Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

There is a bill for Alan Guth’s free lunch after all

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “Existence: Why is there a universe?” (New Scientist, 26 July 2011), Amanda Gefter asks,

Might something similar account for the origin of the universe itself? Quite plausibly, says Wilczek. “There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter,” he says. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.

This, of course, raises the question of what came before the big bang, and how long it lasted. Unfortunately at this point basic ideas begin to fail us; the concept “before” becomes meaningless. In the words of Stephen Hawking, it’s like asking what is north of the north pole.

Even so, there is an even more mind-blowing consequence of the idea that something can come from nothing: perhaps nothingness itself cannot exist.

Indeed, she quotes cosmologist Alan Guth, “Maybe a better way of saying it is that something is nothing.” And yet, Gefter asks,

None of this really gets us off the hook, however. Our understanding of creation relies on the validity of the laws of physics, particularly quantum uncertainty. But that implies that the laws of physics were somehow encoded into the fabric of our universe before it existed. How can physical laws exist outside of space and time and without a cause of their own?

At this point, a waiter discreetly approaches with a narrow, classy black folder with a single piece of paper inside, bypasses Gefter and offers it to Guth …

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
BA, I agree that debating theology is a waste of time 95% of the time, except on the internet when it's 100%. So I'll just be quiet now. I'll try to stick to the ID and darwinism where it's not so irreverent to have fun with it.ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Scott, so your concerns are Theological once again? Well, if you want to argue theology that is all fine and well, but once again I point out that I am primarily concerned with, and defending, the fact that there is a stunning correlation between what we mathematically know will happen at the speed of light, with Special Relativity, and with what people consistently report in their Judeo-Christian NDE's. If you have any objections to the actual physics, as to their not being an accurate description of reality, then, as far as the science is concerned, you will have a legitimate objection to the point I have made. For me Theological arguments are quickly lost in personal prejudices that is why, from the outset, have made clear the point I am defending is a scientific point of physics conforming to NDE's, NOT a theological point of whether NDE's conform to scripture! It is just much easier to defend reality with actual evidence from physics, than it is to defend a theological point of view that is much more subtle to discern.bornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Nine, actually, but one was different.ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
BA, I actually watched the Traveling at the Speed of Light video. (That's all I really have say about it.) But what does the world folding and collapsing on itself have to do with people dying? Assuming these people were floating off to heaven, why would they see an artist's conception of infinity or a depiction of space collapsing? It's interesting that Barbara Springer interpreted her vision as being of heaven. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Bible and I have beliefs based on what one person says that another person saw in a vision. But these experiences are anecdotal. There were eight resurrections recorded in the Bible, and not one mention of lights or tunnels.ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Scott, the passage you quoted is referring to what we know directly from Special Relativity itself of a 'higher dimensional folding in' of time, plus not only does special relativity reveal a higher dimensional 'folding in of time' to us, but special relativity also reveals a 'higher dimensional folding in of space'! Scott, Please note the optical effect at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ Here is the interactive website (with link to the math) related to the preceding video (the video was done by two professors of Physics); Seeing Relativity http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/ OK Scott now please note 'the tunnel' reported in NDE's; The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) And once again Scott I point out, 'the tunnel' is a consistent and common feature of Judeo-Christian NDE's Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ Thus Scott, once again I say, you can write this all off as hallucination if you want, but as for myself, I am seriously impressed!bornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
I won't beat it to death. I have no objection based on physics. But one more question: :) eternity is not so much a ‘really, really long time’ as it is a ‘folding in of the past and the future into now’; i.e. it is a ‘higher dimensional time’; This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. Is that what they said when they woke up?ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
As well Scott, eternity is not so much a 'really, really long time' as it is a 'folding in of the past and the future into now'; i.e. it is a 'higher dimensional time'; This higher dimension, 'eternal', inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not 'frozen within time' yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 and yet even this 'esoteric' point of the higher dimensional 'folding in' of time is captured in NDE testimonies; When you die, everything stops and you enter eternity. It is like finally getting to the nanosecond, where time stops. Like a watch, our body stops at that time. Yet our spirit and consciousness continue to live on in a dimension beyond sequential time. We go beyond nanoseconds into a space-time measurement we cannot know here on Earth. It is the eternal now where past, present, and future are all merged into one. Eternity is the present, the now that never ends.' - NDE testimony Scott, you can write it off to hallucinations if you want, but, as for myself, I am seriously impressed by the congruence!bornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Well Scott, as I said, for me the 'proof' comes from the contrasted a-prioris of materialism and Theism,, i.e. from what the physics of reality itself is telling me is plausible. I simply see no reason why physical reality itself would preclude these testimonies from being genuine. For me this is very strange to find that physical reality would be structured so as to be in congruence! Thus if you have an objection from physics, I will consider it, but if you, like mung, are mainly concerned with personal theological objections, then I feel the objection simply misses the deep and profound mystery as to why this congruence between physical reality and the NDE testimonies should even exist in the first place.bornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
BA, What's odd to me is that if what they actually did experience eternity, how would they know to call it that? Wouldn't they just say, 'I experienced something really weird, I wonder what it was?' Eternity is rather precise. It's as if they had said that during their NDE they moved exactly at the speed of light. How do they know whether it was eternity or just a really long time? It's not my intention to mock it. But people can have very similar experiences from similar trauma. Take sleep paralysis. Each person will swear that they were paralyzed. The experience is terrifying, real, and accompanied by nightmares that seem more like waking hallucinations. Google "sleep paralysis demon possession" and you'll see that many people draw the same conclusion. But it's really just something that goes wrong in the wiring.ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Well Scott, I'm sorry to make you think it was only 'one' report,,, people testifying to a drastic 'restructuring of time', into eternity, is one of the most commonly reported things that happen to people who have a Near Death Experience: The NDE and Time - Kevin Williams' research conclusions http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research13.html And though I have several gripes about some of the 'looseness' in NDE studies, for me the completely surprising, and compelling, thing for 'eternity' is how this all lines up with what know to be true for Special Relativity. i.e. from a-priori atheistic materialistic perspectives, there is absolutely no reason to expect such congruence, but yet once again Theism finds strong congruence.bornagain77
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
BA: I cited testimony from a Near Death Experiencer and a researcher that testified to ‘entering’ eternity is a common feature upon death How does one report in the past tense on having entered eternity? How do they know it was eternity? Maybe they just didn't give it enough time.ScottAndrews
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
vjtorley:
I’ve had a bit more time to review your objection to J.R. Lucas’s mathematical arguments against identifying minds with machines. The crucial premise which you object to is Lucas’s claim that the brain is a concrete instantiation of a formal system.
Did Lucas claim that?Mung
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
vjtorley: I have bookmarked this thread, and will try to get back to your interesting responses later. In case the thread has been locked by then, I invite you to discuss at my new blog (which is not designed to poach traffic from UD, but, in part, to collect its trash ;) - or at least to provide a retirement home for topics who can't cope with the frenetic pace of UD news.... http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/ Just let me know if you want to post an OP. I plan to do one on the Mind/Body problem in the near future anyway.Elizabeth Liddle
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: I've had a bit more time to review your objection to J.R. Lucas's mathematical arguments against identifying minds with machines. The crucial premise which you object to is Lucas's claim that the brain is a concrete instantiation of a formal system. I think the point Lucas is making here is that he's trying to be as generous as possible to his material opponent. If the brain is anything less than a concrete instantiation of a formal system, then its reliability is automatically undermined: brain chemistry alone (i.e. material as opposed to formal properties) may dictate some of the "conclusions" it reaches, in certain circumstances - e.g. when it succumbs to an overpowering craving. The point of Lucas's argument is that even if we make the generous assumption that the brain functions like a computer at all times (which it almost certainly doesn't), it will still be vulnerable to Godel-type arguments. Feedback loops won't help the brain either. For even if it has feedback loops galore, there will still be formulae that we can construct which elude the brain's ability to assess as true, at any given time. Moreover, in his essay, Lucas seems to anticipate the kind of objection you raise when he writes:
