WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[Eudaimonist]

If Causality is temporally bound then it provides a way for God to create OUR space and time dimensions.

The above reads like gibberish. What does any of that have to do with a second arrow of time as speculated by physicists?

Though actually you have not proven that causality cannot occur in timelessness.

Is that a diversion? I don't see what that issue has to do with a second arrow of time either.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
According to Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History, the majority of cosmologists agree that at time=0 NOTHING existed. No mass, space or time.

eud: I'm unable to look at the Nov 2007 issue at Natural History's site. Do you have a title for the article I can search on?

He was responding to a letter in the Letters section. You may have to look in their archived entire issues to find it.

ed: No, your mind was the cause, you willed to break your arm.

eud: I agree that my mind was the cause, but my mind is a function of my brain, so my brain was also the cause. Mental causes are also physical causes. Modern science doesn't show any sharp dualistic difference between the mind and the brain.

But again your mind is not part of your arm. So my statement stands that the cause was not part of the effect.

ed: The real YOU resides in your mind not your arm. So again the cause was not part of the effect.

eud: I can find other examples. If I choose to stoke a certain emotion in myself, whether love, hate, fear, kindness, or whatever, my mind is the cause of something that has a mental effect. The cause is part of the effect.

No, those are not effects of your mind, they are states of your mind that are caused by things external to you either imaginary or real.

ed: The burden is on you to prove that the universe is not an effect even though it has all the characteristics of being one.

eud: That burden isn't on me. You are claiming that the universe is an effect. All I have to do is show that it doesn't necessarily have to be, and I have spoken at length about this. I don't have to prove that the universe isn't an effect in order to show how your argument isn't as secure as you think. You don't have to agree with me, of course, but I've accepted the only burden that I have needed to so far.

Well your view goes against most cosmologists. Most scientists agree as demonstrated by Dr. Goldsmith and some of the others I cited that it is an effect. Now of course, most don't think that that cause is God. The majority view is that it was caused by a quantum fluctuation. But that cannot be correct, because quantum events require an interval of time to occur but at time=0 there was no time for it occur.

ed: Post 116.

eud: Do you mean this quote: "It is also possible that the universe is uncaused, and that causes are only internal to the universe."

*scratches head*

It's exactly as I have been saying. I didn't suggest that the universe is the cause of its own existence. I suggested that it is uncaused. Any causes are only internal to the universe, such as me writing this post. I didn't say that the universe had created/caused/explains itself.

Maybe I didn't give enough context, but when I suggest that the universe is uncaused, I really do mean that the universe is uncaused, not that it caused itself.

Well, I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the causes of the universe were internal to the universe. Thanks for the explanation.

ed: Given that so far it has always worked in science, it is irrational and unscientific to abandon logic with ANY unknown.

eud: Science =/= logic. Science involves logic, to be sure, but simply offering logical arguments is not science.

True, but throughout the history of science as I demonstrated earlier when encountering unknowns utilizing logic almost always produces the answer.

 

[Rebecca12]

No, I am telling you to read the study I posted.

For me, a study implies some kind of experiment rather than math. Strominger does theoretical, not experimental physics. He uses ideas from string theory to provide potential resolutions of various problems in physics. String theory itself is not proven. There is no experiment to test the hypothesis.

 

[Rebecca12]

. Most scientists agree as demonstrated by Dr. Goldsmith and some of the others I cited that it is an effect. Now of course, most don't think that that cause is God. The majority view is that it was caused by a quantum fluctuation. But that cannot be correct, because quantum events require an interval of time to occur but at time=0 there was no time for it occur.

I would say that most physicists haven't touched the origins issue because it is so theoretical and the near if not absolute impossibility of testing any theory about the origin of everything. A man's gotta know his limitations.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ah, shifting the burden of proof. What a surprise.

No, he is making a claim with no support. He needs to support his interpretation of the study.

 

[bhsmte]

No, he is making a claim with no support. He needs to support his interpretation of the study.

Fraid not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

He was responding to a letter in the Letters section. You may have to look in their archived entire issues to find it.

I can't find it.

Most scientists agree as demonstrated by Dr. Goldsmith and some of the others I cited that it is an effect.

I can't read Dr. Goldsmith's own words on the subject in context, so I'm left without any way to continue with that line of conversation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the second paragraph sums it up best: David H. Wolpert, a physics-trained computer scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center, has chimed in with his version of a knowledge limit. Because of it, he concludes, the universe lies beyond the grasp of any intellect, no matter how powerful, that could exist within the universe.

eud: All that means is that using formal mathematics there are limits to what can be proved and known about physics. That's it. That's all. There is no reason to think that there is any existence beyond the physical universe.

