What Richard Dawkins knows about how nothing causes something

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 11, 2013

Atheism, Culture, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Will countries with failing currencies recruit him next, one wonders?

Back to science tomorrow.

Comments

JF @ 32 Posted in wrong thread (sorry about that .... I would not intentionally interrupt a serious thread with nonsense... remark intended for the Dawkins "wonder" thread)Johnnyfarmer_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

It's visceral with you people, Mark. It's not rational at all to discount a sovereign creator, a priori. Least of all, today. And certainly not because of a monomaniacal hankering to be able to cash your 'promissory note'. As if such a hankering justified seeking its hegemony to the exclusion of higher realms of knowledge than empirical science. At least, you have tacitly responded to the imponderables associated with the non-locality of photons at the very core of physics in your statement that the beginning of everything is so utterly beyond our imagination. I believe you may be the first one to have responded at all. Durston's references to non-locality seem to have gone straight over Reynard's head. So, in effect, you are saying that YOU ARE NOT A MATERIALIST, because you are fundamentally agnostic. Be agnostic honestly, cease to argue with Creationists and IDers, and turn your guns on the materialist ostriches. Say, 'How about if we follow the logic of science, listen to what it is telling us; even about what it cannot tell us.'Axel_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

'And I gladly add my name to that list. The beginning of everything, which includes time itself, is so utterly beyond our imagination that appeals to common sense just reveal a lack of imagination.' No, Mark, in the absence of a belief in a Creator, the least modicum of common sense could prudently evoke nothing more than mute wonder. Nothing more at all. Mark, you're doing a PZ on us! '...utterly beyond our imagination'... 'just reveal a lack of imagination.' If It's utterly beyond our imagination, why venture where angels fear to tread? The mainstream religions have always taught this. It's only the folly of materialism hat has prompted often otherwise fairly sane individuals to have a mental breakdown, when the end of physics has finally gained traction, and you're all up a gum tree. It was utterly predictable that when science reached an interface with the spirit of God, its competence would cease; and was so predicted both by theism and deism - of the latter, Einstein being a prime adherent - the scientist who stated that he rated imagination higher than intelligence; something a materialist could never do, since if you are an exemplar, they would be mercifully ridiculed for failing to attach imagination to knowledge..... other, perhaps, than knowledge of nothing. You are, in effect, deploring Einstein's lack of imagination - evidently scientific imagination, to boot; which, particularly coming from a materialist, just sounds a tad anomalous. Take a look at your two references to imagination. Does a phenomenon utterly beyond our imagination really give an intelligent person 'carte blanche' to fantasize about a multiverse or as atheist school-kids put it, pink pixies and unicorns?Axel_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Exlax, eh? Well, there's an awful lot of bullsh*t that needs expelling from the brains of you dumbos, so I'll take that happily. Re your sad link, I don't argue logic with nitwits, Reynard. You should know that by now. It would make two fools when there had been only one. But you'd still beat me for downright folly, just from your 'wealth' of your experience.Axel_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Slightly OT but I hear by way of the grapevine that a movie based on Dawkin's new book is being produced with soundtrack by Stevie Wonder !!Johnnyfarmer_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

But the point I was making is that it is premature to assume protein sequence space is not rich in functional proteins.
What in the paper or anywhere led you to that conclusion?jerry_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Of the two papers, one uses the term “design” 55 times and the other 89 times. This says nothing about how rare or common these types of proteins are. But is sure does say they are intelligently designed.
I'll take your word for it about design. The word "intelligent" appears not once in either paper. But the point I was making is that it is premature to assume protein sequence space is not rich in functional proteins.Alan Fox_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

The paper, far from supporting Durston’s assertion, confirms functionality in unknown proteins.
Of the two papers, one uses the term "design" 55 times and the other 89 times. This says nothing about how rare or common these types of proteins are. But is sure does say they are intelligently designed.
jerry_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Is this this what you are talking about, Exlax?Alan Fox_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

' My first language is English English, which probably explains my inability to comprehend the irony-free rants of my rude colonial friends.' It seems you're not as green as you're cabbage-looking, Mr Fox!Axel_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Ah, your #5 is all very well, Reynauld/Reginald/Reynard, but I was referring, not to nitty-gritty bits and pieces, but to Durston's proof of theism, via the non local, i.e. super natural nature of photons.Axel_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

It's great to have it so comprehensively synthesized by you, Philip, for those apt to understand the science, and especially for technical illiterates, like me, what you are driving at metaphysically: 'Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, “Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon? John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.' So, not to detract from the value of your extraordinary overarching proofs, I would reiterate that once the absolute speed of light was verified all those years ago, theism was conclusively established, exposing atheism as 'a busted flush', (though I would designate it, 'a busted pair', Salvatore). If I'm mistaken, would someone please point out where? It's important to know, isn't it? The reality of space-time is relative, subsidiary, to that of light and its ultimate source. The speed of light has to be personalized, personally calibrated to be always be measurable by its Observer at its absolute speed. Except, mysteriously, that it would seem, rather, that, somehow, the relationship of the Observer is adapted so that light remains at its absolute speed. Reminiscent of Francis Thompson's Hound of Heaven: 'I fled Him down the nights and down the days, I fled him down the arches of the years. Also, the words forming part of a prayer in the breviary, 'Oh God, true light and creator of light...' seem to me to suggest light, as a spiritual-physical continuum.Axel_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

