Ask a physicist anything. (6)

[razeontherock]

I find this an interesting statement. What is your source for the early Saints not believing in literalism?

Now we need to be careful with what is meant. With the crowd here, 'literalism' will mean something pretty specific, and I trust does not concern itself with things like literal resurrection of the dead, and judgment to come. As for sources, you could start with my tagline and the whole Jewish tradition. Going further, simply pointing you to ccel.org is pretty vague, but I hope some historians on CF might be able to guide you more efficiently? (FWIW, I do not hold that underlying meaning negates literal, physical reality. The 2 seem to reinforce each other, but my Faith rests in the Person of Christ and His finished work, not any single point of Biblical story being historic fact)

 

[Faith24]

Mr Physicist, I'm curious how the theory of relativity support a beginning of the universe. Can you please clarify this to me? Are there any equations to support this theory?

 

[Inan3]

Now we need to be careful with what is meant. With the crowd here, 'literalism' will mean something pretty specific, and I trust does not concern itself with things like literal resurrection of the dead, and judgment to come. As for sources, you could start with my tagline and the whole Jewish tradition. Going further, simply pointing you to ccel.org is pretty vague, but I hope some historians on CF might be able to guide you more efficiently? (FWIW, I do not hold that underlying meaning negates literal, physical reality. The 2 seem to reinforce each other, but my Faith rests in the Person of Christ and His finished work, not any single point of Biblical story being historic fact)

Thanks, raz. I've never been to ccel.org. It looks interesting I'll have to check it out a little more.

 

[razeontherock]

Not that reading CF counts as being well read, but just came across this and it's been touched on earlier in the thread:

"the soul is just the software of the human body...it's information in the neurons

all non-material entities (e.g. information,
consciousness, intelligence and will) are massless and thus
have zero weight. Information is always based on an idea;
it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical
or chemical processes."

I'm wondering what our OP (and other contributing sciencey types here) might make of this, as it pertains to soul / spirit vs physical reality?

 

[Hespera]

Not that reading CF counts as being well read, but just came across this and it's been touched on earlier in the thread:

"the soul is just the software of the human body...it's information in the neurons

all non-material entities (e.g. information,
consciousness, intelligence and will) are massless and thus
have zero weight. Information is always based on an idea;
it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical
or chemical processes."

I'm wondering what our OP (and other contributing sciencey types here) might make of this, as it pertains to soul / spirit vs physical reality?

soul and spirit are primitive ideas with no demonstrable basis in fact.

 

[razeontherock]

Well that's succinct But you did not address the substantive element. Is our consciousness, memories, intelligence and will more than stored info in the neurons? Do they have 0 weight? Are ideas also massless, and not arise from physical or chemical processes?

 

[Hespera]

Well that's succinct But you did not address the substantive element. Is our consciousness, memories, intelligence and will more than stored info in the neurons? Do they have 0 weight? Are ideas also massless, and not arise from physical or chemical processes?

well what about the mind of a possum then? does your computer's memory have mass?

and not arise from physical or chemical processes?[

theres a lot we dont know about how it works but one thing for sure, no chemistry and physics, no ideas!

 

[razeontherock]

one thing for sure, no chemistry and physics, no ideas!

I'll agree with that. That's one reason I found the latest quote I inserted interesting.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Well that's succinct But you did not address the substantive element. Is our consciousness, memories, intelligence and will more than stored info in the neurons? Do they have 0 weight? Are ideas also massless, and not arise from physical or chemical processes?

An idea weights the same as your word document.

 

[razeontherock]

An idea weights the same as your word document.

You didn't see the whole context of the post I quoted, but that's how it started out, by saying a "full" disc weighs the same as an empty one.

 

[Chalnoth]

This abdicates nothing. You've never heard of apophatic theology?

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds like more word salad to avoid saying anything meaningful. But then, that seems to be the entire purpose of theology: avoid saying anything meaningful while still leaving the impression that you have.

No, you can't trust G-d for "anything and everything." He has character. There are things He will and won't do. Faith then goes hand in hand with knowing Him.

The point was that the Christian god is supposed to be perfectly good and powerful. And many Christians believe this god has a plan for them, for everything to work out "for the best" (whatever that means).

Transposing that same Faith onto others is called idolatry. BIG problem.

Yes, well, holding contradictory beliefs is very common among Christians. But if you don't trust someone or something to tell you about your god, how do you find out any information at all about him? The only avenues for learning about their god that any religious people have are human avenues. I challenge you to present any other way of learning about your god.

That many who sit in pews on Sunday have nothing more than this, is something you will get no argument from me about. However, if that were all I had, first of all I certainly wouldn't be "here," and second of all, I would have fallen away from Christianity at the age of 4 (which I did) and stayed away.

And yet, you seem to have a hard time presenting anything more than this.

To you. And to science. (Until Wiccan Child finds a way to do so, anyway

No, period. It is a fundamental impossibility to collect any verifiable evidence for or against any non-material concept. And without verifiable evidence, you are guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[Chalnoth]

Mr Physicist, I'm curious how the theory of relativity support a beginning of the universe. Can you please clarify this to me? Are there any equations to support this theory?

Well, it's a little bit nuanced. Basically, General Relativity makes a very strong prediction of a singularity in the finite past (a singularity is a point of infinite density). The problem, however, is that this prediction cannot be taken seriously: a singularity is mathematical nonsense and cannot exist in reality. This is a signature that General Relativity is wrong on some scale (though experimentally, General Relativity is still a very good approximation to the behavior of reality...it just breaks down at very early times).

Another way to look at it is that we currently are living in a universe that is increasing in entropy. There had to be some sort of interesting event that generated the original low-entropy state.

So, it is largely an open question in cosmology as to how this can be resolved. There are many proposals, but we don't yet have evidence that can distinguish between them. But the majority of these proposals have a universe which is spawned from some previous universe in some manner or other, such that while our universe has a beginning in these models, it isn't the beginning of everything.

 

[razeontherock]

Sounds like more word salad to avoid saying anything meaningful.

This presents enlightened thinking, dismiss anything new?

But if you don't trust someone or something to tell you about your god, how do you find out any information at all about him? The only avenues for learning about their god that any religious people have are human avenues. I challenge you to present any other way of learning about your god.

What we have here, is a basic failure to communicate. You can not learn "about" G-d, and you certainly cannot do so from human avenues. That you would expect me to present something to you, merely shows a rather complete lack of understanding on the subject matter.

No, period. It is a fundamental impossibility to collect any verifiable evidence for or against any non-material concept. And without verifiable evidence, you are guaranteed to be wrong.

Materialism, in full bloom?

At the same time, within matters you are familiar with I see some bright spots:

"a singularity is mathematical nonsense and cannot exist in reality"

"we currently are living in a universe that is increasing in entropy"

Yes, we are. Which is the opposite of everything Ev theory states. Didn't you just post about Christians having conflicting beliefs? Can you reconcile these two?

 

[Chalnoth]

What we have here, is a basic failure to communicate. You can not learn "about" G-d, and you certainly cannot do so from human avenues. That you would expect me to present something to you, merely shows a rather complete lack of understanding on the subject matter.

Well, then, why believe in him? And in the Christian god in particular? If you can't learn about this god, then why believe that Jesus was his son? Why believe that he saves us from sins? Why believe that there is a heaven and a hell? Why believe that the Bible, whether perfect or imperfect, points towards this god?

For somebody claiming to not be able to learn about god, it seems particularly silly to attach yourself to a particular belief system.

Materialism, in full bloom?

Simple logic. The non-material is too ill-defined to ever test. Period.

At the same time, within matters you are familiar with I see some bright spots:

"a singularity is mathematical nonsense and cannot exist in reality"

"we currently are living in a universe that is increasing in entropy"

Yes, we are. Which is the opposite of everything Ev theory states. Didn't you just post about Christians having conflicting beliefs? Can you reconcile these two?

Say what? No. There is absolutely nothing about any scientific knowledge that contradicts either of these two statements. Evolution does not require a decrease in overall entropy. Nor does it rest upon the existence of a singularity.

What is there to reconcile? There simply isn't any conflict worth mentioning.

 

[razeontherock]

So your response is "lalala, I can't hear you." I was hoping we might avoid that part.

"One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems."

That would be, the opposite of Ev theory. Gee I guess you're right, no conflict worth mentioning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The only thing I know of would be Jesus' own Judgment. And we have nothing to indicate He is in that business now.

I suppose it could be too much to ask to be able to go to people like Pat Robertson, press a button, and say "Nope, you're as spiritually dead as me. Sorry, buddy"

Hebrews 1:3 "upholding all things by the word of his power"

There is at least one other along these lines, and looking at the Greek this is actually a very good translation, which is no stretch to read in the type of literal sense Planck seems to refer to.

I remember working through the 10 dimensions of string theory and finding it a fun thought experiment. Has it been dismissed?

It's still alive and kicking, but there hasn't been much development since its heyday in the 90s.

That is one of those things that is contested. It is only the RCC I am aware of that says this, and of course they do make up more than 1/2 of C worldwide. Like most of their doctrine that no one validates but themselves, on this point they make no sense to me. That rock is clearly the revelation that Jesus is the Christ. Besides, many other Scripture refer to Christ as being central, and ALL the Apostles together as being equally important after Him. (This would be, like a BIG part of the Church split, since it involves the whole "pope" thing)

What about the argument that Jesus renamed Simon as 'Peter' as a reference to the 'rock'? I've always found the Catholic argument that the line of popes start here to be quite persuasive.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Mr Physicist, I'm curious how the theory of relativity support a beginning of the universe. Can you please clarify this to me? Are there any equations to support this theory?

There are not. The Big Bang theory refers to the theory that the universe and all matter and space was once condensed into an infinitesimally small point, and that point began to expand. this expansion is known as the Big Bang, and it's been going on for about 13.5 billion years. It's convenient to treat this as singularity as the first moment of the universe, but as our theories can't tell us what it was actually like, much less what, if anything, came before it, we have no reason to believe it actually was the beginning.

So, no, relativity doesn't support the idea that there was a beginning to the universe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not that reading CF counts as being well read, but just came across this and it's been touched on earlier in the thread:

"the soul is just the software of the human body...it's information in the neurons

all non-material entities (e.g. information,
consciousness, intelligence and will) are massless and thus
have zero weight. Information is always based on an idea;
it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical
or chemical processes."

I'm wondering what our OP (and other contributing sciencey types here) might make of this, as it pertains to soul / spirit vs physical reality?

It's a good idea, but I disagree with the last line: "Information is always based on an idea; it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical
or chemical processes". I would say that information can arise from physical or chemical processes, depending on what one means by 'information'. I believe the complexity of DNA arose all by itself, and since DNA arguably contains vast quantities of information, information can therefore arise by itself.

Calling this information a 'soul', be it in DNA or in the brain, may work, but I think it deprives the word of its inevitable spiritual component, that essence of being somehow qualitatively different, of being 'other' than the mundane body.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, it's a little bit nuanced. Basically, General Relativity makes a very strong prediction of a singularity in the finite past (a singularity is a point of infinite density). The problem, however, is that this prediction cannot be taken seriously: a singularity is mathematical nonsense and cannot exist in reality.

Why not?

 

[Chalnoth]

So your response is "lalala, I can't hear you." I was hoping we might avoid that part.

"One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems."

That would be, the opposite of Ev theory. Gee I guess you're right, no conflict worth mentioning.

Evolutionary systems are not isolated systems. Think, for a moment, what would happen to an organism if I placed it inside a sealed container that had no contact whatsoever with the outside world. No heat, no light, no exchange of air. What would happen to it? That's right, it would die (or, if it especially hardy, it may simply stop metabolizing...but in any event it won't continue to reproduce and evolve).

Instead, if you look at the full second law of thermodynamics, it states the following:
dS = dQ/T

That is, the change in entropy is proportional to the heat flow into/out of the system. If you have heat flowing into the system, then entropy can and often will decrease. And do we have heat flowing into the Earth? Yup! We have a huge, giant energy source called the Sun. And if you look at life on Earth, what is its primary energy source? That's right: the Sun (though I will note that there are a small number of organisms that make use of the energy from things like undersea volcanic vents and methane, but in any event the same principle holds, with some slight modification to account for the input of chemical energy as well as heat energy).