This is an epistemological issue, not a metaphysical one. It's an issue of knowledge and its limits.

No, Stanley Jaki and Jones and Wilson, in "An Incomplete Education" say that it does apply to cosmology and the metaphysical. "the application of the GIT to cosmology shows that a disproof of the contingency of the universe is impossible. The mental road to the extracosmic Absolute remains therefore fully open." Read "The Absolute Beneath the Relative." in the Intercollegiate Review 1985.

ed: The key points are "no intellect WITHIN the universe" and "cannot learn by experiment or predict with computation". But if we use logical reasoning without restraining ourselves to just natural explanations, we can avoid the problem of self-reference that GIT shows limits our understanding.

eud: Alternatively, we can use logic in ways that don't involve formal mathematical systems. We can make different sorts of judgments. However, nothing in GIT means that we can successfully use logic about "non-natural explanations" to correctly explain anything.

Fraid so, see above.

ed: No, the universe is a system and GIT shows that if we bring in data from outside the system then those problems can be solved and the knowledge can be gained.

eud; It doesn't show that as far as I know. Indeed, any extra data (if it even exists) would have its own limitations. IOWs, you'd have the same GIT problem all over again. You would still not be able to prove certain things using the formal math.
I have to get to work now. More later.

Yes, we would have the same problem in the "super" natural world also. That would become our work after we leave this universe at death just as the bible seems to predict.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, Stanley Jaki and Jones and Wilson, in "An Incomplete Education" say that it does apply to cosmology and the metaphysical. "the application of the GIT to cosmology shows that a disproof of the contingency of the universe is impossible. The mental road to the extracosmic Absolute remains therefore fully open." Read "The Absolute Beneath the Relative." in the Intercollegiate Review 1985.

Again, this is about epistemology. The quote is talking about "disproof" and "mental roads". At no point do they write that the GIT actually supports or points to an "extracosmic Absolute" or "the contingency of the universe", but merely that one can't say that there is some necessary contradiction between that and the formal maths of physics.

The problem is that you are trying to make this into a gigantic Argument from Ignorance.

Fraid so, see above.

The quote DOES NOT mention anything about "non-natural explanations". An "extracosmic Absolute" can be perfectly natural.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not saying that they are necessarily two totally separate entities. The mind needs the brain to interact with the physical world.

tm: These two sentences contradict eachother. Your second sentence implies the exact opposite of the first sentence.

If "x needs y", then X and Y are two seperate things.

What I meant is that they cannot reach full function without each other, IOW they are not completely independent of each other.

ed: The mind has some connection to the brain but it is not totally tied to the physical

tm: How so?

See above.

ed: The mind can operate according to the laws of logic

tm: What does that mean?

The mind can weigh arguments and evidence and make logical conclusion based on the premises of those arguments evidence. But if the mind is purely physically based then its conclusions are based on the ratio of chemical reagents in the brain just like any chemical reaction and not on the weighing of arguments.

ed: , the brain like any physical entity can only operate according to the laws of physics

tm: On that, we agree.

If you believe the mind is purely physical based then your view is self refuting as shown above.

ed: Also the placebo effect is evidence that the mind is not totally tied to the physical.

tm: How so?

Because that means that a nonphysical treatment can cure a physical entity.

ed: Also, NDEs and if transgenderism is real then it is also evidence for this.

tm: There are perfectly sound neuroscientific explanations for phenomena like NDE's, out-of-body experiences etc. These days, through neuroscience we can even trigger such experiences on demand in subjects.

Not all NDEs. There are cases where the person gained knowledge that they could not have by natural physical means. For example a woman discovered that there was a specific shoe on the roof of a hospital that she was in, and yet she physically never went on the roof. And if transgenderism is real then there are male minds in female brains and bodies and vice versa. Apparently totally unaffected by being in physically female body.

ed: In addition, a purely physical mind is self refuting.

tm: How so?

See above.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The mind can weigh arguments and evidence and make logical conclusion based on the premises of those arguments evidence.

All that means is that minds (that is, people) can be logical, at least if they choose to be logical. The mind can also contain contradictory thoughts. Reality cannot contradict itself, and presumably the nature of minds (as part of reality) cannot contradict itself or anything else, but the operation of the mind can generate logical contradictions. People can be illogical.

But if the mind is purely physically based then its conclusions are based on the ratio of chemical reagents in the brain just like any chemical reaction and not on the weighing of arguments.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that the brain's operations "are based on the ratio of chemical reagents" in itself, any more than a computer's operations are based on the ratio of metal to germanium in its CPU. You are attacking a straw man.

If you believe the mind is purely physical based then your view is self refuting as shown above.

I don't accept your straw man view of brain function.

Because that means that a nonphysical treatment can cure a physical entity.

No, it means that there is a relationship between brain function and the rest of the body.

Not all NDEs. There are cases where the person gained knowledge that they could not have by natural physical means. For example a woman discovered that there was a specific shoe on the roof of a hospital that she was in, and yet she physically never went on the roof.

Those claims are dubious anecdotes. They belong to the realm of pseudoscience.

And if transgenderism is real then there are male minds in female brains and bodies and vice versa. Apparently totally unaffected by being in physically female body.

You are talking about psychological conditions. Gender dysphoria has been linked to some extent to genetics. Why would that be if "male minds" and "female minds" are completely non-physical?

Gender dysphoria - Wikipedia


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I meant is that they cannot reach full function without each other, IOW they are not completely independent of each other.

But you're still treating them as seperate entities.

The mind can weigh arguments and evidence and make logical conclusion based on the premises of those arguments evidence. But if the mind is purely physically based then its conclusions are based on the ratio of chemical reagents in the brain just like any chemical reaction and not on the weighing of arguments.

The physical brain activity, is how you do your thinking.
Those are the underlying physical processes of how that works.

Why is that a problem?

If you believe the mind is purely physical based then your view is self refuting as shown above.

I don't "believe" anything.
I only go by what the evidence suggests.
And what the evidence siggests is that that which you call a "mind" is no more or less then a function of the physical brain.

I don't see how any of this is "self-refuting".

Because that means that a nonphysical treatment can cure a physical entity.

You might want to read up on what the placebo effect actually is.
It doesn't cure anything! Placebo's, in essence, are no more then self-deception.
There is no curing going on.

Not all NDEs. There are cases where the person gained knowledge that they could not have by natural physical means. For example a woman discovered that there was a specific shoe on the roof of a hospital that she was in, and yet she physically never went on the roof

Anecdotal evidence isn't exactly enough to convince me of outlandish claims like that.

And if transgenderism is real then there are male minds in female brains and bodies and vice versa.

For crying out loud....
Do you realise that the difference between males and females is biological?
And that that difference isn't restricted to just reproductive organs, but also brain chemicals, hormones, etc?

See above.

There's nothing there, there.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yes, it does explain the limitations of mathematical proofs using algorithms. However, that doesn't help your argument as much as you seem to think. Simply explaining those problems doesn't create any solutions.

Not necessarily. Showing that there are limits to mathematical proofs regarding physics does not show that all mathematical proofs regarding physics are suddenly possible when introducing "non-natural" information. One can speculate along those lines, but it becomes a matter of wishful thinking, as I said.

One major hurdle is epistemological. Can one really combine natural and non-natural premises into a single logical/mathematical system in a way that is philosophically justified? It is not clear that the answer is "yes".

It's not enough to have a mathematical system. One needs to have a mathematical system that is epistemologically justified, and that justification in physics relies at least to some extent on empiricism. If there are no empirical reasons to think that one isn't creating an arbitrary math, no knowledge is gained. Adding "non-natural" data to the math is a dubious exercise.

No, see the statements by Jaki and others I quoted.

eud: There are scientists who believe in something supernatural or divine, and yet are employed.

Not many that claim that science points in that direction. And ones that do, don't last long as shown in a couple of books and films that document that fact.

eud: Of the rest, there are far better reasons to reject the supernatural than mere employment issues.

Yes, a large number reject it for more personal reasons such as not wanting to be held accountable for how they spend their time and their sex lives.

eud: It doesn't mean that we can, either. That is just the Argument from Ignorance, which is pretty much what your entire arguments rests on.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, it is actually an argument from knowledge, we know that effects require causes.

 

[Ed1wolf]

@Ed1wolf
Nothing what you said make any sense and just makes it more confusing then necessarily.

Ask me a question about anything you don't understand and I will be happy to explain it to you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, a large number reject it for more personal reasons such as not wanting to be held accountable for how they spend their time and their sex lives.

Citation needed. I'm sure that you must have a study that shows this, and you aren't just inventing this from your imagination.

If you are just trying to be snarky, well done.

No, it is actually an argument from knowledge, we know that effects require causes.

