tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.comments2023-12-15T03:43:21.347-05:00Somewhat AbnormalRobert Oerterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09708981993708509662noreply@blogger.comBlogger1134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-74085388580022205562022-02-11T20:58:40.019-05:002022-02-11T20:58:40.019-05:00I can't believe people are still having a hard...I can't believe people are still having a hard time with this. Einstein had if figured out 100 years ago, and he explained it easily enough. It wasn't even his idea. Mammalian nervous systems are effective deterministic. They are robust to noise, in particular. Sure, technically the de Broglie hypothesis holds true- all matter has wave-like nature. However, there is nothing random going on there, except for the odd x-ray that comes in an produces a bit of oxidative stress here and there. (Among other EM frequencies.) In such cases- you might get cancer,but you won't get 'consciousness'. (Which in my opinion, is effectively a nonsense word. There is qualia, neural processing, modeling the world around us- planning, projection, wakefulness, etc. But consciousness is a catch-all similar to the word 'soul', and isn't well defined enough to be useful.) I find it comical that people continue looking for strange quantum effects in the brain, with the idea that somehow that randomness, if found, would allow for alternative possible futures.<br /><br />I find it likely that our *desire* to have choice / "free-will" has perverted our understanding of causality in general. To me; there is nothing that has shown the equivalence of past, present, and future- namely, there being only one of each. Not "multiple possible" futures.<br /><br />There is no reason to believe that human brains have some magic ability to "create different universes" in a fashion that other primates lack. And the slippery slope eventually reduces our ability to "choose" our future in the sense that we could have made some other decision at the same level a protist does. Or a rock. Maybe that rock is under pressure, and due to its internal bond patterns force carrier particles interacting with it- it splits in two. <br /><br />Einstein mentioned "In living through this "great epoch," it is difficult to reconcile oneself to the fact that one belongs to that mad, degenerate species that boasts of its free will. How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for those who are wise and of good will! In such a place even I should be an ardent patriot!" in a letter to Paul Ehrenfest. I feel the same way.<br />Also, "I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he desires, but he cannot will what he desires,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper."<br /><br />People who think they get to decide what they believe baffle me. No matter how much money you gave me, or how much I *wanted* to believe it- I couldn't convince myself that 2+2 equals anything other than 4. Unless we are talking velocities, in which case.. sure. Its a little less than 4, depending on our units. <br /><br />It feels like we have choice. That should be good enough for anyone.Yes Huahuahua! Yes YESSS!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14870937584174071430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-44394589799808257782021-11-02T06:37:44.637-04:002021-11-02T06:37:44.637-04:00Best content & valuable as well. Thanks for sh...Best content & valuable as well. Thanks for sharing this content.<br /><a href="www.acuvat.com/contact-us/" rel="nofollow"> Approved Auditor in DAFZA</a><br /><a href="www.acuvat.com/about-us/" rel="nofollow">Approved Auditor in RAKEZ </a><br /><a href="www.acuvat.com/contact-us" rel="nofollow"> Approved Auditor in JAFZA </a><br />i heard about this blog & get actually whatever i was finding. Nice post love to read this blog<br /><a href="www.acuvat.com/contact-us" rel="nofollow"> Approved Auditor in DMCC </a><br />Drift Financial Serviceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11875146539252208254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-50807765392900393972021-10-20T09:51:23.354-04:002021-10-20T09:51:23.354-04:00i’ve been surfing online extra than three hours in...i’ve been surfing online extra than three hours in recent times, but i in no way found any interest-grabbing article like yours. It¦s lovable cost sufficient for me. In my view, if all website proprietors and bloggers made precise content material fabric as you probably did, the net will likely be lots extra beneficial than ever before. I don’t even understand how i stopped up here, but i idea this post was first rate. I do not recognise who you're but truely you'll a famous blogger in case you aren’t already �� cheers! Excellent read, i simply surpassed this onto a chum who was performing some studies on that. And he just offered me lunch because i found it for him smile so permit me rephrase that: thanks for lunch! <a href="https://totoknitsshopsblog.tumblr.com/" rel="nofollow">카지노</a><br />jack shok jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11832858439138599914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-63195888978608440432021-04-05T08:34:13.540-04:002021-04-05T08:34:13.540-04:00Great info! I recently came across your blog and h...Great info! I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have. <a href="https://ythemt.com/" rel="nofollow">메이저 파워볼사이트</a><br />asddasddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04340423160282766360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-8470352854391640532020-03-02T14:49:03.743-05:002020-03-02T14:49:03.743-05:00I am reminded of Kirk Camron going on TV with a pl...I am reminded of Kirk Camron going on TV with a plastic bird whose head was removed and replaced with a plastic crocodile (which he obviously glued on there). He remarked with a sarcastic smile "See I found the missing link so now I believe in Evolution!".<br /><br />This "proof" reminded me of that "proof" except this is about twice as stupid as that and that was pretty stupid.<br /><br />Geez Professor how the mighty have fallen....<br /><br />-Ben YachovSon of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-9663566297624918232019-12-11T05:12:00.112-05:002019-12-11T05:12:00.112-05:00Thanks for the blog loaded with so many informatio...Thanks for the blog loaded with so many information. Stopping by your blog helped me to get what I was looking for. <a href="https://www.marketing1on1.com/" rel="nofollow">www.marketing1on1.com</a>Rebecca D. McNeelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15846021686101854960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-4868671056622926212019-10-13T04:06:35.378-04:002019-10-13T04:06:35.378-04:00Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel...Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with extra information? It is extremely helpful for me. <a href="http://www.bareyoursole.org.sg/newton-town-located-at-orchard-road/" rel="nofollow">Newton MRT Station</a><br />Jack Johnnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933608625883364901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-64604371165112124972019-04-02T02:02:20.688-04:002019-04-02T02:02:20.688-04:00This is a great post. I like this topic.This site ...This is a great post. I like this topic.This site has lots of advantage.I found many interesting things from this site. It helps me in many ways.Thanks for posting this again. <a href="http://playadelreymovingcompany.com/" rel="nofollow">movers in playa del rey</a>Richard C. Lamberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14766504022599651016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-51922605459707117672017-10-19T14:56:25.712-04:002017-10-19T14:56:25.712-04:00Been thinking the same thing for a while. Is free ...Been thinking the same thing for a while. Is free will what causes you to experience one dimension or another?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05592402878050177389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-21508579589848548132016-11-30T02:14:35.682-05:002016-11-30T02:14:35.682-05:00Thank you for sharing such wonderful information! ...Thank you for sharing such wonderful information! In my opinion, keep a healthy life by consuming healthy food and doing exercise regularly is the best healthy formula.<br /><br /><a href="https://healthcarecareerblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/the-impact-of-shift-work-on-health/" rel="nofollow">Nursing Job Desk</a>seravina danniellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17416651554211077082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-82673367613768104052016-03-05T11:36:19.623-05:002016-03-05T11:36:19.623-05:00I agree with you that her ideas are inconsidered a...I agree with you that her ideas are inconsidered and inappropriate to science in general.<br /><br />How would she consider how our space travel is achieved?<br /><br />I saw her last year at the 'How the light gets in' festival where she was on the stage with John Ellis. Totally outclassed. <br /><br />Outclassed...https://www.blogger.com/profile/14886996684821235786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-36352671117892804002015-11-10T18:46:45.608-05:002015-11-10T18:46:45.608-05:00Newton was a genius, but a very flawed genius. He ...Newton was a genius, but a very flawed genius. He seems to have been obsessed with theology and alchemy as well as in engaging in bitter rivalries with many of his contemporaries: Hooke, Hyuugens, Flamsteed, Leibniz (the co-founder of calculus and the creator of much of the notation we use), etc. I'm surprised Newton didn't have the foresight conduct more practical experiments like Lavoisier to determine the composition of chemical 'substances' instead of wasting time and gray matter on rubbish.<br /><br />I suspect that Newton was, in the spirit of Renaissance Men, consumed by an obsession to understand as much about nature as humanly possible. I suspect that Newton was also a bit crazy (clinically crazy). He was fiercely suspicious and paranoid; perhaps bi-polar disorder or something to that effect. Great minds and their neuroses...(Sigh) Heisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00227244109704426072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-14060052011829156462015-03-18T13:07:38.864-04:002015-03-18T13:07:38.864-04:00Suppose that the monad theory were the only way to...Suppose that the monad theory were the only way to square QM with the PSR (it's not). Then PSR+QM would imply the monad theory. But the monad theory is far from being a trivial claim--it is a highly substantive (and, I think, false) claim about the structure of reality, viz., that there really do exist these monads whose states deterministically explain everything to come. So PSR+QM would imply a highly substantive claim about the structure of reality, which we surely can't get from QM alone. How can the PSR be trivial in that case?<br /><br />As for the proposed monadic explanation of the universe's existence, that just points to the famous gap problem with the Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument only gets you to a necessary being that is a first cause. (The monad in your story had better be necessary, or we can ask why it exists.) Further argument is needed (and has been offered by various authors) that the necessary being is something like God. <br /><br />In other words, the PSR gets you the bare idea that every contingent fact has an explanation. Further argument -- and, in many cases, empirical observation -- is needed to try to identify what that explanation is. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-88908836527718548482015-01-14T21:25:21.314-05:002015-01-14T21:25:21.314-05:00Nobody worships saints. The "Mary fetish"...Nobody worships saints. The "Mary fetish" is the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15, the Proto-Evangelium; and culminates in the "woman clothed with the Sun" of John's Apocalypse 12, mother of Messiah; and the persecution of her "other children." This is the mandate for the Woman & Seed to conquer Satan and his minions. So who's yo' mama? This is a family affair and again NOBODY worships saints, but the family of Christ venerates and honors saints because God is glorified in His saints.<br /><br />The two veins of "paganism" are outright rebellion against all God reveals about Himself and His will; and the corruption of orthodox monotheism, the original and final religion, as with the deification of Noah & Family as, for example, the gods of Olympus, and even Noah being turned into the red devil as the art shows man-with-animals Noah being turned into (drunk and naked) animal-man satyr. May the Holy Spirit grant us His unity. HexagonGrouphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13243108322376637253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-18705832815110581372015-01-11T19:34:27.083-05:002015-01-11T19:34:27.083-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-37212142975099316142014-06-16T09:46:01.976-04:002014-06-16T09:46:01.976-04:00Thanks for your comment, Obsidian. As far as your ...Thanks for your comment, Obsidian. As far as your "straw man" claim, note that I didn't accuse Craig of claiming BGV was a singularity theorem. In his writings, at least, he seems to be careful to avoid this mistake. Still, I think some of the things he says/writes might mislead people into thinking that BGV requires a singularity. <br /><br />For instance, on <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe" rel="nofollow"> this page</a>, Craig writes<br /><br />"But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse <b>must have an absolute beginning</b>."<br /> <br />And later in the same article,<br /><br />"The first of these string cosmologies, Ekpyrotic cyclic models, is <b>subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and so is admitted to involve a beginning of the universe.</b> The second group, Pre-Big Bang models, cannot be extended into the infinite past if they are taken to be realistic descriptions of the universe. The third group, the string landscape models, feature the popular multiverse scenario. They are also <b>subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and so imply a beginning of the universe</b>."<br /><br />[Emphasis added.]<br /><br />It is clear that Craig is claiming that the BGV theorem requires a beginning of the universe. This is simply false: as I explain in the OP, all the BGV theorem implies is a beginning to the region of space-time that satisfies the expansion assumption. Craig has either misunderstood the implications of the theorem, or is begin deliberately misleading. <br /><br />I agree that BGV is a remarkable theorem in that it doesn't rely on Einstein's equations. This does not mean, however, that it applies in the quantum gravity realm. Quantum gravity is not a well-understood area, but many physicists expect that in the quantum gravity regime, not only will Einstein's equations be violated, but also the assumptions of classical spacetime will no longer hold true. BGV of course relies on the assumptions of classical spacetime, so it would not apply in this case.Robert Oerterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708981993708509662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-45870609161138383332014-06-16T08:45:58.873-04:002014-06-16T08:45:58.873-04:00Hey Dr Oerter.
I think you're attacking a str...Hey Dr Oerter. <br />I think you're attacking a straw man. Where did someone say BGV was a singularity theorem? To my knowledge no proponent of Kalam has claimed that.<br />Kalam does not depend in any way on the universe having a singularity rather than some other beginning see for example<br />William Lane Craig & James D. Sinclair ,On Non-Singular Space-times and the Beginning of the Universe<br />where Craig discusses non-singular models<br />I might be mistaken about this but I think Vilenkin says that BGV will hold whatever modifications to Einstein's gravity we make with quantum gravity.<br />“A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. . . . We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value” [Vilenkin,Many Worlds in One pg 175]<br /><br />I agree that the BGV theorem does *prove* the universe had a beginning , but its a very general theorem that applies to a wide class of models , so it does have teh implication that many contemporary models of the universe (including ones like the Turok cyclic model) which were once thought to avert a beginning , do have a beginning.Obsidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07492809766606634642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-21137226971306876422014-05-23T07:25:41.831-04:002014-05-23T07:25:41.831-04:00Yes, I agree. I didn't mean to imply that expl...Yes, I agree. I didn't mean to imply that explanatory power doesn't count: only that explanatory power, without predictive success, is not sufficient for a theory to become accepted.Robert Oerterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708981993708509662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-25540155813610146872014-05-22T11:09:14.528-04:002014-05-22T11:09:14.528-04:00Thanks for a very interesting post.
The one thing...Thanks for a very interesting post.<br /><br />The one thing I'm hesitant over is your epistemology. You claim that a theory has to make novel predictions that pan out experimentally to be accepted as truth. While I agree this is the main road to scientific acceptance, I do think explanatory virtues such as explanatory power and bredth count too. So while I wouldn't at all accept the inflationary model as <b>The Truth</b> without the empirical evidence, I would accept it as being <b>More Likely to Be True</b> in light of its explanatory power.<br /><br />Yairיאיר רזקhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15798134654972572485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-75394946608322509312014-03-22T01:46:05.414-04:002014-03-22T01:46:05.414-04:00"When the world doesn't work the way you ..."When the world doesn't work the way you want it to, just invent some invisible, undetectable beings to fill the gap."""<br /><br />Yeah, like Multiverse..the Magical Everything Maker Machine<br /><br />I also love ..I choose to believe their is no Freewill and you dont choose to believe it your dumb<br /><br />Time is an illusion is a good one to spew out, right after you say the universe is 13 billions old and "started" at the big bang.<br /><br />So I agree, it is better just to say we dont know instead of making fools ourselves.John Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-42953909287026464612014-03-19T10:19:39.244-04:002014-03-19T10:19:39.244-04:00Bob wins the internet.Bob wins the internet.BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-53746462698194388032014-03-18T06:30:21.749-04:002014-03-18T06:30:21.749-04:00Prof. Oerter,
Seems to me that Prof. Feser is pro...Prof. Oerter,<br /><br />Seems to me that Prof. Feser is proposing that you need to add an angel or two to your Feynman diagram, otherwise the metaphysical description will be, necessarily, incomplete. Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-75792300407456058792014-03-17T15:07:35.421-04:002014-03-17T15:07:35.421-04:00Some replies are posted under your latest comment ...Some replies are posted under your latest comment at <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/can-you-explain-something-by-appealing.html" rel="nofollow">Ed's blog</a>.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-52075508022227404002014-03-17T11:58:54.987-04:002014-03-17T11:58:54.987-04:00Just like you and Parsons, I'm struggling with...Just like you and Parsons, I'm struggling with understanding how God's self-actualization is different from a brute fact. Must have something to do with logical impossibility to not exist. You either accept that "everything needs an explanation" or that "nothing needs an explanation." In the every day life, it's enough to say that lightning was the cause of fire, but in philosophy, you gotta ask what caused the lightning. And you either go on asking the same kind of question forever, or you stop. But you can't stop at something that "just is" because you've already accepted that everything needs an explanation. So, your only logical choice will be to stop at something that somehow cannot not exist. <br /><br />Otherwise, if you chose "nothing needs an explanation," you might as well just stop at "fire just is."<br /><br />Of course, someone may say, "How about 'Some things require explanation and others don't?'" But I for one have no idea how you would distinguish those. Any framework would seem terribly arbitrary.<br /><br />But it's strange that you contrast scientific explanations with Aristotelian explanations. The former arose from the later, and the later is only distinct in a sense that it adds another dimension (form) to the world it purports to explain, claiming a fuller metaphysical account.Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17922293511230395024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164603649660539619.post-74262133979561620062014-03-07T14:49:24.999-05:002014-03-07T14:49:24.999-05:00I am talking about the Humean regularity view of t...I am talking about the Humean regularity view of the laws of nature.<br /><br />Physicists are generally not very interested in philosophy :-) Those that do think of causality almost invariably reach Carrol's conclusion, in my opinion - that what exists is what's in the models, and 'causes' as such aren't. <br /><br />We can explore a model with two particles, and tgeir interaction term, and track the dynamics from initial to final states. But this model doean't iclude 'cause'. We add that when we narrate the model, choosing to label one particle's electric potential (say) as the cause of the other's movement. This becomes even clearer in more conpliicared cases, where counter-factual reasoning is often employed to decide what should count as cause, and with ideterminism which exposes the arbittariness of the labeling system.<br /><br />Yairיאיר רזקhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15798134654972572485noreply@blogger.com