But seriously, Reynard, when English is not your first language, you must expect occasional lapses in comprehension. It’s not the longer words, so much as the distinctively English turns of phrase with the smaller, mostly Anglo-Saxon prepositions, conjunctions, etc, isn’t it?
It was Renard (which translates as fox in French, geddit?)! My first language is English English, which probably explains my inability to comprehend the irony-free rants of my rude colonial friends. Language is often a barrier to communication. On this site, I sometimes suspect language is intended as a barrier to communication. :)Alan Fox_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

...Durston laid it out beautifully...
Possibly. However, if you think that Durston has found an evidential flaw in the evolvability of proteins, then you are exciting yourself prematurely. Durston has said to me in a comment here
Structural domains occupy what we can refer to as clearly bounded islands in sequence space. Each domain can be regarded as a ‘fold-set’ which can actually be capable of 2 or 3 unique, distinct folds depending upon meta-stable states in folding, (itself a design masterpiece), but each island is surrounded by unstable folding space...
and goes on to quote a research paper from the Hecht Lab in support. The paper, far from supporting Durston's assertion, confirms functionality in unknown proteins. This paper, being a review paper, is even more explicit.Alan Fox_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

That chap, Durston laid it out beautifully, Philip, didn't he? Top marks for posting that link. Watch it, Alan, and it should change your life. (But it won't, we know.)Axel_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Turn down the Teletubbies, Reynard. You can't hear yourself think. Arguably a blessing, generally, but not helpful when you're trying to chew gum at the same time. But seriously, Reynard, when English is not your first language, you must expect occasional lapses in comprehension. It's not the longer words, so much as the distinctively English turns of phrase with the smaller, mostly Anglo-Saxon prepositions, conjunctions, etc, isn't it? Never mind. All come out in the wash.Axel_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." The bigger fools do it and then post it on the internet.JDH_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

What could be more foolish than to seek to enlighten putative scientific thinkers, who refuse to accept the manifest conclusions presented so unequivocally by physics and mathematics, of these cardinal truths of quantum mechanics? Trying to enlighten an audience of teletubbies aficionados? I don’t think so. It would be a no score draw.
Your point, if there is one, also eludes me, Axel.Alan Fox_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Groovamos:
OK so it seems that something scientifically measurable can be put in a glass case and said to be not constructed by humans (NCBH) – got it. Surely that something designated as THAT type of something gets some benefit from being in the display case if we are to understand. But wait – someone asks – science itself goes into which glass case? Oh- that’s the CBH case you might say, unless you happen to consult Steven Hawking – with him saying that the “laws of science” govern the universe. Dang, what a slap in the face. But what did paleontology look like to the dinosaurs someone asks? Well unfortunately for them they had to wait for humans to put them in the NCBH glass case, if we are to understand. Poor dinosaurs just could not understand their own paleontology without the humans around to put them in a glass case. They just couldn’t get the laws of that science on their own, if we are to understand.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say, here.Alan Fox_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Axel, well said!bornagain77_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

'Richard Dawkins is not alone, we also have KeithS, Dr Liddle, Alan Fox, WD400, all suffering from the same delusion that something can just magically “poof” into existence from nothing. Hell they even believe that nothing can create specified complexity! It’s true look up their responses!' We are dealing, folks, remember with a set of people who not only consider themselves competent scientists, but the only ones, as atheists, with a handle on the metaphysics underpinning science. The only trouble is that quantum physics, the ultimate paradigm, actually mathematically proven to be unimprovable, has now established beyond all peradventure, the truth of theism. This universe is subsidiary, relative to the source of an absolute reality in the form of non-local, supernatural photons, yet instead of finding this a game-changer, it has, if anything, made them more rabid than ever in their determination to push their hobby-horses of Evolution and Common Descent, and materialism, generally. Were it not for the need to fight them politically, this forum would be the most insane exercise in.. well... insanity! What could be more foolish than to seek to enlighten putative scientific thinkers, who refuse to accept the manifest conclusions presented so unequivocally by physics and mathematics, of these cardinal truths of quantum mechanics? Trying to enlighten an audience of teletubbies aficionados? I don't think so. It would be a no score draw.Axel_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Tom G., brilliant! Krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing" stays true to its theme by offering nothing by way of end notes or bibliography. Dawkins and Krauss are smart guys; they can't really believe in such nonsense. "By nothing, I don't mean nothing, I mean nothing!" I can see Dick and Larry now, laughing all the way to the bank while singing "What a bunch of simpletons" to the tune of Camptown Races.RexTugwell_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing...” (1Corinthians 2: 6...) Scientism's reached consensus... We know Nothing brought us here! It's the truth that Science teaches; We know Nothing's there to fear! We are smart and getting smarter, As our wisdom so expands! Truth's advancing.....fast approaching. Nothing's what we understand! Yes, it's all becoming clearer... Nothing really came alive! It's so simple!.... Nothing to it! Knowing Nothing has arrived! We have stared into the darkness, Through our Hubble-Eyes we've seen.... There!...No Matter!.....Nothing happens! And we all know what that means! In the Church of Scientism, We've got calculated charts; We've got measurements to prove it, And String Theories to impart! Knowing Nothing's our Foundation! Knowing Nothing sets us free! Yes, the only thing with meaning's Knowing Nothing, don't you see?Tom Graffagnino_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

And for many other examples of extreme quote mining visit: www.pandasthumb.orgJohnnyfarmer_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

OT: Quantum Computing Update: Ray Laflamme at TEDxWaterloo 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlstZ_xsTD4bornagain77_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Nothing came from something fairly simple !!! of related interested; Billy Preston "Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing.... but you gotta have something" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHEJohnnyfarmer_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox: So “nothing can create specified complexity” is either true (if you think, as I do, that it is not a scientifically measurable quantity – i. e. it is a human construct, a reification) or false if “specified complexity” can be given an operational definition, in which case it cannot indeed be “poofed”. You can live in hope that such an operational definition may emerge, one day. Me, I’m not so confident. OK so it seems that something scientifically measurable can be put in a glass case and said to be not constructed by humans (NCBH) - got it. Surely that something designated as THAT type of something gets some benefit from being in the display case if we are to understand. But wait - someone asks - science itself goes into which glass case? Oh- that's the CBH case you might say, unless you happen to consult Steven Hawking - with him saying that the "laws of science" govern the universe. Dang, what a slap in the face. But what did paleontology look like to the dinosaurs someone asks? Well unfortunately for them they had to wait for humans to put them in the NCBH glass case, if we are to understand. Poor dinosaurs just could not understand their own paleontology without the humans around to put them in a glass case. They just couldn't get the laws of that science on their own, if we are to understand.groovamos_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

In regards to the November 2011 paper which found the wavefunction to Be Real Physical Entity, it turns out the actions of the infinite dimensional wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics is even more 'unlimited', in regards to time and space than what they had assumed in that paper: Qubits that never interact could exhibit past-future entanglement - July 30, 2012 Excerpt: Typically, for two particles to become entangled, they must first physically interact. Then when the particles are physically separated and still share the same quantum state, they are considered to be entangled. But in a new study, physicists have investigated a new twist on entanglement in which two qubits become entangled with each other even though they never physically interact.,, In the current study, the physicists have proposed an experiment based on circuit quantum electrodynamics (QED) that is fully within reach of current technologies. They describe a set-up that involves a pair of superconducting qubits, P and F, with qubit P connected to a quantum field vacuum by a transmission line. During the first time interval, which the scientists call the past, P interacts with the field. Then P is quickly decoupled from the field for the second time interval. Finally, F is coupled to the field for a time interval called the future. Even though P and F never interact with the field at the same time or with each other at all, F’s interactions with the field cause it to become entangled with P. The physicists call this correlation “past-future entanglement.” http://phys.org/news/2012-07-qubits-interact-past-future-entanglement.htmlbornagain77_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

footnote: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner's Friend – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qCTBygadaM4#t=510sbornagain77_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiments and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities, in quantum mechanics, particularly incongruities with quantum entanglement, that arose from a purely statistical interpretation of the wave function.
Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011 Excerpt: Action at a distance occurs when pairs of quantum particles interact in such a way that they become entangled. But the new paper, by a trio of physicists led by Matthew Pusey at Imperial College London, presents a theorem showing that if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other. As that seems very unlikely to be true, the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.,,, "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically - November 2011 http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
Further evidence was forthcoming in 2012
On the reality of the quantum state - Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett & Terry Rudolph - May 2012 Abstract: Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state truly represents. One possibility is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality. However, there is a long history of suggestions that a quantum state (even a pure state) represents only knowledge or information about some aspect of reality. Here we show that any model in which a quantum state represents mere information about an underlying physical state of the system, and in which systems that are prepared independently have independent physical states, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory. (i.e. Any model that holds the Quantum wave state as merely a abstract representation of reality, i.e. as not a real representation of reality, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory.) http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys2309.html
The following establishes the quantum wave function as 'real' from another angle of logic;
Does the quantum wave function represent reality? April 2012 by Lisa Zyga Excerpt: “Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system's wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.” http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-function-reality.html
Now, I find the preceding set of articles to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0? state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction to its particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon?
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
As well, in support of the notion that God, rather than 'nothing', created the universe, I offer one of the most accurate theories in science, Quantum Electrodynamics:
“It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw Feymann referred to the renormalization of infinity in QED as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:
John1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logicbornagain77_{August 12, 2013
August
08
Aug
12
12
2013
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply