Discussion in 'Religion' started by JBrentonK, Sep 23, 2015.
From my understanding of your thinking, you may be interested in the above. post# 260
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
IMO, that was only because there was no coherent scientific replacement for the concept of God. But now there is such a replacement, Mathematical Potential (The Implicate) . It has the ability (functional potential) to do all that is attributed to "the hand of God'.
The only difference is that this replacement does not require worship, however it does demand respect for its functions..
Respect for the causal mathematical functions, which can be influenced, not by our thoughts , but by our actions
If you have not seen it yet, do have look, there is good stuff in this video.
This is the exact opposite from assuming that worship and prayer (thoughts) can influence the functions of God, in spite of our actions.
Just once I'd like to read a coherent reasoned response from you.
I'll ask again:
What makes you think that the existence of the universe is "proof" of "god or being that has a brain"?
Why do you (apparently) conflate "god" and "being with a brain"?
Thank you for the links, I'm reviewing them now.
That is a perfect example of assigning intelligence to fundamentally simple natural bio-chemical phenomena.
First: the movement of flowers, tracking the position of the sun is called "heliotropism" or "phototropism".
These are bio-mechanical functions caused by sensitivity of the flowers or leaves to a range of external energy or irritants.
While some of this behavior may seem intelligent, it is purely chemical. The precision (adaption) is the evolutionary product of hundreds of millions of years of refinement through natural selection.
IMO, much confusion is caused by the pseudo-intelligent dynamic mathematical functions in nature.
Many apparently intelligent behaviors are purely mathematical and do not involve a brain or even a neural network.
IOW, the organism's sensory abilities are always mathematical and gives the appearance of intelligence, because they are so predictable and seemingly intentional. While it is true that these actions are purposeful, they are not intentional, but a result of external stimulati.
Out of curiosity, how much of Bohm's theory do you subscribe to?
I would like to address this objection. You assert that galaxies were ordered from a random (chaotic) collection of stars, and that this is proof of order emerging from chaos. The problem with this assertion is that the order did not arise spontaneously within that collection of stars. Rather, there exists an underlying set of laws that, by natural movement, caused the stars to become ordered.
What you're suggesting about the initial zero-state condition as being in total chaos doesn't allow for this possibility. That is because outside of this initial zero-state condition, nothing existed that could have brought it to order (like the underlying set of laws). In fact, your position appears to be that the initial zero-state condition moved from perfect equilibrium (which I would interpret as complete order) to a state of disequilibrium (a mixed state of order and disorder, or a state of imperfect order). This is the opposite of what you propose above, which is that it was a state of total chaos (no order, and therefore disequilibrium) moving toward a state of order (equilibrium).
You onviously have not read close enough. Your post actually confirms my argument. Where did I assert a "spontaneous ordering"? I cited a "mathematical function", which you must have missed.
In my mind "a mathematica function" means an "underlying mathematcal law". I even cited one mathematical aspect of a mathematical ordering function in spiral galaxies. i.e. the Fibonacci Sequence.
I assumed that Gravity need not even be mentioned as an underlying mathematical law. That is so obvious, I won't insult anyone's intelligence, by pointing this out.
The point of my statement was that galaxies do not just form into random shapes but that even at such large scale will form into mathematically formed structures. The Fibonacci Sequence is observable in spiral galaxies as well as in daisies.
But, if I am wrong, do tell how does a Galaxy form?
Galaxies are not ordered.
You may want to think about this some more. Ordered does not mean static.
Our solar system is an ordered system.
So when I pour cream in my coffee and stir, that's actually creating order?
I wasn't arguing that point. I agree with all of this above. My basic point was that you cannot use such ordering from chaos to support an argument of order arising out of total chaos on it's own, because the order that we observe rising out of chaos only does so because of the referenced underlying laws, but this wouldn't be the case with respect to total chaos. I was trying to point out the false equivalence.
Actually yes, but I would prefer to use the term "maintains order". Bohm proved it and used your very example to illustrate.
Chaos is infinitely complex, however parts of this complexity is reducible to simpler constructs through the mathematical function. And as the very nature (essence) of the universe is mathematical, it is qute reasonable to assume that within this infinite complexity, simpler complexities may be formed. And that is the beginning of the Implicate order within the infinite potential of infinite complexity.
But more importantly this excerpt:
Pretty much everything. I admit I don't know, but suspect that he was an atheist.
Let me qualify myself as interested layman in physics, but I do a fair amount of research on subjects I am not familiar with. Not knowing the scientific language, I rely mostly on the accompanying narratives and examples. Usually, I get the fundamental essence of the theory and its place in the hierarchy of orders.
That said, of all the attempts at describing fundamental properties of the universea, I find his concept of hierarchical mathematical orders from the infinitely small to the gross expression in reality, very compatible with my own thinking, which is founded on the my confidence that the wholeness of the universe is "in essence" mathematical. It is only mathematical in the abstract.
(The entire theory of 'Determinism" rests on a few (some 32) predictable universal mathematical constants and equations.)
In addition to being an eminent physicist and close friend of Einstein, Bohm was also schooled in neuro-science of the brain, giving him the authority to speak knowledgeable on the more philosophical aspects of his theories. However, as atheist, I am less interested in that area of Bohm's worldview.
But then I ran across;
But when I was introduced to CDT (causal dynamical triangulation), Renate Loll, which proposes a non-pertutbative, background independent, (fractal) "unfolding" of space-time itself, and seems a perfect fit for Bohm's "Wholeness and Implicate order", my confidence in Bohm's work was drastically reinforced.
IMHO, just these two proposed fundamental aspects of the universe go a long way toward an abstract mathematical TOE, a self organizing hierarchical order of causalities resulting in subjective (semi-autonomous) physical realities.
The universe doesn't operate on mathematical laws. It operates on physical laws. Mathematical laws only describe the physical laws. You can formulate a mathematical law to describe any old nonsense.
Not even that, it doesn't run on laws, laws are descriptions of how we guess things work.
Well, yes. My point was that physical laws are tied to reality whereas mathematical laws don't need to be.
OK, sorry, just being pedantic.
Separate names with a comma.