A second objection will now be made. The procedure whereby the Godelian formula is constructed is a standard procedure - only so could we be sure that a Godelian formula can be constructed for every formal system. But if it is a standard procedure, then a machine should be able to be programmed to carry it out too. We could construct a machine with the usual operations, and in addition an operation of going through the Godel procedure, and then producing the conclusion of that procedure as being true; and then repeating the procedure, and so on, as often as required. This would correspond to having a system with an additional rule of inference which allowed one to add, as a theorem, the Godelian formula of the rest of the formal system, and then the Godelian formula of this new, strengthened formal system, and so on. It would be tantamount to adding to the original formal system an infinite sequence of axioms, each the Godelian formula of the system hitherto obtained. Yet even so, the matter is not settled: for the machine with a Godelizing operator, as we might call it, is a different machine from the machines without such an operator; and, although the machine with the operator would be able to do those things in which the machines without the operator were outclassed by a mind, yet we might expect a mind, faced with a machine that possessed a Godelizing operator, to take this into account, and out-Godel the new machine, Godelizing operator and all. This has, in fact, proved to be the case. Even if we adjoin to a formal system the infinite set of axioms consisting of the successive Godelian formulae, the resulting system is still incomplete, and contains a formula which cannot be proved-in-the-system, although a rational being can, standing outside the system, see that it is true. We had expected this, for even if an infinite set of axioms were added, they would have to be specified by some finite rule or specification, and this further rule or specification could then be taken into account by a mind considering the enlarged formal system. In a sense, just because the mind has the last word, it can always pick a hole in any formal system presented to it as a model of its own workings. The mechanical model must be, in some sense, finite and definite: and then the mind can always go one better. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Lucas continues:
This is the answer to one objection put forward by Turing. He argues that the limitation to the powers of a machine do not amount to anything much. Although each individual machine is incapable of getting the right answer to some questions, after all each individual human being is fallible also: and in any case "our superiority can only be felt on such an occasion in relation to the one machine over which we have scored our petty triumph. There would be no question of triumphing simultaneously over all machines." But this is not the point... What is at issue is not the unequal contest between one mind and all machines, but whether there could be any, single, machine that could do all a mind can do. For the mechanist thesis to hold water, it must be possible, in principle, to produce a model, a single model, which can do everything the mind can do. It is like a game. The mechanist has first turn. He produces a - any, but only a definite one - mechanical model of the mind. I point to something that it cannot do, but the mind can. The mechanist is free to modify his example, but each time he does so, I am entitled to look for defects in the revised model. If the mechanist can devise a model that I cannot find fault with, his thesis is established: if he cannot, then it is not proven: and since - as it turns out - he necessarily cannot, it is refuted. To succeed, he must be able to produce some definite mechanical model of the mind - anyone he likes, but one he can specify, and will stick to. But since he cannot, in principle cannot, produce any mechanical model that is adequate, even though the point of failure is a minor one, he is bound to fail, and mechanism must be false. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
I think the ball is in the materialist's court.vjtorley
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
Mung, that is all theology, and while that is certainly important in its own right, I'm not concerned with a theological argument right now,,, I am first and foremost concerned about physical reality and how it conforms to such a 'eternal' view and the scientific plausibility of such a view that a 'soul' might enter therein. and I believe I have made a fairly coherent case evidence-wise in that regards. i.e. other than your personal theological concerns, why do you think it is implausible as far as physics of reality is concerned? I certainly think the physics of reality provides all the necessary elements for 'eternal' life.bornagain77
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
John 3:36 John 5:24 John 6:47-51 John 8:51 John 11:26 The myth is that physical death is the way to enter life. If you don't have eternal life now, you're not going to gain it just because you pass away.Mung
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
mung you state entering eternity is a myth, yet you cite no evidence, whereas I cited Einstein's special theory of relativity to show that 'eternity' is a physical reality, and I cited testimony from a Near Death Experiencer and a researcher that testified to 'entering' eternity is a common feature upon death, as well I cited the fact that quantum information cannot be destroyed and that our bodies have quantum information residing in them on a massive scale. Thus I have definitely provided sufficient evidence for the physical reality of 'eternity' as well as evidence for plausibility of us entering it, Whereas you have not shown any reason why it should be considered implausible as far as the physics is concerned.bornagain77
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Mung: we are, I assume,talking about whether mind is independent of brain. If not, then I don’t know what we are talking about.
I'm talking about J.R. Lucas’s mathematical arguments against identifying minds with machines, of course. But since you seem to be talking about something else entirely, I'm really not interested, so I'll let you and vjt hash it out. cheersMung
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
When you die, you enter eternity.
This is a myth.Mung
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Elizabeth (#24) Thank you as always for a thought-provoking response. I'd like to begin with an observation on beliefs made by Aristotle in his De Anima, Book III, chapter 3: that we are capable of being persuaded of their truth by the use of reason, and that this rational persuasion can make us convinced that they are true. I think this is an important point, because the examples you provided in your last post lacked these distinguishing features. You wrote about delusions. Following Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, who has done a lot of valuable work on obsessive compulsive disorder, I would suggest that a delusion is simply a false message from the brain. Although it may be said to have a propositional content of sorts, it does not qualify as a rational thought. Where rationality enters the picture is when we respond to that delusion. Schwartz has designed a four-step procedure for treatment of OCD. I don't want to generalize by claiming that his treatment would work for all kinds of delusions; my purpose here is simply to show that the way in which we can deal with some delusions illustrates how they differ from beliefs. The four steps in Schwartz's procedure for treating OCD are as follows: Step 1: Relabel Call an obsessive thought or compulsive urge what it really is: a false message from the brain. Step 2: Reattribute "It's not me - it's my OCD." Reattribute the intensity of the thought or urge to its real cause, to recognize that the feeling and the discomfort are due to a biochemical imbalance in the brain. It is OCD - a medical condition. Step 3: Refocus In Refocusing, the idea is to work around the OCD thoughts and urges by shifting attention to something else, if only for a few minutes. Early on, you may choose some specific behavior to replace compulsive washing or checking. You learn that even though the OCD feeling is there, it doesn't have to control what you do. You make the decision about what you're going to do, rather than respond to OCD thoughts and urges as a robot would. By refocusing, you reclaim your decision-making power. Step 4: Revalue Revalue those thoughts and urges that, before behavior therapy, would invariably lead you to perform compulsive behaviors. After adequate training in the first three steps, you are able in time to place a much lower value on the OCD thoughts and urges. In this step, you learn to become an impartial spectator or a disinterested observer: you learn to witness your own actions and feelings as someone not involved. People with OCD must strive to maintain awareness of the Impartial Spectator, the observing power within that gives you the capacity to fend off pathological urges until they begin to fade. To sum up: I would suggest that delusions are not beliefs, even though they possess a content. It is when we critically evaluate our delusions that we learn to acquire true beliefs. In case you think I have been focusing too much on one disorder (OCD), let me cite the example of mathematician John Nash, the subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind. This is what he said in an interview, on hearing voices:
Initially I did not hear any voices. Some years went by before I heard voices and - I became first disturbed in 1959, and I didn't hear voices until the summer of 1964 I think, but then after that, I heard voices, and then I began arguing with the concept of the voices. And ultimately I began rejecting them and deciding not to listen, and, of course, my son has been hearing voices, and if he can progress to the state of rejecting them, he can maybe come out of his mental illness. The consequence of rejecting the voices is ultimately not hearing the voices. You're really talking to yourself is what the voices are, but it's also parallel to a dream. In a dream it's typical not to be rational. I had some philosophical ideas that were involved. I found myself thinking in political terms, but then I found myself able to criticize this thinking - that it wasn't very valuable to think in political terms. Even now, I sometimes have a new realization that it can be not so good to think in political terms about some of the current issues. One can leave that to others. So in rejecting some of the political ideas, that had a relation to the voices, so I could think of a voice maybe as presenting what was analogous to a political argument, and then I could say, I don't want to listen to that. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Regarding my remarks on drunkenness: I would certainly agree with your assertion that the condition can interfere with behavior inhibition by deactivating the frontal cortex. Behavior inhibition is a certainly higher-level mental activity, as you rightly point out - although I would add that it presupposes an ability on our part to remember and closely monitor our actions, and compare them to normal responses in those circumstances, which one has learned from regular interactions with others. This is what the frontal cortex does; the task of unembodied reason is to critically evaluate the appropriateness of the action one is about to perform, and decide to halt the action is it is deemed inappropriate. My example with the drunk concerned a person performing a cognitive task. I had in mind something like an act of mental multiplication, which I happen to be good at. Alcohol can certainly impair this ability, and I put this down to its interference with the brain's ability to retrieve memories, hold information in short-term memory, form associations between memories, and execute mechanical steps in a sequence. These tasks I would describe as "lower-level" tasks, relative to the higher-level executive activity of managing the entire process, shepherding it towards the goal of arriving at the right answer. The distinction between "higher" and "lower" which I am proposing is a context-sensitive one. Thus in the context of behavioral inhibition, the activity of the frontal cortex is "high-level" relative to the regions which feed into it, but "low-level" relative to the unembodied task of critical evaluation which reason performs after the frontal cortex detects a sequence of behavior which is abnormal in a specific context. Regarding your comments on J.R. Lucas' paper on Godel: I'm quite sure that his model of the brain is a relatively simplified one (he wrote his paper a few decades ago). However, I'm not at all persuaded that feedback loops and oscillations can account for the mind's ability to recognize as true certain propositions which machines cannot. It seems to me that all Lucas is saying, in the quote you cite, is that the brain operates in a deterministic fashion when it produces its output. And whether you want to add in recursive loops or not, you would surely agree, as a materialist, that for a given input acting on the brain when it is in a given state, there can only be one output. In that sense, you would hold that the brain is a machine. You might want to add that the brain's output can itself serve as subsequent input, but it seems to me that all you are saying here is that it alters the subsequent state of the brain, from S1 to S2. The point is that when a new input come along, the brain may no longer be the same as it was before, but it will still process information deterministically. In that sense, it is still a machine in Lucas's sense, if materialism is correct. So I would say that his argument is a valid reductio ad absurdum. That's all for now - I'll be back later.vjtorley
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
as well; Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility S. Hagan,1 S. R. Hameroff,2 and J. A. Tuszyn´ski3 http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/decoherence.pdfbornagain77
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
It is also interesting to note that quantum information/entanglement is also found to be necessary for Smelling, Hearing, and Vision; Quantum explanation for how we smell gets new support - March 2011 Excerpt: According to Turin’s theory, the additional criteria are the vibrational frequencies of odorant molecules. A molecule’s vibrational frequency can cause electrons in the nasal receptors to tunnel between two energy states if the vibrational frequency matches the energy difference of the two states. Tunneling is a quantum mechanical phenomenon, since the electrons do not have enough energy to move between the two states by classical means. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-explanation.html Quantum Noise and the Threshold of Hearing Excerpt: We argue that the sensitivity of the ear reaches a limit imposed by the uncertainty principle. This is possible only if the receptor cell holds the detector elements in a special nonequilibrium state which has the same noise characteristics as a ground (T=0 K) state. To accomplish this "active cooling" the molecular dynamics of the system must maintain quantum mechanical coherence over the time scale of the measurement. http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v54/i7/p725_1 QUANTUM COHERENCE AND THE RETINA - April 2011 http://www.ghuth.com/2011/04/24/quantum-coherence-and-the-retina/ ,,which fits very well with this "anomaly",, Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/ Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) - Pim von Lommel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/ As well, as to quantum coherence in the brain: Quantum coherence in ion channels: resonances, transport and verification - 2010 Excerpt: Ion channels are protein complexes that regulate the flow of particular ions across the cell membrane and are essential for a large range of cellular functions [19]. Besides their role in neuronal communications, in which voltage-gated channels and ligand-gated channels are involved in the generation of action potentials and mediating synaptic release, more generally ion channels play a key role in processes that rely on fast responses on the bio-molecular scale. Examples include muscle contraction, epithelial transport and T-cell activation [19, 20],,, A closer look at the involved dimensions and energetics of the process reveals that the underlying mechanism for ion transmission and selectivity might not be entirely classical. http://www.vaziria.com/pdf/Quantum%20Resonances%20in%20ion%20channels.pdfbornagain77