That's just a matter of definition.

By definition effects are the results of causes. This is not knowledge in and of itself. It begs the question of just what is an effect or a cause in a particular case. That is where knowledge comes in -- identifying effects and causes.

For instance, according to the quote you have provided, the GIT only implies that an extracosmic cause of our cosmos isn't going to be provably inconsistent with any consistent mathematics of the physics of the cosmos. It doesn't show that there is an extracomic cause of our cosmos. It is an argument from ignorance to conclude that there is one using the GIT.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because there is strong evidence that the mind can operate according to the laws of logic, physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics. IOW if the mind is entirely physical then all your conclusions are just based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain not on the weighing of evidence and argument.

tm: This makes no sense at all.
The brain is what you do your thinking with.
"weighing of evidence and argument" clearly is underpinned by physical processes in the physical brain.

No, if the mind is purely physically based then it is just chemical reactions, right? And Chemistry 101 tells us that the product of a chemical reaction is determined by ratio of the reagents in the reaction. Therefore, the mind cannot actually weigh arguments or evidence, it is just an illusion of the predetermined chemical processes.

ed: Your entire argument is self refuted if the mind is purely physical.

tm: It is not.

Yes, because your belief in a physical mind is just based on the chemical makeup of your brain and not based on any consideration of evidence but rather predetermined at birth by your brain chemistry.

ed: Your conclusion is just based on the ratio of chemical reagents in your brain, NOT on the consideration and weighing of evidence and argument.

tm: False.
The physical processes in the brain are the physical underpinnings of how you weigh evidence and argument.

How does a chemical reaction produce a product WITHOUT being based on the ratio of the reagents
in the reaction?

tm: Just like how the molecular sturcture and contractions of your biceps are the physical underpinnings of how you lift your arm.

But your arm can't reason so there is no problem there. We are talking about logical reasoning compared to chemical reactions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, if the mind is purely physically based then it is just chemical reactions, right?

The underlying process is physical, yes. Bio-chemistry, to be exact.
Just like the underlying process of an AI engine is "just" the processing of 1s and 0s.

And Chemistry 101 tells us that the product of a chemical reaction is determined by ratio of the reagents in the reaction. Therefore, the mind cannot actually weigh arguments or evidence, it is just an illusion of the predetermined chemical processes.

You should read up on neurology and neural networks.

Yes, because your belief in a physical mind is just based on the chemical makeup of your brain and not based on any consideration of evidence but rather predetermined at birth by your brain chemistry.

Your entire argument smells like a species of genetic fallacy.

How does a chemical reaction produce a product WITHOUT being based on the ratio of the reagents in the reaction?

You are confusing a function of the brain, with physical output of a chemical reaction.

But your arm can't reason so there is no problem there. We are talking about logical reasoning compared to chemical reactions.

Here's a simple question: do you accept that your brain is where your reasoning/thinking happens?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because there is strong evidence that the mind can operate according to the laws of logic, physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics.

eud: That makes no sense to me whatsoever in terms of your position. I thought it was your position that the "laws of logic" apply to the natural universe. In post 121, you had claimed that "causality is a law of logic".

I am talking about how the mind works now, not the universe. The universe operates logically but it cannot reason logically. If your mind is totally physical then it cannot truly reason. Its conclusions are determined by the chemical reactions in your brain not logical reasoning.

ed: IOW if the mind is entirely physical then all your conclusions are just based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain not on the weighing of evidence and argument.

eud: I have no reason to think that a biochemical brain can't weigh evidence and argument. A brain isn't just a soup in which only some "ratio of chemicals" matters in the same way that a "ratio of meat to vegetables" matters in a can of soup at the supermarket. Brains are quite a bit more complex than that.

No, we are talking about the basic laws of chemistry. We know from Chemistry 101 that the products of chemical reactions are determined by the ratio of the reagents. So if the mind is entirely physical then its conclusions are based on those reactions, which cannot weigh evidence and arguments.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Source? And I don't mean a source for cosmologists who believe that the universe started with a Big Bang. I mean for that part in bold above.

I have never heard cosmologists talk about how "the universe has all the characteristics of an effect", as if that was some big issue in cosmology. That seems to be your claim, and of course that of some Christian apologists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Huh? The whole field of Cosmogony is based on that assumption.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I can't find it.



I can't read Dr. Goldsmith's own words on the subject in context, so I'm left without any way to continue with that line of conversation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Most all cosmologists that engage in the study of cosmogony believe it is an effect.