank account, and make a deposit of $100 more. My account balance is discontinuous: it was $100 yesterday, and now it is $200, but you can't find a time when it was, say, $150, or $175, or $120: it's either $100 or $200. (Unfortunately.) But suppose I'm walking away from the ATM when a villain from Acme Inc. suddenly drops a safe from 10m up onto my head. Someone videotapes the whole incident and puts it up on Youtube: so a bored Youtube viewer can find a time when the safe was 5m above me, or 2m, or 3cm, or (in classical theory, and assuming Youtube's resolution increases dramatically between now and then) 1 micrometer above my head: physical quantities are normally continuous.
By now it should be apparent that discontinuity and non-linearity don't go together. For example, let's say I buy a computer which is interest-free until 2010, and with compounding interest after that. My balance on it will be discontinuous and linear until 2010, and discontinuous and nonlinear after that. Meanwhile, both the conversion scales I mentioned above are continuous (you can apply them to arbitrarily small gradations), but the length scale is linear while the sound scale is nonlinear.
-excursion over
Basically, check your math?
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
And plenty of our well-understood mathematical theories are nonlinear and/or discontinuous. The theory of differential equations, for example, uses discontinuous delta functions all the time. Ditto Schroedinger's equation and Einstein's tensor formulation of general relativity, both of which admit far more nonlinear solutions than they do linear solutions. (Which is why we often need computers for them.)
Moral: Mathematical misbehavior is not your enemy ...
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
We think sequentially and in a linear straight line from one observation to the next whereas the real world is both linear and nonlinear and at time discontinuous.
I don't...my thinking is quite 3D and "random".
__________________
Господи помилуй нас.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
Exactly. RANDOM thought is what no1nose talking about. You do not present random thoughts to people as a piece of knowledge. And random thought is pretty close to revelation if it is given by God.
So, in other word, you could have wisdom from God, but short of "knowledge" according to people.
Hard physical evidence demonstrates that reality is nonlinear (c squared, r squared etc) and discontinuous (quantum). However the human mind is not capable of rational nonlinear and discontinuous thought. Instead we think sequentially and in a linear straight line (A is followed by B which is followed by C etc). The Theory of Evolution portrays a linear and sequential natural world and is most likely in just another limited human construct and not a accurate representation of the ultimate reality of nature
Thanks for the idea.
While I feel more solid on the discontinous property of nature, I am struggling with the nonlinear part. Could the nature of nonlinear property be translated to facts that we can reason about?
I came across an interesting article addressed nonlinear logic. I don't understand most part of the electronic application. But the idea of self reference in the logic system seems interesting.
I think God gives us the ability of logic to think. But I am not sure if logic could lead us to God. Nevertheless, the nonlinear logic seems makes us be able to think at a slightly higher level.
Revelation is the only way we can see what is real. The Bible is the prime example of revealed truth. We are living in darkness.
The Theory of Evolution is something that exists in our minds. It is how some people interpret observations made of the natural world. The question for me is whether our minds can make sense of the real world without making fundamental flaws in its interpretations. And which case Evolution, like all human world views, will fall short of explaining the world around us.
Do you not also recognize the fact that we must use our minds to interpret the Bible? Are we not therefore just as likely to misinterpret the Bible as we are the world around us? 99% of biologists agree that the evidence favours an evolutionary interpretation of life. But Christians are all over the board when it comes to interpreting the Bible. I think we're much closer to understanding the history of life than we are the Bible. And since it's math that concerns you, I also think the numbers attest to this.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Do you not also recognize the fact that we must use our minds to interpret the Bible? Are we not therefore just as likely to misinterpret the Bible as we are the world around us?
If you use human reasoning to interpret the Bible, you will definitely leave the Christianity.
Linear Mode
