Wayne,
just a few comments
Wayne Dawson wrote:
>
> If the universe is *not* a mere "tale told by an idiot with sound and
> flury signifying nothing" (Shakespear's Macbeth), then the universe
> must reflect some features of purpose. If there is purpose or
> meaning, then we have at least some idea where to _begin_ our search
> for the source of that purpose, which seems ultimately to confess a
> concept of God (whatever that ultimate sense of God might actually
> turn out to be).
************
My view is that mans search for purpose is hopeless. There is no
purpose in the material world. Prominent athiests admist depression and
morals have little underpinning.
My viewis that without God and a God who reveals himself there is
nothing worthwhile. You want purpose, you should seek His revealed
word.
Now, if you want to determine weither to believe in God or not and whose
version thereof, there is a lot that can be used in support by examining
the physical reality we find ourselves in.
*******************
>
> Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > 1) There is a fundamental relationship in quantum fluctions between
> > size and likelyhood. The larger the fluctuation, the smaller the
> > probability. The decrease in probability is substantial even at the
> > size of an atom much less a baseball. Quantum fluctions are just
> > that, fluctions at the level where quantum effects are significant.
>
> I hope I am not belaboring things.... Doing a little unpacking of
> this, I think what you are saying here is that my "microgram blob of
> stuff popping into existence ex nihilo" is not very likely to be
> observed because such events are extremely rare. Indeed, so rare,
> that a calculation would convince me that we should not expect to
> observe such events --- even if they can (in principle) occur.
****************
In principle, all the atoms in a ball full of gas can suddenly align in
momentum vector. You are not going to see it so don't stay up.
************************
>
> It would be unwise to simply dismiss the "quantum fluctuation" (QF)
> idea simply because we have no evidence of the event, that much I
> agree on. If I do that, then (short of the judgement day) I would be
> held to producing a "measurement" of God, which don't have in my hand,
> and I don't expect one to be forthcoming in the near future. <grin>
>
> At the same time, no matter how many (legitimate) excuses we have for
> why we don't have the measurement, it seems like it is still an act of
> faith to assume this (many worlds) as "Truth" (or at least --- a
> better "Truth") without the evidence. Moreover, QFs may also be part
> of a universe "with purpose".
************
I agree that QF does not eliminate God but others grab it without
question. A recent astromony magazine has a set of contributed articles
and one told us that the QF source for the universe eliminated the need
for a God.
*********************
We cannot assert that because there
> are "quantum fluctuations", therefore there is no God. Or
>
> premise: many world ==> no God
> claim: many worlds
> conclusion: no God
>
> Although the structure if flawless, it does not logically follow that
> there is any connect between the existence of God, and the existence
> of QF any more than we can assert that "all suffering is caused by
> sin".
>
> Hence, the atheist who asserts a *"better"* theory of reality, must
> show his/her evidence of "many worlds", and not a hand waving argument
> about the impossibility of the measurement.
**************
IF there are an infinity of universes we could not measure or detect
them.
*************
Those of us who assert
> purpose in the (many worlds of the) universe are held to this
> "evidence" standard are we not? One who asserts "purpose" would
> likely assert that he/she doesn't understand what God *is*
> sufficiently to even begin to "measure" this God. In fact, a God, who
> really is some genuine God, probably is far beyond our simple minded
> intuitive grasp with material based experimental probes. Hence, we
> are currently at a loss of a means to "measure" that God.
> Untestablity is the criticism waged on faith, but what of "many
> worlds"?
>
> Another problem as I see it: it is fine that one claims that quantum
> fluctations rule our universe, and that our universe even appeared as
> a result of such fluctuations. However, creation/annihilation
> operators must act on "something". There must exist a "field" (of
> some kind) for the operators to act on (AFAIK: as a layman in quantum
> field theory). Moreover, the one piece of reliable evidence we have
> is that everything decays (even protons). Yet the whole camp of folk
> would claim the no-God "Truth" assert in its place that all this has
> "simply been here". Isn't this an act of "faith"? If there was
> evidence of permanence, then it would be possible to assert an
> infinity, but we have none whatever to assert. Without a "field"
> there is nothing, where then did that field come from? Causation
> without a cause flys in the face of everything we *do* currently
> understand about physical laws, AFAIK.
>
> > 2) Infinite universes popping into and out of existence is first
> > beyond detection. Second, it is not based on any extrapolation from
> > know physics. It is speculation period and generally sourced from a
> > desire to have an infinity since the infamous bouncing universe of
> > Sagan is not firmly rulled out.
>
> It also defies Occam's Razor to assert unobserved and unobserable
> "entities" (whether they be "gods", "angels" or "many worlds") when
> evidence is not forthcoming. (I saw a proof of this in the PCF
> probably in the March or July issue.) Since all must be held to the
> same standard, what can this say for the athiest who purports that
> his/her "Truth" is somehow "*better*" than a faith in a God who
> created heaven and earth (and all things visible and invisible).
>
> --------------------
>
> I also have been thinking a bit about the matter of religion from a
> different point of view recently --- inspired partly from Glen
> Morton's posts and writings. Suppose we treat homo habilis as human
> and assert that part of that human-ness is/was expressed in religious
> faith and a "perception" of the existence of God (as well as physical
> characteristics). If we accept this (which I recognize some are quite
> reluctant to do), then we are forced to reckon with the fact that
> human beings have "survived" with this religious "faith" for more than
> 2 million years of time. Now, "culture" (written languages and
> thought) have been around for say 5000 yrs, which is about 10% of the
> time western science has been practiced in some form. We could
> *perhaps* dismiss this 5000 yrs as mere "ignorance" which we can now
> supplant with our "Western science" (hrumph). However, 2 million yrs
> is not so easy to dismiss, since by the very notions of evolution,
> this time period is sufficiently long to "fine tune" the survival
> mechanisms of an organism through "natural selection".
>
> The conclusion is that religious faith is *somehow necessary* for the
> survival of our species. Whereas we cannot assert that this as
> "evidence" per se of a universe with purpose, or that God exists, we
> can say that it is extremely *questionable* to adhere to the narrow
> minded views of certain AI folk or proponents of a dogmatically
> materialistic minded evolutionary view who would purport that
> "religion is a meme and should be blotted from the brain". Such
> thinking seems very dangerous outside of the halls of speculative
> intellectual parlance in light of our ignorance.
>
> Wayne Dawson
> dawson@ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp
*******************
QF are located in our space time and there is a great deal of hand
waving to get to entire universes.
We do have a better infromed general relativety theorist on line and
perhaps he would like to weigh in on this.
***********
Where are you in Japan?
************
Bert M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 17 2000 - 00:41:51 EST