Although I don't believe this apparently scientists believe life formed on its own

sjastro said:

The problem with your post is that Stapp's model like any other interpretation is based on a mathematical framework so it is is meaningless to ask questions like where does decoherence comes from.
Like Stapp I am using his mathematical framework to address the issues not irrelevant metaphysical questions.

Decoherence is a mathematical process where initially an infinite number of physical brain states entangled with the environment is changed into a classical mixed statistical state over a large set of alternative physical brain states.

Mathematically the brain states entangled with the environment E to those familiar with Hilbert spaces and linear algebra is:

View attachment 375523

Decoherence mathematically is represented by the density matrix ρ.

View attachment 375524

The mind is also a mathematical process based on the use of quantum logic where the finite mixed physical brain statistical set is "interrogated" by yes/no questions as binary units yes =1 and no = 0. This further reduces the size of the set.

View attachment 375525

The outcomes are Yes.

View attachment 375526

Or No.

View attachment 375527

Tr is the trace of the density matrix.
The outcomes are probabilistic as the mathematics is based on Born rule probabilities.

Where the outcome is yes consciousness occurs, if no consciousness does not occur.
The mathematics shows consciousness emerges after entanglement when the superposed physical brain states become a statistical mixture and since it is a function of the brain density matrix it is clearly local not non local.

Click to expand...

Your killing conscious choice with math.

sjastro said:

Stapp went to the degree of associating consciousness with the brain's neural functions.

“….The argument is concretized in a way that makes it accessible to non-physicists by exploiting the recent evidence connecting our conscious experiences to macroscopic measurable synchronous oscillations occurring in well-separated parts of the brain. A specific new model of the mind-brain connection that is fundamentally quantum mechanical but that ties conscious experiences to these macroscopic synchronous oscillations is used to illustrate the essential disparities between the classical and quantum notions of the physical, and in particular to demonstrate the failure in the quantum world of the principle of the causal closure of the physical, a failure that goes beyond what is entailed by the randomness in the outcomes of observations, and that accommodates the efficacy in the brain of conscious intent”.

Physicalism versus quantum mechanics

Click to expand...

What did Stapp mean by the highlighted statements ?

The mind-brain connection is fundementally quantum mechanical which ties conscious experiences to the macroscopic.

How can a conscious experience be captured by a mathmatical equation ?

The failure of the causal closure of the physical in the quantum world. It seems that Stapp is using conscious experience and choice as a link to the macro and physical world. An essential phenomena that contributes to creating physical reality.

No matter which way you look at it conscious experience and free choice is involved and this can never be reduced to the physical brain or a mathmatical equation.

stevevw said:

Your killing conscious choice with math.

What did Stapp mean by the highlighted statements ?

The mind-brain connection is fundementally quantum mechanical which ties conscious experiences to the macroscopic.

How can a conscious experience be captured by a mathmatical equation ?

The failure of the causal closure of the physical in the quantum world. It seems that Stapp is using conscious experience and choice as a link to the macro and physical world. An essential phenomena that contributes to creating physical reality.

Click to expand...

Once again you demonstrate the inability of grasping what is being said which is further compounded by the Dunning Kruger effect where you are unable to recognize your own limitations.
Emboldening parts from Stapp's excerpt is cherry picking and compounds your lack of comprehension.
Reading the excerpt in its entirety reveals what Stapp is stating.

The excerpt is putting in words what the mathematics in Stapp's model states instead of "killing conscious choice with math".
The mathematics is in agreement with the other collapse model interpretation, the Copenhagen, where decoherence produces classical statistical states from quantum states.

The excerpt is a criticism of the actual Copenhagen interpretation itself where measurements have random outcomes and cause and effect is not taken into consideration which is better known as "causal closure".
Stapp uses the quantum mechanical projection operators.


And the outcomes to model consciousness:



This addresses the causal closure problems he sees in the Copenhagen interpretation.

stevevw said:

No matter which way you look at it conscious experience and free choice is involved and this can never be reduced to the physical brain or a mathmatical equation.

Click to expand...

No matter the way I see it this is a typical example of your appallingly bad comprehension skills, the statement is consistent with Stapp's model which I had already stated, but in no way justifies your claim as supporting the brain being non physical and consciousness being non local.
It's an all too familiar routine of flogging a dead horse that has been debunked many times on previous occasions.

Larniavc said:

And how did pan spermia get started?

Click to expand...

Are We from Outer Space? A Critical Review of the Panspermia Hypothesis - PMC Are We from Outer Space? A Critical Review of the Panspermia Hypothesis - PMC


What is the theory of panspermia? | Astronomy.com What is the theory of panspermia? | Astronomy.com

Panspermia Hypothesis: History of a Hypothesis and a Review of the Past, Present, and Future Planned Missions to Test This Hypothesis - Astrophysics Data System Panspermia Hypothesis: History of a Hypothesis and a Review of the Past, Present, and Future Planned Missions to Test This Hypothesis

truthuprootsevil said:

Are We from Outer Space? A Critical Review of the Panspermia Hypothesis - PMC Are We from Outer Space? A Critical Review of the Panspermia Hypothesis - PMC


What is the theory of panspermia? | Astronomy.com What is the theory of panspermia? | Astronomy.com

Panspermia Hypothesis: History of a Hypothesis and a Review of the Past, Present, and Future Planned Missions to Test This Hypothesis - Astrophysics Data System Panspermia Hypothesis: History of a Hypothesis and a Review of the Past, Present, and Future Planned Missions to Test This Hypothesis

Click to expand...

I know what pan spermia is. I would like the poster to describe how it happened.

sjastro said:

Once again you demonstrate the inability of grasping what is being said which is further compounded by the Dunning Kruger effect where you are unable to recognize your own limitations.
Emboldening parts from Stapp's excerpt is cherry picking and compounds your lack of comprehension.
Reading the excerpt in its entirety reveals what Stapp is stating.

The excerpt is putting in words what the mathematics in Stapp's model states instead of "killing conscious choice with math".
The mathematics is in agreement with the other collapse model interpretation, the Copenhagen, where decoherence produces classical statistical states from quantum states.

The excerpt is a criticism of the actual Copenhagen interpretation itself where measurements have random outcomes and cause and effect is not taken into consideration which is better known as "causal closure".
Stapp uses the quantum mechanical projection operators.

View attachment 375530
And the outcomes to model consciousness:

View attachment 375531

This addresses the causal closure problems he sees in the Copenhagen interpretation.


No matter the way I see it this is a typical example of your appallingly bad comprehension skills, the statement is consistent with Stapp's model which I had already stated, but in no way justifies your claim as supporting the brain being non physical and consciousness being non local.
It's an all too familiar routine of flogging a dead horse that has been debunked many times on previous occasions.

Click to expand...

OK so a simple question. In all these mathmatical equations. Does conscious free choice play a role. If so how. Does it have a causal influence on the collapse into what we call reality.

stevevw said:

OK so a simple question. In all these mathmatical equations. Does conscious free choice play a role. If so how. Does it have a causal influence on the collapse into what we call reality.

Click to expand...

Once again let me state the mathematics for each interpretation is basically the same.
The key equation for consciousness, the "yes" in this case is a quantum mechanical projection operator.



The projection operators have different meanings depending on the interpretation.


Quantum decoherence not being an interpretation but a physical theory is treated separately.


I thought I had already answered your question, in Stapp’s interpretation the mind freely chooses the question, Nature supplies the answer and consciousness is the lived “yes” answer.

sjastro said:

Once again let me state the mathematics for each interpretation is basically the same.
The key equation for consciousness, the "yes" in this case is a quantum mechanical projection operator.

View attachment 375549

The projection operators have different meanings depending on the interpretation.

Interpretation	Status of the projection operator (P)	What (P) represents physically	Ontological status of (P)
Copenhagen (textbook)	Fundamental postulate	Measurement-induced state update	Epistemic
Modern Copenhagen / Pragmatic	Effective rule	Classical measurement outcome	Instrumental
Wigner–von Neumann	Physical collapse operator	Collapse induced by conscious observation	Physical but undefined
Henry Stapp (consciousness-based)	Fundamental dynamical element	Projection associated with a conscious experience selecting a macroscopic brain state	Ontologically real
Universal Consciousness / Cosmopsychism	Fundamental and global	Projection enacted by a universal consciousness acting on the total quantum state	Fundamentally mental–physical
Many-Worlds (Everett)	Not fundamental	Conditional state within a branch	Mathematical convenience
Relational QM	Context-dependent update	Observer-relative information	Relational
QBism	Bayesian updating tool	Agent’s belief revision	Purely epistemic
Objective collapse (GRW, CSL)	Replaced by stochastic dynamics	Spontaneous localization	Superseded by new law

Quantum decoherence not being an interpretation but a physical theory is treated separately.

Aspect	Role of the projection operator (P) in decoherence
Fundamental status	Not fundamental to decoherence
Appearance of (P)	Introduced only as an effective or approximate description
Physical origin	Environmental entanglement suppresses interference without invoking (P)
Mathematical role	Used to project onto pointer-state subspaces for analysis or coarse-graining
Ontological meaning	No ontological role; purely instrumental

I thought I had already answered your question, in Stapp’s interpretation the mind freely chooses the question, Nature supplies the answer and consciousness is the lived “yes” answer.

Click to expand...

I understand that you are explaining my question in mathmatical terms.

What I am not understanding is how conscious free choice can be equated as a matmatical equation. Or be reduced to math to explain consciousness ?

I have asked Ai several times to double check that Stapp is actually supporting consciousness beyond the physical brain and tme and time again it keeps sayong he does. Are you saying this is wrong. That Ai has got it wrong.


AI Overview

Yes, physicist Henry Stapp supports a view of consciousness that extends beyond the purely physical, mechanistic view of the brain. He argues that consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, not just an emergent side-effect of brain activity.

Based on his work in quantum mechanics, specifically the von Neumann interpretation, Stapp holds the following views:

• Interactive Dualism: Stapp argues for a form of "interactive dualism," suggesting that conscious, psychological processes can affect physical brain activity.
• Consciousness is Essential: He contends that conscious choice or "will" is necessary to initiate processes in the brain that physical laws alone cannot explain.
• Beyond Classical Physics: Stapp emphasizes that the classical-physicalist view (which limits mind to brain activity) is incorrect at the fundamental level of reality, pointing to a "mindful universe" where conscious experience is not fully determined by physical laws.
• Information-Based Reality: He suggests a "cosmic mind-like universe" where the mind is not just contained within the skull but acts in conjunction with brain mechanisms.

In summary, Stapp’s work is dedicated to showing that quantum mechanics requires the inclusion of a "conscious observer" or mind, making it an active participant in creating physical reality rather than a passive byproduct of it.

JohnB445 said:

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

I believe God was involved, he created life. We are sentient because of him, he knew where to put our fingers, our eyes, and how to make our eyes work, and our body digest food, he has made this all possible.

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

Click to expand...

Be the Light of Christ. Full Stop.

A changed life, fully surrendered, filled with and empowered by the Holy Spirit. This is how the lost will be transformed. The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. But we are to be instruments of His peace. Blessed are the peacemakers. Those who have emptied their vessels and made room for the Spirit of Revelation to freely flow through them and into the lives of others.
A surrendered life will be in much prayer on behalf of the lost. When sanctification meets fervent effectual prayer, the Gospel of Jesus Christ becomes irresistible to anyone whom God has marked for redemption. Some plant, some water, God reaps the harvest. We are but laborers in His fields. God does not need us to do His work, but allows us to participate in the process. There is no greater joy, than to be used in this way. But it does not come without a cost. Fortunately Christ has already paid the debt.

stevevw said:

I understand that you are explaining my question in mathmatical terms.

What I am not understanding is how conscious free choice can be equated as a matmatical equation. Or be reduced to math to explain consciousness ?

I have asked Ai several times to double check that Stapp is actually supporting consciousness beyond the physical brain and tme and time again it keeps sayong he does. Are you saying this is wrong. That Ai has got it wrong.


AI Overview

Yes, physicist Henry Stapp supports a view of consciousness that extends beyond the purely physical, mechanistic view of the brain. He argues that consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, not just an emergent side-effect of brain activity.

Based on his work in quantum mechanics, specifically the von Neumann interpretation, Stapp holds the following views:

• Interactive Dualism: Stapp argues for a form of "interactive dualism," suggesting that conscious, psychological processes can affect physical brain activity.
• Consciousness is Essential: He contends that conscious choice or "will" is necessary to initiate processes in the brain that physical laws alone cannot explain.
• Beyond Classical Physics: Stapp emphasizes that the classical-physicalist view (which limits mind to brain activity) is incorrect at the fundamental level of reality, pointing to a "mindful universe" where conscious experience is not fully determined by physical laws.
• Information-Based Reality: He suggests a "cosmic mind-like universe" where the mind is not just contained within the skull but acts in conjunction with brain mechanisms.

In summary, Stapp’s work is dedicated to showing that quantum mechanics requires the inclusion of a "conscious observer" or mind, making it an active participant in creating physical reality rather than a passive byproduct of it.

Click to expand...

I have answered your question but you do not understand is what "beyond the physical brain" means.
It does not mean spatial nonlocality but quantum nonlocality where communication between particles or systems cannot be explained by classical means even when the particles are separated by large distances and do not allow faster-than-light communication.
Entanglement is one such example.

When you ask AI overview the correct question with this distinction in mind you get a more accurate answer.

In Henry Stapp's model, the notion that consciousness is "beyond the brain" does not imply it is spatially separated in a physical location outside the body. Instead, it refers to its engagement with quantum nonlocality, a fundamental feature of reality where correlated systems can be instantaneously linked regardless of the distance separating them in classical space.
Stapp leverages this quantum principle to suggest a functional, non-physical mind-brain interaction, where consciousness influences physical brain processes through these non-local quantum connections rather than existing in a spatially distinct realm.

While we are at it since you a using AI overview I asked it if the consciousness interpretation of QM is popular amongst physicists and if not what are the reasons for it.

The "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation (also known as the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation) is largely unpopular among modern physicists because it is not a scientific theory but rather a philosophical or metaphysical one that introduces subjective, untestable elements into the physical laws of the universe
.
Key reasons for its unpopularity include:

• Lack of Empirical Evidence and Testability: The core issue is that this interpretation provides no testable predictions that differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics. Science requires empirical evidence, and until an experiment can distinguish this hypothesis from others, it remains speculation.
• "Consciousness" is Ill-Defined: The interpretation requires consciousness to have a special, non-physical role, but it does not provide a scientific or mathematical definition of what consciousness is or how it causes a physical event like a wave function collapse.
• Inconsistency with Physicalism: The interpretation suggests that the mind and body are distinct (mind-body dualism), which contradicts the prevailing assumption in modern science that the physical world is a causally closed system and that consciousness emerges from physical brain processes.
• Problems with Cosmology and Evolution: If consciousness is necessary for collapse, it becomes difficult to explain how the universe existed and evolved for billions of years before conscious life emerged. The universe's physical laws should operate independently of who is observing them.
• Decoherence as a Physical Explanation: The phenomenon of quantum decoherence offers a robust physical mechanism for why quantum superpositions disappear at the macroscopic scale, without needing to invoke a special role for consciousness. Decoherence explains how a quantum system interacts with its environment and effectively "collapses" into a classical state.
• Solipsism and Absurdity: The idea leads to a solipsistic viewpoint where an individual's mind is the only one that can register reality, which is widely considered unsatisfactory and counter-intuitive to how we perceive a shared, objective reality. Thought experiments like Schrödinger's cat (or "Wigner's friend") are often used to illustrate the philosophical absurdities of this view.

In essence, the interpretation is largely discarded by modern physicists because it moves beyond the realm of testable physics into metaphysics and philosophy, offering an explanation that creates more problems and paradoxes than it solves.

Are you going to argue against AI's response as you have with various posters in this thread who have debunked your claim the consciousness interpretation is both popular and acceptable in mainstream science.

sjastro said:

I have answered your question but you do not understand is what "beyond the physical brain" means.
It does not mean spatial nonlocality but quantum nonlocality where communication between particles or systems cannot be explained by classical means even when the particles are separated by large distances and do not allow faster-than-light communication.
Entanglement is one such example.

When you ask AI overview the correct question with this distinction in mind you get a more accurate answer.

In Henry Stapp's model, the notion that consciousness is "beyond the brain" does not imply it is spatially separated in a physical location outside the body. Instead, it refers to its engagement with quantum nonlocality, a fundamental feature of reality where correlated systems can be instantaneously linked regardless of the distance separating them in classical space.
Stapp leverages this quantum principle to suggest a functional, non-physical mind-brain interaction, where consciousness influences physical brain processes through these non-local quantum connections rather than existing in a spatially distinct realm.

Click to expand...

This seems to be saying that consciousness is a force that is not reducible to the physical brain and when interacting with QM does take on a non-local apsect.

sjastro said:

While we are at it since you a using AI overview I asked it if the consciousness interpretation of QM is popular amongst physicists and if not what are the reasons for it.

The "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation (also known as the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation) is largely unpopular among modern physicists because it is not a scientific theory but rather a philosophical or metaphysical one that introduces subjective, untestable elements into the physical laws of the universe
.
Key reasons for its unpopularity include:

• Lack of Empirical Evidence and Testability: The core issue is that this interpretation provides no testable predictions that differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics. Science requires empirical evidence, and until an experiment can distinguish this hypothesis from others, it remains speculation.
• "Consciousness" is Ill-Defined: The interpretation requires consciousness to have a special, non-physical role, but it does not provide a scientific or mathematical definition of what consciousness is or how it causes a physical event like a wave function collapse.
• Inconsistency with Physicalism: The interpretation suggests that the mind and body are distinct (mind-body dualism), which contradicts the prevailing assumption in modern science that the physical world is a causally closed system and that consciousness emerges from physical brain processes.
• Problems with Cosmology and Evolution: If consciousness is necessary for collapse, it becomes difficult to explain how the universe existed and evolved for billions of years before conscious life emerged. The universe's physical laws should operate independently of who is observing them.
• Decoherence as a Physical Explanation: The phenomenon of quantum decoherence offers a robust physical mechanism for why quantum superpositions disappear at the macroscopic scale, without needing to invoke a special role for consciousness. Decoherence explains how a quantum system interacts with its environment and effectively "collapses" into a classical state.
• Solipsism and Absurdity: The idea leads to a solipsistic viewpoint where an individual's mind is the only one that can register reality, which is widely considered unsatisfactory and counter-intuitive to how we perceive a shared, objective reality. Thought experiments like Schrödinger's cat (or "Wigner's friend") are often used to illustrate the philosophical absurdities of this view.

In essence, the interpretation is largely discarded by modern physicists because it moves beyond the realm of testable physics into metaphysics and philosophy, offering an explanation that creates more problems and paradoxes than it solves.

Are you going to argue against AI's response as you have with various posters in this thread who have debunked your claim the consciousness interpretation is both popular and acceptable in mainstream science.

Click to expand...

Only to say that above you claimed that Stapps version was in line with mainstream interpretations of the spatial aspects of the physical. Within and reducibe to the phayical metaphysics.

Now your saying that this interpretation of Stapps is non scientific and contradicting physical science. It steps beyond that which is verifiable metaphysically.

As far as I know Stapps position is in line with the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation.

stevevw said:

This seems to be saying that consciousness is a force that is not reducible to the physical brain and when interacting with QM does take on a non-local apsect.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything of the sort.
Do I need to remind of your confession to another poster you are not clever, this is an example.

stevevw said:

Only to say that above you claimed that Stapps version was in line with mainstream interpretations of the spatial aspects of the physical. Within and reducibe to the phayical metaphysics.

Now your saying that this interpretation of Stapps is non scientific and contradicting physical science. It steps beyond that which is verifiable metaphysically.

As far as I know Stapps position is in line with the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation.

Click to expand...

What a ridiculous response to the AI Overview answer to the question if the consciousness interpretation is popular and acceptable in mainstream science.

Why don't you try addressing the issue that AI Overview has totally contradicted your ongoing perpetration of this lie.

sjastro said:

It doesn't say anything of the sort.
Do I need to remind of your confession to another poster you are not clever, this is an example.

Click to expand...

This is one place I will use lol. That does not mean I can't read the words of Stapp. I can only take what he says as meaning what it says. Otherwise can you explain what Stapp meant when he said this.

Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Nature ∗ Henry P. Stapp
“it is inherently entirely correct that the measurement or related process of subjective perception is a new entity relative to the physical environment and is not reducible to the latter. Indeed, subjective perception leads to the intellectual inner life of the individual...” p.418;

On The Nature of Things: Human Presence in the World of Atoms
Henry P. Stapp
The core difference between the two theories is that in the earlier classical theory all causal effects in the world of matter are reducible to the action of matter upon matter, whereas in the new theory our conscious thoughts and mental efforts play an essential and irreducible role in the determination of the evolving material properties of the physically described world.

Thus the new theory elevates our acts of conscious observation from causally impotent witnesses of a flow of material events that is determined by material processes alone to irreducible mental inputs into the determination of the future of a psychophysical universe. In the quantum world our minds matter!

I understand you can come up with a mathmatical equation. I don't doubt that.

But I keep reading these words that mention the Mind and consciousness not being redicible to the physical and I am wondering what this means. What is Stapp referring to when he says this.It seems he is clearly suggesting some irriducible influence of Mind playing a causal role.

How is this subjective consciouness reflected in the math. How does math account for the subjective.

sjastro said:

What a ridiculous response to the AI Overview answer to the question if the consciousness interpretation is popular and acceptable in mainstream science.

Why don't you try addressing the issue that AI Overview has totally contradicted your ongoing perpetration of this lie.

Click to expand...

What did you want me to say. Did you not say the Stapps idea falls within mainstream interpretations of the science and math. Ok I agree the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation is not popular. But so what.

Stapp still uses this interpretation.

stevevw said:

This is one place I will use lol. That does not mean I can't read the words of Stapp. I can only take what he says as meaning what it says. Otherwise can you explain what Stapp meant when he said this.

Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Nature ∗ Henry P. Stapp
“it is inherently entirely correct that the measurement or related process of subjective perception is a new entity relative to the physical environment and is not reducible to the latter. Indeed, subjective perception leads to the intellectual inner life of the individual...” p.418;

https://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/vnr.pdf

On The Nature of Things: Human Presence in the World of Atoms
Henry P. Stapp
The core difference between the two theories is that in the earlier classical theory all causal effects in the world of matter are reducible to the action of matter upon matter, whereas in the new theory our conscious thoughts and mental efforts play an essential and irreducible role in the determination of the evolving material properties of the physically described world.

Thus the new theory elevates our acts of conscious observation from causally impotent witnesses of a flow of material events that is determined by material processes alone to irreducible mental inputs into the determination of the future of a psychophysical universe. In the quantum world our minds matter!

https://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/NOT72C.pdf

I understand you can come up with a mathmatical equation. I don't doubt that.

But I keep reading these words that mention the Mind and consciousness not being redicible to the physical and I am wondering what this means. What is Stapp referring to when he says this.It seems he is clearly suggesting some irriducible influence of Mind playing a causal role.

How is this subjective consciouness reflected in the math. How does math account for the subjective.

Click to expand...

I am not going to waste my time going over this again and again even if you are so inept that the appearance of an answer doesn't register let alone understand it.

stevevw said:

What did you want me to say. Did you not say the Stapps idea falls within mainstream interpretations of the science and math. Ok I agree the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation is not popular. But so what.

Stapp still uses this interpretation.

Click to expand...

How pathetic you are in this idiotic attempt to obfuscate the issue when AI Overview your go-to source has caught you out lying.

sjastro said:

I am not going to waste my time going over this again and again even if you are so inept that the appearance of an answer doesn't register let alone understand it.

Click to expand...

Ok I give up. The math wins.

sjastro said:

How pathetic you are in this idiotic attempt to obfuscate the issue when AI Overview your go-to source has caught you out lying.

Click to expand...

What was my lie.

AV1611VET said:

Had God not made Adam the federal head of the entire human race, then Jesus would have to come back and die on the Cross separately for each and every human being that was ever born, alive today, or will be alive tomorrow.

Click to expand...

This is why from Adam to Jesus is exact and precise 4,000 years because Jesus made the sacrifice for all of his descendants. First the descendants of Abraham and then another 2,000 for the gentiles. We know God because He is so much more exact and precise than we are.

Mathematics for the quantum realm/world.

I believe there is a correct Mathematics for it. But some of our most foundational principles/fundamental assumptions that seems to work just fine for everything that is above it, might need to be different, or might need to change, etc. And that's not easy, as your basically having to find out/figure out/discover a whole new way of things, etc.

For example, something like time only running or operating in one direction, as just one example (because there are a lot of examples that we could use, or very many, etc) might need to be rediscovered, or might need to be different (now I don't know if time runs or can run in different directions, or operate any differently, but I'm just using this as an example here, ok) but my point is, our very most foundational principles/fundamental assumptions that seems to work just fine for everything else above it, or above that level, will probably need to be completely re-thought out, or might need to change. And it took us a lot of years to discover the math we have right now have (and that seems to work just fine for everything else above it) but and/or so, that's not going to be easy, etc. (It would be like going back to the very beginning of everything we right now know, or have, etc)

But I'm fully confident that there is a math that will work for it, and that just because we don't know it yet, doesn't mean it's not there, or out there, or doesn't exist, etc. And if there is a math that exists for it, then by the very fact that there is a mathematics that exists for it, or that will work for it/can predict it, etc, then that will mean that determinism is still true, based on the very fact that a mathematics for it, does exist, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

Mathematics for the quantum realm/world.

I believe there is a correct Mathematics for it. But some of our most foundational principles/fundamental assumptions that seems to work just fine for everything that is above it, might need to be different, or might need to change, etc. And that's not easy, as your basically having to find out/figure out/discover a whole new way of things, etc.

For example, something like time only running or operating in one direction, as just one example (because there are a lot of examples that we could use, or very many, etc) might need to be rediscovered, or might need to be different (now I don't know if time runs or can run in different directions, or operate any differently, but I'm just using this as an example here, ok) but my point is, our very most foundational principles/fundamental assumptions that seems to work just fine for everything else above it, or above that level, will probably need to be completely re-thought out, or might need to change. And it took us a lot of years to discover the math we have right now have (and that seems to work just fine for everything else above it) but and/or so, that's not going to be easy, etc. (It would be like going back to the very beginning of everything we right now know, or have, etc)

But I'm fully confident that there is a math that will work for it, and that just because we don't know it yet, doesn't mean it's not there, or out there, or doesn't exist, etc. And if there is a math that exists for it, then by the very fact that there is a mathematics that exists for it, or that will work for it/can predict it, etc, then that will mean that determinism is still true, based on the very fact that a mathematics for it, does exist, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

Click to expand...

Everything on the quantum level causes us to have to almost completely re-think everything we right now have, or know, but that doesn't mean an order, or predictive system for it (new mathematics) doesn't exist, and at the point that it ever does again, makes everything still deterministic basically, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

AV1611VET said:

Science can take a hike.

Click to expand...

Computers were created by prayer and fasting?

AV1611VET said:

So you abandon 1100+ photos and reported sightings because a few are found to be hoaxes?

Click to expand...

I have a great many pictures of people and things that never existed.

AV1611VET said:

Most only on paper.

Click to expand...

He typed on his computer. Apparently one clings to the science one finds convenient.

Ohm's Law Can Take Hike. Oh, wait...

AV1611VET said:

Then what are these?

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature....

Click to expand...

Cultural artifacts.

AV1611VET said:

Which came first?

Christ or Christianity?

Click to expand...

Hmmm... Since "all things were made by Him" I'd have to say Christ; unless you have a "gotcha" of some sort to whip out.

Jipsah said:

Computers were created by prayer and fasting?

Click to expand...

Alas no, but interestingly there have been some important Christians in computer science. Most notably Donald Knuth, author of The Art of Computer Programming, and a Lutheran, and an organ enthusiast (his house had two pipe organs installed).

Other important Christians include Frederick Brooks, “The Mythical Man Month” about the problems of developing the OS/360 operating system for the IBM System/360 mainframe, a program which went years late and spectacularly over budget and demonstrated a pattern which would be repeated over and over in other contexts, the Second System effect (this happened to Apple in the 1980s with the Apple III and in the 1990s with their various failed attempts to replace MacOS such as Copeland and their failed joint venture with IBM, which ultimately resulted in them buying a third party OS - a choice between NextOS, a UNIX like OS designed by NeXT, the unprofitable company set up by Steve Jobs, on which the World Wide Web was developed, and BeOS, a beautiful single user operating system, probably the nicest single user OS ever designed, by the former chief engineer at Apple, Jean Louis Gassee, however, Be, Inc. was so confident Apple would buy them out that when they went for NextOS he didn’t really have a viable strategy, but did manage to sell the company to Palm, which used it for the final version of the Palm OS (anyone remember those delightful Palm PDAs from the 2000s? I had a Palm Tungsten E2 with a collapsable keyboard which was so much fun, in 2006. When the iPhone came out the following year it was completely and lethally outclassed, but given how inexpensive it was, and how much it could do, it was a blast, also playing SimCity on it was a delight. The E2 was running Palm OS 5 “Garnet” which did not include any BeOS code, however. GNU Hurd was for many years another example of second system effect insofar as it reacted against UNIX and suffered from indecision around features, but now, it works and is a viable OS kernel.

BeOS was so beloved that it did result in the development of Haiku, which has occasionally been functional enough for use as a web browser (for example, after their initial port of WebKit in 2010, there was about a two year period when one could reasonably surf the web on Haiku if one had compatible hardware or a virtual machine, but the project is small enough that keeping it able to connect to the Web in a meaningful way as more and more has moved onto the web in terms of applications has been a challenge; it is much easier for a small team to maintain a competitive server operating system versus a client operating system, since server OSes operate using simpler protocols and are less dependent upon complex and difficult device drivers, for which reason one could not unreasonably use DragonFlyBSD , NetBSD or GNU Hurd as a server operating system, and the use of OpenBSD, FreeBSD and Illumos (the fork of OpenSolaris) is actually indicated for a large range of scenarios, in which they are probably a superior choice to Linux, for security in the case of OpenBSD, and for filesystem I/O, memory efficiency, performance and UNIX-compatible manageability in terms of not having systemd or other recent departures from UNIX norms that plague most Linux distros. Likewise one is not beholden to Red Hat or Ubuntu or SuSE Linux Enterprise for Linux server usage although several enterprise customers believe this is the case, because they believe the support provided for those operating systems is actually worth paying for (which, for enterprise customers, it *might* be, depending on how far those vendors are willing to go to solve problems with your deployment and the capabilities of your own in-house IT department, since historically the amount of redundant and unnecessary software developed in-house by major corporations has been spectacular in its wasteful and prodigious quantity.

Speaking of Linux, another prominent Christian in computer science is Theodore T’so, lead developer of the ext4 filesystem, the most popular Linux filesystem (not my personal favorite, but a likeable general purpose filesystem; likewise, ext3, which he also developed, while suffering from slow performance, was known to be very good about avoiding data loss compared to NTFS, reiserfs and most other filesystems; reiserfs was famously deprecated and development on it has finally ended, and it is now unspported and removed from the Linux kernel, after its developer, who was not a Christian, was convicted of murdering his wife. Reiserfs was no great loss; it had one niche where it was useful, that being busy e-mail servers as it offered excellent performance at handing small files, however it has some bugs that makes me horrified to think I ever ran it in retrospect, since one of them could have easily taken me out - an image of a reiserfs filesystem running atop a reiserfs filesystem, such as a backup in binary form (commonly given the .img suffix, like hd2.img or usb_stick.img) or as a virtual hard disk (whether in VMware format or a more generic format) or via the Linux kernel’s own ability to mount filesystems stored on files on the filesystem - well, if a reiserfs filesystem were to become inconsistent due to a power outage and an image of a reiserfs filesystem was stored on it, the filesystem check utility program for reiserfs was known to have a bug wherein it would confuse the image of the filesystem for the filesystem upon which the image was stored, resulting in spectacular corruption of both.


That said there is a need for more evangelism in the IT industry.

By the way Jipsah you were in semiconductors were you not? So probably a lot of what I just said is perhaps old news to you, although as an operating system developer I regard semi-conductors as a different realm, an unknowable world involving the use of Verilog and specialized design and verification software which I can understand, but by the time it gets to lithography on the silicon wafer I’m out of my depth - nor does the thought of working anywhere near the fabrication side of semi-conductors appeal to me, and I also lack the training in electronics to be able to contribute to the other layers of it. That said I was fascinated when Sun open sourced the desgin of the SPARC T1 and T2 Niagara CPUs and there is now a reasonable amount of open source hardware, some of which can be loaded onto FPGAs, and I would love to learn how to do that once I recover.