Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Biblical Miracles

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    robindch wrote: »
    Uh, I'm not sure if you had time to read my previous post. You said:In philosophy and logic, the assumption that the universe contains "purpose" is called the "teleological fallacy". Definitions of it usually include descriptions of the kinds of hopeless knots people tie themselves into when they make -- as you do -- the false assumption of "purpose".

    Redefining the fallacy as something else is a bit silly :confused:

    /shrugs

    Defining the statement that "man has purpose" as a teleological fallacy is an atheist argument. The question "does the universe have purpose" is similar to the question "does God exist" in that there is no right or wrong answer, just speculation. The responses to the question in the below article show the range of opinions on the question.

    http://www.templeton.org/purpose/pdfs/bq_universe.pdf

    My statement "if we humans are the products of nature and have purpose" is an opinion i.e. my personal speculation. The question comes down to the issue of free will, if man has no purpose then man has no free will. I happen to belive man has free will based on my view of our reality. The fact that you do not share my view does not make it wrong, there is no agreed view of reality.


  • Options
    #273
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    nagirrac wrote: »
    My statement "if we humans are the products of nature and have purpose" is an opinion i.e. my personal speculation. The question comes down to the issue of free will, if man has no purpose then man has no free will. I happen to belive man has free will based on my view of our reality. The fact that you do not share my view does not make it wrong, there is no agreed view of reality.

    How have you reached this conclusion?


  • Options
    #274
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    nagirrac wrote: »
    if man has no purpose then man has no free will.

    Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

    Surely it's the opposite. If man had a purpose, we would be compelled to move towards the fulfilment of that purpose without regard to our will. If we have no purpose we are free to act as we please, no?


  • Options
    #275
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    If he has a "very good" point then it should be relatively easy for you to explain it here. Sending people to other websites instead of posting a point or evidence yourself is considered bad form in this forum, right up there with saying "Just Google it" when asked to present evidence.

    What was his point and how does it support your arguments.

    Henry Stapp's theory of consciousness (my summary, I would recommend actually listening to him)

    The material world does not consist of material particles as described by Newton classical mechanics. According to QM the world consists of objective tendancies or potentialities that can result in physical matter.
    There are two fundamental aspects of nature
    1) the mathematically described set of tendancies or potentialities (part of QM)
    2) a psychologoical aspect (the observer) which is defined as an increment of knowledge (also part of QM)
    For an event to happen, you need the conscious intervention of the psychological agent. Consciousness is not part of the physical universe, it is part of the process that creates the physical universe as we observe it.
    This interpretation of QM has never been disconfirmed. It is important to note that this view of reality is not Cartesian dualism.

    The attached paper explains the theory in much more detail

    http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/QID.pdf


  • Options
    #276
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Galvasean wrote: »
    How have you reached this conclusion?

    Badly I would imagine ...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Galvasean wrote: »
    How have you reached this conclusion?

    If consciousness emerges from the brain then man has no free will, free will can only be an illusion. See attached paper by Henry Stapp on consciousness in my earlier post.


  • Options
    #278
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

    Surely it's the opposite. If man had a purpose, we would be compelled to move towards the fulfilment of that purpose without regard to our will. If we have no purpose we are free to act as we please, no?

    No, if consciousness emerges from the brain then free will can only be an illusion.


  • Options
    #279
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    mickrock wrote: »
    I don't propose any attributes.

    All design is the result of intelligence so it's reasonable to infer that the design in life forms is no different. Occam's razor would apply.

    I beg to differ.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtoZf_KfKLI


  • Options
    #280
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    nagirrac wrote: »
    If consciousness emerges from the brain then man has no free will, free will can only be an illusion. See attached paper by Henry Stapp on consciousness in my earlier post.

    I read that as Henry Strap-on. Sorry, continue.


  • Options
    #281
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    If consciousness emerges from the brain then man has no free will, free will can only be an illusion. See attached paper by Henry Stapp on consciousness in my earlier post.
    Well assuming this silly argument holds, so what?

    Why can't that be an option? Why should we assume a purpose in necessary?
    Claiming that one is without any justificiation is a violation of Occam's razor.

    If you are arguing that you think we do have free will because you prefer to thing we do, you are using yet another fallacious argument that you should know is crap and dishonest if you actually knew anything about science.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    For an event to happen, you need the conscious intervention of the psychological agent. Consciousness is not part of the physical universe, it is part of the process that creates the physical universe as we observe it.
    This interpretation of QM has never been disconfirmed.

    It doesn't need to be disconfirmed, there is no evidence it is true. As Roger Penbrose pointed out it can't be the human mind that causes the collapse of the wave function because without this collapse the human mind would never have evolved in the first place

    We note for example that the evolution of conscious life on this planet is due to appropriate mutations having taken place at various times. These, presumably, are quantum events, so they would exist only in linearly superposed form until they finally led to the evolution of a conscious being—whose very existence depends on all the right mutations having 'actually' taken place

    http://books.google.ie/books?id=0mVEBJ34v9EC&pg=PA381

    So then people propose a universal mind, but why? Proposing that consciousness is necessary at all has no basis in theory or experiment.

    It is simply an untestable guess, a form philosophical masturbation (umm, wouldn't it be crazy if X was true...), a guess that you seem to take way to seriously. It is not evidence for anything.


  • Options
    #283
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    No, if consciousness emerges from the brain then free will can only be an illusion.

    Define "free will".


  • Options
    #284
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    nagirrac wrote: »
    No, if consciousness emerges from the brain then free will can only be an illusion.

    So basically you're saying that we have no free will because our brains control us (which they do I might ad)?


  • Options
    #285
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Galvasean wrote: »
    So basically you're saying that we have no free will because our brains control us (which they do I might ad)?

    As Robin would no doubt point out if he was here, any debate on free will ultimately ends up at the point where such a concept is not defined well enough to actually have any meaning.


  • Options
    #286
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I think you may have apoint there Zombrex. I may well call it a night while my hair remains intact.


  • Options
    #287
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Define "free will".

    conscious free will


  • Options
    #288
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    conscious free will

    What does that mean? What is the alternative? You say we don't have it, what is "it"? Contrast a universe with free will and a universe without free will, what is the difference? How would we know we did or didn't have free will?


  • Options
    #289
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Philosophy students LOL


  • Options
    #290
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Philosophy students LOL

    You got a problem with philosophy students dinoboy? :pac:


  • Options
    #291
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Also, if God is observing to universe in order for it to exist how can any particle exist in an unobserved state in lab experiments? Surely if there was a universal observer we would never be able to produce an unobserved particle?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Magic.


  • Options
    #293
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It doesn't need to be disconfirmed, there is no evidence it is true. As Roger Penbrose pointed out it can't be the human mind that causes the collapse of the wave function because without this collapse the human mind would never have evolved in the first place


    This is very difficult area of science and the reason why we have many interpretations of QM. I would say the conscious observer effect is the least understood issue in all of science (and I struggle with it myself), and frankly I don't know how we can ever answer it as how can we remove ourselves from the "outcome?". You have to separate any QM experiment which produces a mixed state outcome from the conscious observer who determines the "actual outcome". The wave function does not need a conscious observer to collapse, that can be done in an inanimate experiment, but what it collapses to is a mixed state of possible outcomes and only a consciousness can select from them.

    There are only two realistic models, either consciousness exists as a fundamental property of reality or you have to accept the many worlds theory.. or maybe both exist. The only conclusion I can come to from everything I have read is that an independent reality can only exist if you have some kind of consciousness present.

    The only way I can translate the above into a laymans model that makes sense to me is that there is a quantum soup (the quantum vacuum from which all the material universe emerges) with all possible realities and a universal mind (God) that creates realities from the soup. Our brains allow us tune into one version of that reality and experience the material world we see around us.
    Thats my worldview, sorry if it sounds mystical.


  • Options
    #294
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Also, if God is observing to universe in order for it to exist how can any particle exist in an unobserved state in lab experiments? Surely if there was a universal observer we would never be able to produce an unobserved particle?

    Nagirrac has a point really. I didn't think "we" could produce an unobserved particle. The clue being somewhat in the word "we". But I'm not a quantum physicist, so I know next to nothing about it :o


  • Options
    #295
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Obliq wrote: »
    Nagirrac has a point really. I didn't think "we" could produce an unobserved particle. The clue being somewhat in the word "we". But I'm not a quantum physicist, so I know next to nothing about it :o

    Sorry, all, if this is a stupid question, but how would one know if an unobserved particle as been produced? Sure, we would need to observe it, to know it has actually been produced...? :confused:


  • Options
    #296
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    pauldla wrote: »
    Sorry, all, if this is a stupid question, but how would one know if an unobserved particle as been produced? Sure, we would need to observe it, to know it has actually been produced...? :confused:

    Exactly! And I hope it's not a stupid question too because you just put it more clearly than I did :o Well, of course it is instruments that are doing the measuring of particles being in one place, or another, or multiple places - but we made the instruments, and they can only measure what we have the capability to build it to measure, and what we have the imagination to ask of the experiment.


  • Options
    #297
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Obliq wrote: »
    Exactly! And I hope it's not a stupid question too because you just put it more clearly than I did :o Well, of course it is instruments that are doing the measuring of particles being in one place, or another, or multiple places - but we made the instruments, and they can only measure what we have the capability to build it to measure, and what we have the imagination to ask of the experiment.

    Afaik the great Irishman John Bell provided a solution to this by looking at the statistical distribution of particles. Not an expert in his experiment, but from what I read it provides evidence that the particles actual are in this wave form state, something that should be impossible is the universe is being constantly "observed", what ever that means.


  • Options
    #298
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Afaik the great Irishman John Bell provided a solution to this by looking at the statistical distribution of particles. Not an expert in his experiment, but from what I read it provides evidence that the particles actual are in this wave form state.

    Yes, I'm sure you're right - but what I mean to say is that the breadth of our human imagination (or at least our ability to access and use those parts of conciousness that we knowingly can) limits the experiment to human experience. There has to be so much more going on that can't be proven because we don't know how to look. If we could build a mechanism to measure something we can't imagine yet, we would right? But afaik, we can't!


  • Options
    #299
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    nagirrac wrote: »
    No, if consciousness emerges from the brain then free will can only be an illusion.

    That's not an explanation. An explanation would define consciousness, free will and how it's an illusion. When you get around to doing that, I'll be able to reply.


  • Options
    #300
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    King Mob wrote: »
    You got a problem with philosophy students dinoboy? :pac:

    Yes I do and I would challenge you to a fist fight over it were it not for my tiny little srms.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nagirrac wrote: »
    [...] quantum soup [...]
    I entirely accept the point you're making, but at the same time, the observer effect also affects the intentions, as as as obviously the actions, of the observer him/herself, since a conscious observer who's conscious of the various effects of non-locality, would necessarily influence the object of the observation.

    So if the observer's wave function collapses as a direct or indirect result of the intention of the observer to observe whatever's being observed, then doesn't it make sense to think of this as a collapse of the possibility of intention, and therefore a teleological aspect to the entire observation itself? From this perspective, it seems that QM and teleology are not so much at odds with each other, but operating within entirely separate spheres of influence and each one requiring its own distinct outcome, but nonetheless, still entangled at the QM level.

    I'm not sure that I'm explaining this very clearly, but I hope you get where I'm going on this.


Advertisement