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
As to the evidence man is now shown to have a soul (and mind). It is now found that quantum information resides on a massive scale in molecular biology,,, Quantum Information In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ ,,, Yet quantum information cannot be destroyed,,, Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - March 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html ,,,Thus upon death the quantum information that resides in the body must continue on somewhere in the 'universe' once it is 'decoupled' from the body. And indeed there is fairly strong evidence that upon death the highest level of functional quantum information in the body leaves the body suddenly,,, The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings ,,, Well where does this highest level of functional quantum information go??? Well, we now also have fairly strong evidence to show that there is a 'transition' to a eternal realm for the 'soul' of man,,,: "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Experimental confirmation of Time Dilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation It is very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies: 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony 'When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.' Dr. Ken Ring - has extensively studied Near Death Experiences It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world 'folds and collapses' into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the 'higher dimension' of the speed of light, with the 'light at the end of the tunnel' reported in very many Near Death Experiences: Traveling At The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ Here is the interactive website (with link to the math) related to the preceding video; Seeing Relativity http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/ The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Speed Of Light - Near Death Experience Tunnel - Turin Shroud - video http://www.vimeo.com/18371644 Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/bornagain77
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Mung: we are, I assume,talking about whether mind is independent of brain. If not, then I don't know what we are talking about. But if we are, then if the argument is that the brain is a machine, and machines can't state certain things are true, but minds can, therefore minds are not brains, then it's important, I think to establish whether a brain is a machine.Elizabeth Liddle
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
But first of all, let’s see if brains are machines.
Why? He is talking about mechanical models of the mind, and talking about brains isn't going to change that. In talking about brains you're not addressing the argument.
But there is also equivocation between brains and minds. A brain is not a mind.
Right. But do you think Lucas is equivocating? It seems to me that you're the one that is trying to substitute talk of minds with talk of brains, not Lucas.Mung
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Elizabeth you ask: 'Why must you?' (as a atheist reject all claims for absolute transcendent truth?) ,,, Oh OK I see how this all works Elizabeth, as a atheist, I am now free to pick and choose, regard and disregard, whatever Theistic precepts I want, whenever I want, because,,, because??? Well by-golly just because I can do it. Man this atheist stuff is a breeze once you get the hang of it.bornagain77
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, Interesting point (I think – unless I am reading you upside down!) No, you read me right side up. I think that ID is God-friendly science, but mind/brain dualism, near-death experiences, etc. looks like anecdotes and philosophy packaged as science. I'm admittedly biased. I believe that the separation of people into material and immaterial components looks more like Greek philosophy and runs counter to the Bible. I guess that means I get to see what it looks like from the other side, when it looks like religion is getting framed as science. But ultimately, while I doubt the scientific point of view, my beliefs don't originate with science. I reject mind/brain dualism because of the Bible. Maybe I'm also not hearing it right. It sounds like everyone is hinting at the presence of an invisible spirit within people. If I'm oversimplifying, sorry, I don't mean to. (It can be really irritating when people sum up your beliefs and get them all wrong.)ScottAndrews
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
ba77, thanks but could you actually supply some kind of evidence for your actual claim, that consciousness precedes wave collapse? Even a video? I'm not at all sure what you mean.Elizabeth Liddle
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
I'm not sure that "all machines are concrete instantiations of formal systems". I'm not sure that it is true, and, if true, that it applies to brains. It's possible that brains aren't machines under that definition of a machine. But there is also equivocation between brains and minds. A brain is not a mind. But first of all, let's see if brains are machines.Elizabeth Liddle
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Why must you?Elizabeth Liddle
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply