Blocking Evolution

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Brent696 on August 16th, 2018, 10:14 pm 

DragonFly » August 16th, 2018, 8:42 pm

As for a block universe, which is what should be more discussed here, it appears that what makes no difference (in the implementation) to presentism is no difference, to the message, which is that processes occur in time.


In choosing what seems the least problematic version, one that fits with the black hole information paradox and is compatible with relativity, so I presented the Block with B-theory or Eternalism. Naturally in this view it posits Time to be an illusion, at least the objective movement of time.

It also seems that the arguments against these seem to be the need of some science/philosophers to cling to the intuitive experience of time, but unfortunately when they struggle against Eternalism they end up struggling against relativity also.

So if the Universe is static, and Time does not seem to be part and parcel of the universe, and yet we experience Time, then would it not appear that Time is more a factor of consciousness than it is of the Objective universe.

If time is an illusion, then the universe is an illusion, and the only thing we can know with any certainty of reality is consciousness.

So it is said that the universe, like frames on a movie reel, provide just enough information to fool us into a continuity, which in reality is not there.

Intuitively we look at and experience the universe under the illusion of time, as if it is a Newtonian universe, yet science, reveals at a deeper level a universe much different. And so if we stand in Einstein's universe rather than Newtons, what does this say about evolution is such a theory might simply be our need to cling to the intuitive sense of the illusion.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby DragonFly on August 16th, 2018, 11:19 pm 

Brent696 » August 16th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:In choosing what seems the least problematic version, one that fits with the black hole information paradox and is compatible with relativity, so I presented the Block with B-theory or Eternalism. Naturally in this view it posits Time to be an illusion, at least the objective movement of time.

It also seems that the arguments against these seem to be the need of some science/philosophers to cling to the intuitive experience of time, but unfortunately when they struggle against Eternalism they end up struggling against relativity also. It also seems that the arguments against these seem to be the need of some science/philosophers to cling to the intuitive experience of time, but unfortunately when they struggle against Eternalism they end up struggling against relativity also.


In favor of eternalism is Einstein's relativity of simultaneity, obliterating presentism's idea of a universal 'now'. To save the 'now' of presentism, it needs to somehow adapt to a more ragged edge of time moving forward at different rates perhaps.

In favor of presentism is that qualia are always about the 'now'.

Brent696 » August 16th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:So if the Universe is static, and Time does not seem to be part and parcel of the universe, and yet we experience Time, then would it not appear that Time is more a factor of consciousness than it is of the Objective universe.


Yes, that we "experience time" is the real message, regardless of the messenger, as said, and thus experience is an aspect of eternalism, as we traverse our worldline (a kind of tube-worm beginning with a fetus and ending with a corpse, to put it unpleasantly).

Brent696 » August 16th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:If time is an illusion, then the universe is an illusion, and the only thing we can know with any certainty of reality is consciousness.


A persistent illusion so constant that it is the message, meaning that experience is inherent in the block and so it had to happen when the block formed in an instant.

Brent696 » August 16th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:If time is an illusion, then the universe is an illusion, and the only thing we can know with any certainty of reality is consciousness. So it is said that the universe, like frames on a movie reel, provide just enough information to fool us into a continuity, which in reality is not there.


Yet it is consistent, as if it were happening in time. Take the spark plugs out of your car and it doesn't run; a movie of a car doesn't have to worry about this. The block needs to contain all the information the same as if the processes occurred in presentism time, which is why we can't tell the difference.

Brent696 » August 16th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:Intuitively we look at and experience the universe under the illusion of time, as if it is a Newtonian universe, yet science, reveals at a deeper level a universe much different. And so if we stand in Einstein's universe rather than Newtons, what does this say about evolution is such a theory might simply be our need to cling to the intuitive sense of the illusion.


Quantum mechanics indicates that the future is indeterminate, at least more-so at the lowest level.


No one really knows something so apparently simple as time's mode as A or B or C (a growing block).
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Reg_Prescott on August 17th, 2018, 2:01 am 

mitchellmckain » August 17th, 2018, 7:31 am wrote:
It is not that scientists are incapable of (self) deception, interpretive bias, and error. The methodological distinctions are an ideal that the scientific community must strive for, fight for, and defend. But however successful they may be this still beats out the useless "Goddidit" explanations and "Biblesaysso" justifications. In the end, their (the religious) methodology is rhetoric, which to be frank, is the foundation of human civilization, not to mention every forum like this one. Our positions on issues will never change the simple fact that rhetoric is what we do here, and I will not support any claims that any of us speak for either science or God. But the findings and evidence of science are a matter of record which is easily found and checked. Not so the dictates of supposed gods, which will never be more than a matter of opinon.


Well, before we uncork the champagne and all go up in a balloon again, I always find it salutary to remind ourselves of the historical track record of scientific theories.



"If there is one thing we can learn from the history of science, it is that the scientific theorizing of one day is looked on by that of the next as flawed and deficient. The clearest induction from the history of science is that science is always mistaken - that at EVERY stage of its development, its practitioners, looking backward with the wisdom of hindsight, will view the work of their predecessors as seriously deficient and their theories as fundamentally mistaken. And if we adopt (as in candor we must) the modest view that we ourselves and our contemporaries do not occupy a privileged position in this respect, then we have no reasonable alternative but to suppose that much or all of what we ourselves vaunt as "scientific knowledge" is itself presumably wrong."

- Nicholas Rescher


"For in formulating the question as to how to explain why the methods of science lead to instrumental success, the realist has seriously misstated the explanandum. Overwhelmingly, the results of the conscientious pursuit of scientific enquiry are failures: failed theories, failed hypotheses, failed conjectures, inaccurate measurements, inaccurate estimations of parameters, fallacious causal inferences, and so forth. If explanations are appropriate here, then what requires explaining is why the very same methods produce an overwhelming background of failures and, occasionally, also a pattern of successes. The realist literature has not yet begun to address this question, much less to offer even a hint of how to answer it."

- Arthur Fine


"The ephemeral nature of scientific theories takes by surprise the man of the world. Their brief period of prosperity ended, he sees them abandoned one after the other; he sees ruins piled upon ruins; he predicts that the theories in fashion today will in a short time succumb in their turn, and he concludes that they are absolutely in vain. This is what he calls the bankrupcy of science."

- Henri Poincare


Those who know me well will understand this is not meant as an attack on science. What it is meant to be is a reaction to the frequently exaggerated claims made about science, like those habitually advanced by Mitchell, no doubt with the best of intentions.

All I want is for science to be characterized accurately; not for it to be discredited or hyper-inflated.

Let's try to keep our feet on the ground, ladies and gentlemen.
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Reg_Prescott on August 17th, 2018, 7:24 am 

davidm » August 4th, 2018, 7:42 am wrote:
Theories are never proved. They are defeasible models of the world that are constantly subject to revision, modification, and falsification. Evolution, however, is both a fact and a theory. It is an observed fact that populations (not individuals) evolve -- i.e. that allele frequencies change over time. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution, while making checkable predictions and retrodictions. So far, evolutionary theory has survived every check with flying colors.




In the following video (see below), around the 8:20 mark, Michael Shermer, the noted skeptic, high profile science promoter and super-nice guy (serious -- I'm an admirer), in response to the question

"Is Intelligent Design nonsense?"

tells us

"Well, it's unproven. So in that sense it's nonsense."

Hmm. Let the buyer beware.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g&t=2695s
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Reg_Prescott on August 17th, 2018, 10:32 am 

davidm » August 17th, 2018, 11:24 pm wrote:Michael Shermer is NOT "a super-nice guy" and not worth paying attention to.


Besides constituting an embarrassment to your claims right now, are there any independent reasons to suppose Michael Shermer is not worth paying attention to?
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby davidm on August 17th, 2018, 10:46 am 

Reg_Prescott » August 17th, 2018, 8:32 am wrote:
davidm » August 17th, 2018, 11:24 pm wrote:Michael Shermer is NOT "a super-nice guy" and not worth paying attention to.


Besides constituting an embarrassment to your claims right now ...


How, exactly, is that supposed to work?

As to ID, I agree with the philosopher Brad Monton, who in the following 2006 paper opposed the judge's ruling in the Kitzmiller case: Is Intelligent Design Science?
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Reg_Prescott on August 17th, 2018, 10:56 am 

davidm » August 17th, 2018, 11:46 pm wrote:
How, exactly, is that supposed to work?



Well, if you're right that scientific theories are never proven (and I think you are) -- which kinda makes one wonder why you defend evolutionary theory with such missionary-like zeal -- and if Michael is right (that that which is not proven is nonsense), seems we have a problem.

Either, you're fulla shit, Michael is fulla shit, or scientific theories are nonsense.

I don't think you need to answer this one. On the grounds you've made your omniscience clear.

Speaking of which, I expected the Rocky Mountains to be a little rockier than this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV3E5e7fZ6M
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby davidm on August 17th, 2018, 11:09 am 

Reg_Prescott » August 17th, 2018, 8:56 am wrote:
davidm » August 17th, 2018, 11:46 pm wrote:
How, exactly, is that supposed to work?



Well, if you're right that scientific theories are never proven (and I think you are) -- which kinda makes one wonder why you defend evolutionary theory with such missionary-like zeal -- and if Michael is right (that that which is not proven is nonsense), seems we have a problem.


Well, this is the usual muddle, but briefly: I do not defend evolutionary theory with "missionary-like zeal" -- this is just a species of well-poisoning. What I do, rather, is defend well-supported, well-evidenced science against claims that are transparently false and have been refuted gazillions of times.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Reg_Prescott on August 17th, 2018, 11:16 am 

davidm » August 18th, 2018, 12:09 am wrote:
Well, this is the usual muddle, but briefly: I do not defend evolutionary theory with "missionary-like zeal" -- this is just a species of well-poisoning. What I do, rather, is defend well-supported, well-evidenced science against claims that are transparently false and have been refuted gazillions of times.


Yes, sorry for my muddles. I can't seem to help them any more than you can help your condescension.

A "well-supported, well evidenced" theory, eh?

I do hate to be a pest, but would you explain to the boys and girls exactly how evidence bears on theory, and the evidential support thereby conferred?

I mean, pests like me need to know if the theory (whatever that is today) is worthy of belief or not.

I did ask earlier in the thread that, given your evidence, what epistemic weight ought a rational individual assign to your theory.

1. It's true

2. It's probably true

3. There a 83% chance it's true

4. It might be true

5. Who the hell knows?

You declined to answer. And I think I know why too.

Don't forget to show your working now. Good lad.
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Reg_Prescott on August 17th, 2018, 11:20 am 

davidm » August 17th, 2018, 11:46 pm wrote:
As to ID, I agree with the philosopher Brad Monton, who in the following 2006 paper opposed the judge's ruling in the Kitzmiller case: Is Intelligent Design Science?



Ok, wanna make a deal? I promise to read your paper if you promise to read mine. (Not tonight though). Who knows, we may fall in love.

Compare notes tomorrow?

Here's mine:

http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Laudan.pdf
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 10 May 2018
vivian maxine liked this post


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Reg_Prescott on August 17th, 2018, 11:37 am 

@ David

As for "well supported and well evidenced" ... [three posts above]

Is there a difference?

Why not say it twice? After all, the audience likes stuff like that, eh? Mitchell tells us philosophy is just rhetoric. You obviously know your philosophy, dude.

Why not wave your arms around and thump the lectern really hard?
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Braininvat on August 17th, 2018, 12:30 pm 

Reg_Prescott » August 17th, 2018, 8:16 am wrote:
davidm » August 18th, 2018, 12:09 am wrote:
Well, this is the usual muddle, but briefly: I do not defend evolutionary theory with "missionary-like zeal" -- this is just a species of well-poisoning. What I do, rather, is defend well-supported, well-evidenced science against claims that are transparently false and have been refuted gazillions of times.


Yes, sorry for my muddles. I can't seem to help them any more than you can help your condescension.

A "well-supported, well evidenced" theory, eh?

I do hate to be a pest, but would you explain to the boys and girls exactly how evidence bears on theory, and the evidential support thereby conferred?

I mean, pests like me need to know if the theory (whatever that is today) is worthy of belief or not.

I did ask earlier in the thread that, given your evidence, what epistemic weight ought a rational individual assign to your theory.

1. It's true

2. It's probably true

3. There a 83% chance it's true

4. It might be true

5. Who the hell knows?

You declined to answer. And I think I know why too.

Don't forget to show your working now. Good lad.


The basic problem with this discursive approach (aside from the obvious snark factor, which I'll ignore for now) is that specific points go undiscussed and solid criticism, rather than answered, is dismissed as "condescencion." Really, let's focus on the topic and stop fretting about everyone's tone or personality flaws. Just listen to the evidence, and then answer it with reasoned critique.

For example, I think the question of epistemic weight is addressed here, and in many other evolutionary biology threads, by research that shows the predictive power of a set of data. E.g. someone predicts that hippos and whales should have a certain number of alleles and morphological features in common if they do, in fact, have a common ancestor. DNA analysis of hippos and whales ensues. Matching alleles and morphology are as predicted. And scientists, not being missionaries, then have lots of robust discussion and critique of this data, a fairly healthy process of looking at alternate interpretations of data, examining the quality of the data, weeding out spurious assumptions, checking each other's math, et freaking cetera.

And there is always reference to other sorts of cladistic analysis, building that Quinean "web of belief" to a better structural condition....perhaps looking at the DNA and morphological connections between humans and gorillas, and their common ancestry. This cladistic relation has been well-established and is, AFAIK, not in dispute. I'm sure Berlinski, if he has the math bona fides, understands that a 98% DNA match suggest that gorillas didn't just drop down in our midst (Gorillas in the Midst! Sigourney Weaver is hot!) from flying saucers.

Anyway, if we're now in the SCF, then the topic needs to be about the quality and quantity of evidence, and the validity of its interpretation. And not personalities.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
DragonFly liked this post


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby davidm on August 17th, 2018, 12:45 pm 

Reg_Prescott » August 17th, 2018, 9:20 am wrote:
davidm » August 17th, 2018, 11:46 pm wrote:
As to ID, I agree with the philosopher Brad Monton, who in the following 2006 paper opposed the judge's ruling in the Kitzmiller case: Is Intelligent Design Science?



Ok, wanna make a deal? I promise to read your paper if you promise to read mine. (Not tonight though). Who knows, we may fall in love.

Compare notes tomorrow?

Here's mine:

http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Laudan.pdf


From having read just the first paragraph of Laudan's paper, it looks like he agrees with Monton, who paper I linked.

Anyway, your invocation of a non-existent "Darwinism" and accusations of "missionary-like zeal" on my part -- both part and parcel of a long-standing and mendacious creationist strategy of attempting to recast evolutionary biology as just another religion, with Darwin in the role of Jesus -- in conjunction with your preening condescension, your mammoth and wholly unwarranted self-regard, your snotty asides and snide insults, have made me decide to end any further discussion with you.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
DragonFly liked this post


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby mitchellmckain on August 17th, 2018, 1:03 pm 

Reg_Prescott » August 17th, 2018, 1:01 am wrote:
Well, before we uncork the champagne and all go up in a balloon again, I always find it salutary to remind ourselves of the historical track record of scientific theories.



"If there is one thing we can learn from the history of science, it is that the scientific theorizing of one day is looked on by that of the next as flawed and deficient. The clearest induction from the history of science is that science is always mistaken - that at EVERY stage of its development, its practitioners, looking backward with the wisdom of hindsight, will view the work of their predecessors as seriously deficient and their theories as fundamentally mistaken. And if we adopt (as in candor we must) the modest view that we ourselves and our contemporaries do not occupy a privileged position in this respect, then we have no reasonable alternative but to suppose that much or all of what we ourselves vaunt as "scientific knowledge" is itself presumably wrong."

- Nicholas Rescher

Yes, science has a way of determining the truth to greater and greater accuracy correcting past findings to zero in on the truth. Religions and ideologies on the other have has no such thing and instead perpetuate the same errors for centuries on end. New religions and ideologies pop up trying new solutions but the end result is only a greater number of such groups.

Reg_Prescott » August 17th, 2018, 1:01 am wrote:
"For in formulating the question as to how to explain why the methods of science lead to instrumental success, the realist has seriously misstated the explanandum. Overwhelmingly, the results of the conscientious pursuit of scientific enquiry are failures: failed theories, failed hypotheses, failed conjectures, inaccurate measurements, inaccurate estimations of parameters, fallacious causal inferences, and so forth. If explanations are appropriate here, then what requires explaining is why the very same methods produce an overwhelming background of failures and, occasionally, also a pattern of successes. The realist literature has not yet begun to address this question, much less to offer even a hint of how to answer it."

- Arthur Fine

Yes! Science has a way of testing its hypotheses and theories and accepting these determinations is what scientific progress is all about. By comparison religion and ideologues tend to stubbornly cling to the same nonsense simply ignoring anything which contradict them. The explanation is that science makes progress towards the truth considerably more quickly than willfully ignorant adherents to ideology (when they make any progress at all).


Reg_Prescott » August 17th, 2018, 1:01 am wrote:"The ephemeral nature of scientific theories takes by surprise the man of the world. Their brief period of prosperity ended, he sees them abandoned one after the other; he sees ruins piled upon ruins; he predicts that the theories in fashion today will in a short time succumb in their turn, and he concludes that they are absolutely in vain. This is what he calls the bankrupcy of science."

- Henri Poincare

History demonstrates otherwise. When science explores a new topic then of course it tries and discards theories rapidly. But then when something is found that works it lasts for millennia, like the work on boyancy by Archimedes. There are of course those who prefer nonsense over science and thus we have this weird situation where people ignore the discoveries of millennia ago (such as the earth being round) to follow their religious texts and weird philosophies confusing willful ignorance with wisdom (such as the flat earth society).


Reg_Prescott » August 17th, 2018, 1:01 am wrote:Those who know me well will understand this is not meant as an attack on science. What it is meant to be is a reaction to the frequently exaggerated claims made about science, like those habitually advanced by Mitchell, no doubt with the best of intentions.

All I want is for science to be characterized accurately; not for it to be discredited or hyper-inflated.

Let's try to keep our feet on the ground, ladies and gentlemen.

Those who are actually paying attention will see me fighting against the extremists on both sides. But such is the nature of extremist ideologues that they will absurdly claim that anyone who disagrees with them is an extremist one second and "following the crowd" in the next second. Thus they only demonstrate the dishonesty of their own rhetoric.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Brent696 on August 17th, 2018, 1:13 pm 

DragonFly » August 16th, 2018, 11:19 pm

Brent696 » August 16th, 2018, 9:14 pm wrote:Intuitively we look at and experience the universe under the illusion of time, as if it is a Newtonian universe, yet science, reveals at a deeper level a universe much different. And so if we stand in Einstein's universe rather than Newtons, what does this say about evolution is such a theory might simply be our need to cling to the intuitive sense of the illusion.


Quantum mechanics indicates that the future is indeterminate, at least more-so at the lowest level.

No one really knows something so apparently simple as time's mode as A or B or C (a growing block).


"indeterminate" is the intuitive way of looking at it, so it is said the cat is both alive and dead. But this is only so long until consciousness interacts with it, bringing its component of Time as it opens the box.

Then consciousness discovers what has been true all along.

You seemed to have followed my logic and even agree basically with my conclusions under an Einstein B universe,

So the question is, what happens to evolution when Consciousness becomes a deciding factor in the universe, it simply cannot be some product of some neuro-chemical synthesis by-product random mutations.

Evolutionists, either willingly or unwillingly, remain blind to the huge problems with their theory, whether it's the amalgamation of the original soup, the spinning of amino acids, the extreme complexity of the first replicating cell, or the sudden appearances of leaps in complexity, which did not happen over millions of years of graduations as if often suggested since no changes occurred over vast quantities of time, but rather seemingly overnight there is what is even referred to as "Explosions" when unimaginable leaps in complexity happened.

I have been accused of not understanding English but I understand enough to know that the sun is not the principle driver towards complexity in the tree of life and also that "gradual, random, mutations, over million of years, does not equate with the term "explosions".

But if we truly except, assuming we truly understand, Einstein's Relativity, then there is no need to back fill such gaps with "faith or trust" or whatever.

Furthermore, one might even conclude, that to promote evolutionary theory as it stands, proposing consciousness as merely a by-product of neuro-chemical synthesis, stands in direct opposition to Einstein's universe, and even physics in general. Evolution demands that Time remain fixed in the Newtonian concept as an objective dimension through which the whole universe is subjective to.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby davidm on August 17th, 2018, 4:12 pm 

Evolutionists, either willingly or unwillingly, remain blind to the huge problems with their theory, whether it's the amalgamation of the original soup, the spinning of amino acids, the extreme complexity of the first replicating cell, or the sudden appearances of leaps in complexity, which did not happen over millions of years of graduations as if often suggested since no changes occurred over vast quantities of time, but rather seemingly overnight there is what is even referred to as "Explosions" when unimaginable leaps in complexity happened.



Evolutionists, either willingly or unwillingly, remain blind to the huge problems with their theory, whether it's the amalgamation of the original soup …


Evolution does not address abiogenesis. They are two different fields. This has been explained to creatrolls countless times.


… the spinning of amino acids …


Huh?

… the extreme complexity of the first replicating cell …


As I have pointed out several times in this very thread, the first replicator was not a cell. This is so typical of people like you. When you have been corrected, you blithely ignore the corrections, and keep on reiterating the same old falsehoods!

… or the sudden appearances of leaps in complexity, which did not happen over millions of years of graduations as if often suggested since no changes occurred over vast quantities of time, but rather seemingly overnight …


The above is barely comprehensible, but: The Cambrian Explosion did not effing happen “overnight,” seemingly or otherwise. It did indeed take millions of years to happen. The reason why it is often referred to as an “explosion” is because, before the “explosion,” there were vastly longer periods in which relatively little evolutionary change occurred. Why? Because for the majority of time on earth, life was extremely simple, and evolution had little to work with.

Of course you’ll blithely ignore this and dollars to donuts within your next five posts you’ll regurgitate everything you wrote above and which I just refuted, and you’ll ignore my refutations as if I never made them. Moreover, you’ll act like the aggrieved party!
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby DragonFly on August 17th, 2018, 6:17 pm 

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 12:13 pm wrote:"indeterminate" is the intuitive way of looking at it, so it is said the cat is both alive and dead. But this is only so long until consciousness interacts with it, bringing its component of Time as it opens the box. Then consciousness discovers what has been true all along.


Uncertainty doesn't appear to make it a the macro level, due to decoherence (by gravity or whatnot), and the cat in the box was intended as a kind of a joke.

Before there was life and brains, there was no consciousness.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 12:13 pm wrote:You seemed to have followed my logic and even agree basically with my conclusions under an Einstein B universe,

So the question is, what happens to evolution when Consciousness becomes a deciding factor in the universe, it simply cannot be some product of some neuro-chemical synthesis by-product random mutations.


I follow what the block universe is, but not the conclusions, since we don't know.

Two billion neural connections would not just be sitting there doing nothing. The same with our senses.


Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 12:13 pm wrote:But if we truly except, assuming we truly understand, Einstein's Relativity, then there is no need to back fill such gaps with "faith or trust" or whatever.


Just a note: 'faith' is about an unknown unshown; 'trust' is about what has been shown and thus known.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 12:13 pm wrote:Furthermore, one might even conclude, that to promote evolutionary theory as it stands, proposing consciousness as merely a by-product of neuro-chemical synthesis, stands in direct opposition to Einstein's universe, and even physics in general. Evolution demands that Time remain fixed in the Newtonian concept as an objective dimension through which the whole universe is subjective to.


Neural activities precede the conscious result/product.

There is no time, per say, in the block, as there are 4 distances, although one could claim that one of the distance dimensions converts to time, internally, via c, the equivalence ratio of distance to time in our universe.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Braininvat on August 17th, 2018, 6:42 pm 

Back on topic. Posts concerned with personalities of posters and/or public figures and/or moderator and/or irrelevant youtub videos will be removed at moderator's discretion. All participants are directed to respond to specific concrete examples of scientific evidence, statistics analysis, or whatever topic relevant material is presented to them. I also expect "good faith" argument regarding the full range of theory as it stands in 2018, not in 1859.** Members who do not read linked research papers will refrain from commenting on them. Period.

I was hoping this thread could be a little looser, but that's not working so well.

** typo corrected, thanks to alert DavidM... if I really wanted to go back to the beginning, I guess 1845 would be better, as that was the publication date of the 2nd edition of VotB, in which CD first aired his developing thoughts on natural selection and speciation. But I recognize the official weight of 1859.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby davidm on August 17th, 2018, 7:18 pm 

Braininvat » August 17th, 2018, 4:42 pm wrote:B I also expect "good faith" argument regarding the full range of theory as it stands in 2018, not in 1849.


Well, 1859, actually, but I get your point. ;) I'll try to be less snarky.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Brent696 on August 17th, 2018, 11:19 pm 

DragonFly » August 17th, 2018, 6:17 pm

Uncertainty doesn't appear to make it a the macro level, due to decoherence (by gravity or whatnot), and the cat in the box was intended as a kind of a joke.
Before there was life and brains, there was no consciousness.
Two billion neural connections would not just be sitting there doing nothing. The same with our senses.
Neural activities precede the conscious result/product.
There is no time, per say, in the block, as there are 4 distances, although one could claim that one of the distance dimensions converts to time, internally, via c, the equivalence ratio of distance to time in our universe.


Most the time I prefer to do my own thinking, and likewise to use my own words, but I see I might need to bring a few references. First lets try ""https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956"

"""""For centuries, modern science has been shrinking the gap between humans and the rest of the universe, from Isaac Newton showing that one set of laws applies equally to falling apples and orbiting moons to Carl Sagan intoning that “we are made of star stuff” — that the atoms of our bodies were literally forged in the nuclear furnaces of other stars.

Even in that context, Gregory Matloff’s ideas are shocking. The veteran physicist at New York City College of Technology recently published a paper arguing that humans may be like the rest of the universe in substance and in spirit. A “proto-consciousness field” could extend through all of space, he argues. Stars may be thinking entities that deliberately control their paths. Put more bluntly, the entire cosmos may be self-aware.

The notion of a conscious universe sounds more like the stuff of late night TV than academic journals. Called by its formal academic name, though, “panpsychism” turns out to have prominent supporters in a variety of fields. New York University philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers is a proponent. So too, in different ways, are neuroscientist Christof Koch of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose, renowned for his work on gravity and black holes. The bottom line, Matloff argues, is that panpsychism is too important to ignore..............

While Matloff looks out to the stars to verify panpsychism, Christof Koch looks at humans. In his view, the existence of widespread, ubiquitous consciousness is strongly tied to scientists’ current understanding of the neurological origins of the mind.

“The only dominant theory we have of consciousness says that it is associated with complexity — with a system’s ability to act upon its own state and determine its own fate,” Koch says. “Theory states that it could go down to very simple systems. In principle, some purely physical systems that are not biological or organic may also be conscious.”

Koch is inspired by integrated information theory, a hot topic among modern neuroscientists, which holds that consciousness is defined by the ability of a system to be influenced by its previous state and to influence its next state."""""

""""Which brings us to Roger Penrose and his theories linking consciousness and quantum mechanics. He does not overtly identify himself as a panpsychist, but his argument that self-awareness and free will begin with quantum events in the brain inevitably links our minds with the cosmos. Penrose sums up this connection beautifully in his opus "The Road to Reality":

“The laws of physics produce complex systems, and these complex systems lead to consciousness, which then produces mathematics, which can then encode in a succinct and inspiring way the very underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it.”

Despite his towering stature as a physicist, Penrose has encountered resistance to his theory of consciousness. Oddly, his colleagues have been more accepting of the exotic, cosmic-consciousness implications of quantum mechanics. Ever since the 1920s, physicists have puzzled over the strangely privileged role of the observer in quantum theory. A particle exists in a fuzzy state of uncertainty…but only until it is observed. As soon as someone looks at it and takes its measurements, the particle seems to collapse into a definite location."""""

"""""The late physicist John Wheeler concluded that the apparent oddity of quantum mechanics was built on an even grander and odder truth: that the universe as a whole festers in a state of uncertainty and snaps into clear, actual being when observed by a conscious being — that is, us.

“We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago,” Wheeler said in 2006. He calls his interpretation the “participatory anthropic principle.” If he is correct, the universe is conscious, but in almost the opposite of the way that Matloff pictures it: Only through the acts of conscious minds does it truly exist at all."""""

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215 ... um-physics

""""Quantum mechanics is the best theory we have for describing the world at the nuts-and-bolts level of atoms and subatomic particles. Perhaps the most renowned of its mysteries is the fact that the outcome of a quantum experiment can change depending on whether or not we choose to measure some property of the particles involved.

When this "observer effect" was first noticed by the early pioneers of quantum theory, they were deeply troubled. It seemed to undermine the basic assumption behind all science: that there is an objective world out there, irrespective of us. If the way the world behaves depends on how – or if – we look at it, what can "reality" really mean?

Some of those researchers felt forced to conclude that objectivity was an illusion, and that consciousness has to be allowed an active role in quantum theory. To others, that did not make sense. Surely, Albert Einstein once complained, the Moon does not exist only when we look at it!

Today some physicists suspect that, whether or not consciousness influences quantum mechanics, it might in fact arise because of it. They think that quantum theory might be needed to fully understand how the brain works."""

So, if there is anybody here who actually has some grasp of Quantum Physics and how consciousness might factor into it in some way, more than to tell me the cat was a joke even though the principle still stands as a pretty foundational one,

The subject once again, if I am not deleted, is Einstein's Block Universe, with considerations of how consciousness might factor into such a Block, and how such a static block might reflect itself into a static history that would defy the necessity for continuity.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Reg_Prescott on August 18th, 2018, 1:50 am 

davidm » August 17th, 2018, 8:41 am wrote: Of course as usual the creationists still can’t grasp that there is no such thing as “Darwinism.”


davidm » August 18th, 2018, 1:45 am wrote:Anyway, your invocation of a non-existent "Darwinism" and...


Reg_Prescott » August 16th, 2018, 2:32 am wrote:Well, BiV, we'd had this discussion before, and as I always say, perhaps the only blanket statement that can be made about science is that no blanket statements can be made about science.


David Berlinski published another article, also in "Commentary", in 2003 entitled "Has Darwin Met His Match?", and as with the previous essay ("The Deniable Darwin") provoked the usual hysteria from the faithful. In the same book I cited earlier ("The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays"), the essay is reproduced, together with responses from outraged critics, and Berlinski's subsequent counter-responses.

First critic up is Paul R. Gross who explains to we non-scientist numbskulls with the customary condescension:

In his latest Commentary essay on "Darwinism" -- as it is often called by those who do not know much about evolutionary biology -- David Berlinski seems to have reversed himself.


Berlinski replies:

Mr. Gross's animadversions begin with a reminder. It is only those "who do not know much about evolutionary biology" who refer to something called "Darwinism". The professionals know better. I quite understand Mr. Gross's concern. The term "Darwinism" conveys the suggestion of a secular ideology, a global system of belief. So it does, and so it surely is.

[...]

"I am hardly the only one to use the term "Darwinism" and so convey the suggestion of an ideological agenda. Adding his mite to D. S. Bendall's collection, Evolution from Molecules to Men (1983), Richard Dawkins entitled his essay "Universal Darwinism". Dawkins liked the word well enough to use it again in "Darwin and Darwinism", the title of his contribution to Microsoft's Encarta Encyclopedia. Then there is the series of short books appearing under the title Darwinism Today and published by Yale University Press. The first book in the series is by the eminent Darwinian biologist John Maynard Smith.

Second to next outraged critic is Jason Rosenhouse who explains:

Also Darwinism requires continuity at the level of the genotype, not the phenotype.

[...]

The source of the code is indeed mysterious, a fact that would be troubling if Darwinism were a theory about the origins of life.


Berlinski replies:

"Darwinism," Mr. Rosenhouse writes, apparently unaware of Paul Gross's terminological strictures, "requires continuity at the level of the genotype, not the phenotype".



Tee hee :)
Last edited by Reg_Prescott on August 18th, 2018, 2:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby DragonFly on August 18th, 2018, 1:56 am 

Good theory, Brent.

It has to overcome consciousness as very much seeming to be a brain process. It appears that four neural levels are required as the complexity factor for consciousness to form.

Also to overcome is that the quantum wave function appears to collapse from any kind of interaction, such as with fields/particles.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby davidm on August 18th, 2018, 11:01 am 

It’s pretty amazing. In Brett’s block universe, remember, everything is “static” — there is no “continuity” — nothing, supposedly, actually happens! This, you see, is supposed to refute evolution.

But wait! At the same time, in this static block universe in which everything, including evolution, is some kind of weird illusion, all sorts of things are happening! Consciousness is collapsing the wave function and magically bringing reality itself into existence! Wow! That’s some amazing thing to happen, especially in a block universe in which nothing can happen. So, let’s see: in the block universe, evolution can’t happen, but consciousness can bring the universe into existence, because, well … I guess that can happen, but evolution, alas … can’t. Hmm!

Also, human consciousness does not bring anything to existence, because the wave function does not collapse.

Hint: if your conception of the universe is one in which nothing can happen and there can be no continuity, yet all around you, you see stuff happening and all kinds of evidence of continuity, maybe you ought to rethink your conception of the universe.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby DragonFly on August 18th, 2018, 12:01 pm 

Yes, the block ontology is of events, but they are canned events; however, we might suppose that they actually happened once when the block was built, else how it is to be explained that the events are what they are.

Enjoy the broadcast.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Brent696 on August 18th, 2018, 12:16 pm 

davidm » August 18th, 2018, 11:01 am

Hint: if your conception of the universe is one in which nothing can happen and there can be no continuity, yet all around you, you see stuff happening and all kinds of evidence of continuity, maybe you ought to rethink your conception of the universe.


Its actually the other way around, the intuitive experience of reality is where Newtonian Physics flows from. Ultimately this is akin to the Flat Earth view. Quantum physics, for those who can understand it and its implications, turns the intuitive universe upside down, metaphorically.

Intuitive experience tells us the Universe is 3D, Quantum physics as shown (theorized) the universe as a two dimensional plane which contains the information necessary for our 3D experience.

Intuitive experience tells us the universe is objective along with Time, and (get this) the whole universe is changing from moment to moment as if space itself is subjective to Time.

Quantum physics and relativity deem time and space as being a continuum, one thing (as it were) functioning in two directions. Or I can say two directions within the static block.

So I have a Newtonian Universe which is expressed within our intuitive or materialistic experience.

Or I have the Universe as Quantum physics, or at the very least Relativity as revealed it to be.

And you are suggesting I rethink Relativity and return to a sense driven and thus limited view of reality.


Now perhaps in this quantum view of the universe there is a lot of theorizing, but when Reg or myself speak to staunch evolutionists like you are BIV, the "blindness" we speak of is in the fact the Evolution is a theory, and that's OK, but all those things you have offers as explanations are theories also, although you tend to see them as if they are facts. The theory of evolution is not perfect, there are gaps, there are spaces that are difficult to explain, whether we are talking about the first cell to replicate or the mad jump from Micro to Macro that is hidden in vast amounts of time, these are supportive theories maybe, but they are NOT FACTS, simply possible explanations, so all of the name calling is uncalled for and those are the posts that should have been deleted.

Now you have taken to belittling the Block universe and what part Consciousness might play in this Universal construct, you are not dismissing some bible thumping creationist's view, you are dismissing the views of many physicists, philosophers, Biochemists and other scientists in general, all I am doing is pointing out possible implications of this view of the universe on other sciences.

And yes, I recognize my use of the term "possible implications" I just wish more evolutionists would recognize their use of terms like possibility and probability as demonstrative of theories, not factual explanations.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby DragonFly on August 18th, 2018, 12:38 pm 

Brent,

Quantum physics, via the tiny Planck size and the short Planck time, deems the universe to be of discrete grains, which is what 'quantum' means. This is the opposite of a continuum. (At high numbers it can approximate a continuum.)

So, then, this clashes with Relativity, thus the quantum gravity theory attempts, for everything else has already been quantized. 'Space' is the gravitational field.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby Brent696 on August 18th, 2018, 12:44 pm 

DragonFly » August 18th, 2018, 12:01 pm
Yes, the block ontology is of events, but they are canned events; however, we might suppose that they actually happened once when the block was built, else how it is to be explained that the events are what they are.

Enjoy the broadcast.


You are correct that we might "suppose" but there still lies the non-necessity of it. Yet in Neuroscience we have something of this nature

""""""(Quora) There is abundant evidence from psychology and neuroscience that awareness has gaps and discontinuities that one simply does not notice. One case of this is in visual perception, where we have the impression of a smooth flow of sensation, but our eyes move around with a jerky motion that would make anyone sick if they actually noticed it. During a visual saccade, control and awareness is simply turned off. We have partial awareness and mini-blackouts frequently and just paper over them with an impression of continuity. Gaps like this are evident to people who engage in activities where moment-to-moment awareness is important, such as sports.

It makes sense that this is hard to notice — if your ability to be aware were missing for a short time, how could you notice? Only by some small thing about the world changing unexpectedly. """"""

Of course I am not speaking to the continuity of consciousness (the transporter dilemma) but rather the brains need to establish continuity, basically the illusion of continuity.

In any theory, when there seems to be perceived events that do not fits cleanly within the theory or the theory cannot explain, this is where science excels as it is supposed to adapt. There were problems, unexplained phenomenon in Newtonian physics that lead for deeper thinkers to explore, hence Relativity and a quantum universe.

The theory of evolution also has such gaps, although to talk to some you would think there simply were none, yet all these people, scientists, accused of being closet creationists and the like, are simply trying to point out that there are still bridges in understanding to cross.

So instead of a Creationists view which I do not agree with I simply turned to quantum physics to see what shadow it might cast back on theories such as evolution. No doubt this shadow cast a non-intuitive view over evolution but that is because quantum physics has delved deeper that what can be determined by a sense driven perception.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby mitchellmckain on August 18th, 2018, 12:52 pm 

DragonFly » August 17th, 2018, 5:17 pm wrote:Uncertainty doesn't appear to make it a the macro level, due to decoherence (by gravity or whatnot), and the cat in the box was intended as a kind of a joke.
Before there was life and brains, there was no consciousness.
Two billion neural connections would not just be sitting there doing nothing. The same with our senses.
Neural activities precede the conscious result/product.
There is no time, per say, in the block, as there are 4 distances, although one could claim that one of the distance dimensions converts to time, internally, via c, the equivalence ratio of distance to time in our universe.

It is true that for one reason or another (Copenhagen or Everett), the only superpositions in the reality we can observe apply only to microscopic entities/systems. But it does not follow that consciousness depends on life and brains. I certainly associate consciousness with the process of life, but in a quantitative manner which neural activities greatly enhance. However, it is incorrect to say that uncertainty doesn't make it to the macroscopic level. Because of chaotic dynamics (the nature of the non-linear mathematics which governs the universe), the course of events in the macroscopic are altered by the outcome of decoherence. Thus, at the very least, the future can be said to exist in a state of superposition, and this is the flaw in the static 4 dimensional view or block view.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:Most the time I prefer to do my own thinking, and likewise to use my own words, but I see I might need to bring a few references. First lets try ""https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956"

Everyone does their own thinking to some degree or another, the question is where to find the balance between between this and being able to LISTEN and take seriously what other people say as well. There is not only the imbalance of those who simply parrot what other people say without sufficient critical thinking, but there is also the other end of the spectrum in those who learn nothing from the contribution of other people (which is equally lacking in critical thinking). There is foolishness in both ends of the spectrum.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:Even in that context, Gregory Matloff’s ideas are shocking. The veteran physicist at New York City College of Technology recently published a paper arguing that humans may be like the rest of the universe in substance and in spirit. A “proto-consciousness field” could extend through all of space, he argues. Stars may be thinking entities that deliberately control their paths. Put more bluntly, the entire cosmos may be self-aware.

That is a maybe which includes God, gods, ghosts, psychics, UFO abductions, fairies and unicorns. There is is no objective evidence of any such thing. I would defend the possibility of rationality in people believing such things, but I would oppose any demand that others agree with their beliefs. There is no hint of condescension in this because I am frankly one of those people and would argue that ALL people are in this category for one reason or another whether they would like to pretend otherwise or not. Life REQUIRES subjective participation and does not allow for all of our decisions to wait for proof or objective evidence. We can reserve judgment on the beliefs of others, but we have to make choices about how to live our own life. This is why we have to make a distinction between the objective and the subjective and accept a diversity of thought in the latter.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:The notion of a conscious universe sounds more like the stuff of late night TV than academic journals. Called by its formal academic name, though, “panpsychism” turns out to have prominent supporters in a variety of fields. New York University philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers is a proponent. So too, in different ways, are neuroscientist Christof Koch of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose, renowned for his work on gravity and black holes. The bottom line, Matloff argues, is that panpsychism is too important to ignore..............

It is a point of view which is notable in a few cultures to various degrees and in different ways like the Native Americans and the Japanese for example.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:While Matloff looks out to the stars to verify panpsychism, Christof Koch looks at humans. In his view, the existence of widespread, ubiquitous consciousness is strongly tied to scientists’ current understanding of the neurological origins of the mind.

“The only dominant theory we have of consciousness says that it is associated with complexity — with a system’s ability to act upon its own state and determine its own fate,” Koch says. “Theory states that it could go down to very simple systems. In principle, some purely physical systems that are not biological or organic may also be conscious.”

"Complexity" is just a gap in which to hide whatever you want to believe in. I think we can do better than that. I think that consciousness can be logically linked to the process of life in a quantitative manner. Since abiogenesis implies a continuum between life and non-life this is not as sharp a divide as some may think.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:Koch is inspired by integrated information theory, a hot topic among modern neuroscientists, which holds that consciousness is defined by the ability of a system to be influenced by its previous state and to influence its next state."""""

Very good. That is the kind of thinking which I can support.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:""""Which brings us to Roger Penrose and his theories linking consciousness and quantum mechanics. He does not overtly identify himself as a panpsychist, but his argument that self-awareness and free will begin with quantum events in the brain inevitably links our minds with the cosmos. Penrose sums up this connection beautifully in his opus "The Road to Reality":

“The laws of physics produce complex systems, and these complex systems lead to consciousness, which then produces mathematics, which can then encode in a succinct and inspiring way the very underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it.”

I also think there is a link, but it has a great deal to do with a libertarian/incompatibilist point of view. I have a very hard time believing in the consciousness of a static 4d object which is not logically distinguishable from a book or videotape.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:Despite his towering stature as a physicist, Penrose has encountered resistance to his theory of consciousness. Oddly, his colleagues have been more accepting of the exotic, cosmic-consciousness implications of quantum mechanics. Ever since the 1920s, physicists have puzzled over the strangely privileged role of the observer in quantum theory. A particle exists in a fuzzy state of uncertainty…but only until it is observed. As soon as someone looks at it and takes its measurements, the particle seems to collapse into a definite location."""""

Yes this has been a launching ramp for no end of pseudo-scientific rhetoric including outright fraudulent scams. I believe the consensus of the scientific community is that it has more to do with implications of the process of observing than the actual presence of an observer.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:"""""The late physicist John Wheeler concluded that the apparent oddity of quantum mechanics was built on an even grander and odder truth: that the universe as a whole festers in a state of uncertainty and snaps into clear, actual being when observed by a conscious being — that is, us.

“We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago,” Wheeler said in 2006. He calls his interpretation the “participatory anthropic principle.” If he is correct, the universe is conscious, but in almost the opposite of the way that Matloff pictures it: Only through the acts of conscious minds does it truly exist at all."""""
...

Just because some physicists indulge in wild philosophical meanderings does not lend any of the credibility of physics to those ideas.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:Today some physicists suspect that, whether or not consciousness influences quantum mechanics, it might in fact arise because of it. They think that quantum theory might be needed to fully understand how the brain works."""

So, if there is anybody here who actually has some grasp of Quantum Physics and how consciousness might factor into it in some way, more than to tell me the cat was a joke even though the principle still stands as a pretty foundational one,

YES! I am in this category.

I think consciousness requires taking ownership of events which are not completely determinate. In this way we become the cause of our actions in an idea of causality which is not confined to the standard time-ordered causality used in science. SEE... just because I endorse an epistemological superiority to the findings of science does not mean that I confine my thinking to science alone. What I will insist on however is that when we leave the objective determinations of science then we MUST accept a diversity of opinion.

Brent696 » August 17th, 2018, 10:19 pm wrote:The subject once again, if I am not deleted, is Einstein's Block Universe, with considerations of how consciousness might factor into such a Block, and how such a static block might reflect itself into a static history that would defy the necessity for continuity.

Not interested.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby davidm on August 18th, 2018, 1:28 pm 

Brent696 » August 18th, 2018, 10:16 am wrote:[
Now perhaps in this quantum view of the universe there is a lot of theorizing, but when Reg or myself speak to staunch evolutionists like you are BIV, the "blindness" we speak of is in the fact the Evolution is a theory, and that's OK, but all those things you have offers as explanations are theories also, although you tend to see them as if they are facts.


It's just amazing! I've already explained the difference between a fact and a theory -- and you just ignore what I say!

The theory of evolution is not perfect, there are gaps, there are spaces that are difficult to explain, whether we are talking about the first cell to replicate or the mad jump from Micro to Macro that is hidden in vast amounts of time,..


Holy wow! Am I surprised? No! I predicted this!

There you are back yet again talking about the first replicating cell, when I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the first replicator was NOT A CELL, and there you are banging on about this "mad jump" nonsense when there was no such thing ... well, carry on with your nonsense.

Now you have taken to belittling the Block universe and what part Consciousness might play in this Universal construct, you are not dismissing some bible thumping creationist's view, you are dismissing the views of many physicists, philosophers, Biochemists and other scientists in general, all I am doing is pointing out possible implications of this view of the universe on other sciences.


Yes, and I asked, in a static universe in which supposedly nothing happens, how your consciousness makes it "happen" to bring reality into existence. And look, what a surprise! You ignore the flat-out contradiction in your own claim. Color me shocked!
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Blocking Evolution

Postby DragonFly on August 18th, 2018, 1:36 pm 

mitchellmckain » August 18th, 2018, 11:52 am wrote:I think consciousness requires taking ownership of events which are not completely determinate. In this way we become the cause of our actions in an idea of causality which is not confined to the standard time-ordered causality used in science.


One cannot own or be the controller of indeterminate events from quantum randomness, which is the problem with libertarianism trying to use this toward a free will in which control by the person is the key to being the cause of action.

The will is not helped by 'random', but is harmed. You need to resolve this.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests