Supernatural is not the same as Magic

Copied From

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/metaphysical-speculations/tQlDhxbJXNE

 

Sci, this is one of the best disputations I have yet seen against physicalism.

Notice that Putnam rightly distinguishes the “magical” from the “supernatural.”  As I have noted before, “supernatural” does not have, in traditional theology, the connotations that movies, television, and the like have given it in the popular mind.  In particular, it does not have any necessary connection with belief in ghosts or other paranormal phenomena.  The “supernatural” is just that which transcends the natural order.  And if it is not governed by the laws that govern the natural order, that is not because it is less intelligible than the natural order, but because it is more intelligible, and indeed the source of the intelligibility of the natural order.  The natural order is contingent; its divine, supernatural ground is necessary.   The causal processes in terms of which we explain everyday happenings within the natural order are secondary, having only a derived efficacy; the divine, supernatural first cause is that which has its causal power inherently, in an absolutely underived way.

The Brain Chip: A Science Fiction Story

.
--by Robert Arvay

 

        It was the year 2218 when the problem was discovered.  No one knew what to do about it.

        Beginning fifty years earlier, in 2168, everyone had begun being implanted with a computerized micro-chip, in their brain.  It took ten years to insert all the chips.  This included the time it took to hunt down all the hold-outs, and to enforce compliance.  After ten years, almost everyone was a “chipper,” a person who had the chip.

        The chip was deemed to be necessary.  Life had become too complicated for most people to manage.  Suicides were on the rise.  Crime had dramatically increased.  Masses of people were either uneducated, or mis-educated, because few people could agree on what was fact, and what was opinion.  Chaos threatened to destroy society.

        Technology had empowered individuals to such a degree that it was all but impossible to maintain law and order.  A grade-school kid could figure out how to hack the computer systems of banks, nuclear missile silos, and even their own report cards.

        Something had to be done.  Something was done.

        The brain chip solved the problem.  Inserted into the brain early in life, even as soon as a month after being born, everyone could think alike, or at least, enough alike to forestall the radical disagreements which previously had threatened civil war.  The chip had its own microcomputer program, and it could in turn program, in a sense, the human brain of the recipient.  Human brains were then programmed to agree on the most controversial issues which previously had been tearing society apart.  Chippers obeyed the rules, and therefore, chippers could be trusted.

        Even better yet, the brain chips could all receive periodic updates from time to time via signals transmitted from satellites.  This allowed the government to revise failed social programs without the traditional bickering that had previously disrupted every major social program change in the pre-chip years.

        At first, many people had objected to the brain chip.  It was itself the most controversial technology that had ever been introduced.  At first, the chip had been surreptitiously inserted into the brains of children during doctor visits.  Parents were either not told what was happening, or else were given false information.  As word of this leaked out, dissent increased.

        After a few years, however, everyone could see that children with the chip did better in school than most other children.  They were better behaved, more obedient, and easier to raise.  After that, more and more parents clamored to have their own children implanted, and finally, adults themselves began asking for and receiving chip implants.  People with the chip earned much more than most people without it, because with it, they became much smarter than before.

        What no one was told, until there was no denying it, is that once the chip is implanted, it cannot be removed without tragic consequence to the recipient.  Painful deaths occurred whenever a chip was removed.

        For nearly fifty years, no one requested the removal of chip implants.  Everyone who had one was happy with it.  No chipper ever felt depressed, worried, or in doubt—about anything, not even about the chip itself. 

        Unlike as with drugs, the chip enabled the chipper to cope with problems, and to devise solutions, because the chip enhanced intelligence.  Everyone who had it had automatic encyclopedic knowledge of virtually every subject taught in any school.  Since the knowledge was stored, not in the brain, but in the chip, the knowledge did not occupy one’s thoughts until and unless he needed it.  Then, he could access the needed information immediately.  For example, anyone who needed to learn Swahili (or any other language) could instantly master it, and speak it with as much proficiency as any native speaker.

        But one day, the Great Problem was discovered.  It was discovered that the chip had an embedded error in it, an inherent and irreparable malfunction which would eventually, but inevitably, cause the chipper to go suddenly and incurably insane, and violently so.  The incidence of this form of insanity suddenly began to increase, and no one knew how much worse it might get.

        At first, there was general panic in the population, not only panic, but anger.  Who had designed the chip?  Why had it been put into patients without thorough testing beforehand?  Which government officials had authorized the surreptitious implants into children?  How dare they?  The possibility of rebellion loomed large.

        The panic suddenly ended when the next update was made via satellite transmissions.  Everyone suddenly assumed that the problem was only temporary, and that a fix had already been devised.  The fix would be implemented soon, very soon, even as soon as tomorrow.

        Nobody resented the fact that tomorrow after tomorrow came and went, with no solution, because after all, the problem would be fixed tomorrow.

.

Metaphysical Implications of Language

.

The concept of language involves a great deal of metaphysical implications.  What does its existence tell us about reality?  About ourselves?  About nature?

 

The fact that there are many languages, not just one, is a very profound fact, the significance of which should not be dismissed.  It is said that the ancient Greeks thought that theirs was the only language.  The word, “barbarian,” is said to have, in Greek, meant something like, “babbler.”  After all, the ancients may have wondered, how can there be more than one language?  Is not language absolute?  All else is just meaningless noise.

 

Not only are there many languages, they can take many forms.  Indeed, even within one language, it can take varied forms such as spoken, written, gestures, smoke-signals and so forth.

 

Language in general is defined as a means of communication, and more precisely, as a formal and structured means of communication.  It requires a sender, a meaning, and a receiver.  The sender intends to convey a particular meaning to the receiver.  The definition of language can be somewhat ambiguous, even though, as with art, we think we know what it is.

 

Language can express a particular thought, a specific emotion, an image, or ambiguities, such as, huh?

 

Before we get too far afield, let us narrow the topic to a more manageable scope. 

 

The concept of a transmitter, signal and receiver seems to be the core of language.  Take away any one of these, and there is no communication.

 

Both the sender and the receiver must share a language, and moreover, share everything that is involved with that language.  The sender has a thought, translates that thought into words, sends the message, which the other person receives and understands.  What had been a thought in one person’s mind, now becomes a thought in both persons’ minds.

 

The cosmos communicates.  Gravity can be considered a form of communication between two physical structures (such as earth and moon).

 

There is also a form of language involved in DNA.  It is this one which may have the most profound implications for philosophy, metaphysics and theology.

 

The comparison of DNA to a written language has been made for a long time.  It is somewhat controversial.  Even the question is in doubt, of whether DNA encodes the instructions for building an entire organism, such as the human body.  Recent research indicates that the role of DNA is much more limited than that.  It might, at most, encode only for proteins.

 

Regardless of that, it is clear that when a cell begins to divide into becoming a multicellular organism, it is following some sort of plan.  The exact nature of that plan is a mystery.  Indeed, it is one of the greatest mysteries of physics, perhaps of cosmology.  Why should a purely physical nature be able to instruct mere atoms (and molecules) to begin with a single cell, and then to make copies of itself, and then to make specialized copies of itself, and to organize all the subsequent iterations of the original cell into a coordinated system of cells that comprise one individual?

 

The principle of language, remember, incorporates a sender, a meaning, and a receiver.  If DNA is the message, the meaning—then what (or who) is the sender?  The receiver?

 

DNA, then, does not fit neatly into this model, this definition of language.  Yet, somehow, even though we cannot clearly pinpoint the sender and receiver, it becomes clear that DNA is transmitting some sort of message, a message that is understood to the degree that its instructions are followed.

 

DNA-language bears some resemblance to computer languages.

 

Computers are programmed according to languages—computer languages.  Computer languages are composed of two elements, known as ones and zeroes, or as charged and uncharged diodes.  From these ones and zeroes (known as bits), are formed multi-bit combinations known as bytes, or letters.  The bytes are combined into lines of code, or computer instructions.  When properly embedded into a computer’s electronic components, these lines of code form a sort of language, which the computer uses to carry out its functions.

 

Unlike the DNA in a cell, computers are programmed by living, conscious humans, programmers, who use the programs to carry out functions intended by the human programmers.

 

Are human cells, bodies and brains, programmed by some external force?  Is that force a blind, unknowing, uncaring nature?  Or is that force itself alive?

 

Is life an emergent phenomenon of chemistry, or is it the other way around?  Are life, consciousness and free will the motivating force, the underlying reality, of nature?

-

 

Understanding Animals and Humans

.

I went to a zoo.  I went there to study animals.  Soon, I became confused.  How could I study animals when there were so many kinds of them?  There were lions and tigers, zebras and antelopes.  There were reptiles and arachnids, apes and monkeys, and birds of every feather.

Realizing that I could never understand animals by visiting a zoo, I decided instead to study humans.  After all, I am a human, and other humans must be just like me, so what could be difficult about that?  So, I visited large cities, small towns, and rural areas.  I was sure that by doing so, I could come to understand humans.

I was wrong.

Scientifically, there is only one species of human, but otherwise, humanity is a menagerie.  There are wolves and rabbits, snakes and insects, robots and meat grinders.

True, I am exaggerating, but there is a madness to my madness.  The animals in the zoo are, at least, rational.  Lions eat antelopes, not out of cruelty, but hunger.  Antelopes run from lions, not because of cowardice, but because survival demands it.  Reptiles and arachnids do not contemplate their actions beforehand, they strike at the first opportunity.

Humans victimize other humans out of cruelty.  Cowards run from danger for the same reason they run from truth.  Predators of the human variety constantly seek their next victim, and strike at the first opportunity.

Perhaps each human has, within him, the entire animal kingdom.  Perhaps an artist is a spider, but one who can appreciate the beauty of a web, glistening in the morning dew.  Perhaps a scientist is an ape who can build better tools.  Engineers are bees who can construct ever more complex hives.  Some of us are worker-bees, laboring for our brief lifespan in service of the queen.  Criminals are insects, unfeeling.

The big difference is that in the animal kingdom, the snake is forever a snake, unable to change into a butterfly.  Humans, however, can examine their own condition, learn moral values and apply them.  That so many of them do not, portends the existence of Hell, if not a Hell of fire and brimstone, then the eternal darkness of an empty soul.

Society today is riven by strife.  Passions are aroused by politics, religion and ideology.  To excerpt William Butler Yeats, from his poem, The Second Coming:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
. . .
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

I was wrong.  I am returning to visit the zoo.

.

A Diagram of Reality

.

Can reality be diagrammed?

 

Most of us are familiar with the diagram of the atom.  It consists of a large, central dot, around which are drawn ovals or circles.  Simple.  The large central dot represents the nucleus.  The outer circles also have one small dot each, representing the electrons.

 

The diagram is simple, easy to understand, and gives the novice a beginning idea how to think of the atom.  Of course, as we learn more about the atom, we learn that the diagram is too simple.  The nucleus is not a dot, but a complicated structure of quarks and forces.  Nor are the electrons dots, but rather, clouds, which are not separate from their orbits.  Even so, the diagram of the atom is a useful starting point toward understanding—only toward understanding, because we may never arrive at a full understanding.

 

Likewise, a diagram of reality is not to be taken literally as a full understanding.  It is not.  Even so, it provides a useful starting point, an anchor to which one can always refer, when his understanding begins to drift into a maze of complications.  Like a map of a large city, or of a continent, it helps to orient us, even though the map is but a symbol.

 

The diagram of reality is simply two circles, one inside the other, with a dot at the center.  How simple can it get?

 

Of course, that is too simple, even for the novice, so we have to point out some landmarks.  The two circles form a doughnut shape, an outer band which we can color in for clarity.  That outer band represents the material world that we experience through our senses.  It is the part of reality that we can see, touch, hear and so forth.  It is where we find atoms, rocks, cars and trees, and even our physical bodies.

 

Inside the doughnut shape is a circular disc, like a dinner plate.  This represents the part of reality that we cannot see or touch.  It is the abstract reality of mathematics, of the properties of physical things, and of even greater realities, such as life and consciousness.  This inner disc of abstractions is what governs the physical world.  Without it, there would be only chaos in the physical world.

 

Finally, our diagram of reality contains a central dot, but this dot is nothing like the nucleus of the atom.  The central dot of reality, if we can call it that for now, is the unknowable essence.  Really?  What good can come of discussing the unknowable?  Let’s see.

 

Just as the inner disc of abstract reality governs the outer physical reality, so also does the unknowable essence govern the entire diagram.  It not only governs it, but gives rise to it.  It provides plan, purpose and meaning to all of existence.

 

While we can never know the unknowable—of course—we can learn some things about it. 

 

In the diagram, the dot cannot be drawn small enough, because the center of a circle is an infinitely small point.  Its size is zero.  As we can quickly see, zero is not, “nothing.”  The center is unquestionably there.  It is unquestionably real.  We cannot, however, fully comprehend it.  Never.  It is unknowable.

 

If we wish to think of this in terms of the Trinity of Christian faith, we could say that the central dot represents (and we must tread very carefully here,) the Holy Spirit of God.  We could also say that the inner disc represents the Creator.  Finally, we could say that the outer band of the diagram represents Jesus, the physical incarnation of God.

 

We must hasten to clarify that God cannot be diagrammed.  The diagram does, however, give us a reference point on several challenges to God.  First, there are not three Gods, but only one, with three aspects (persons).  Also, God has no beginning, no more so than the center has a center.

 

Just as a map of a continent is not the continent itself, but only a tool for navigation, so also, the diagram of reality is only a symbol, one which helps us navigate through life.

 

The diagram also helps us to address the question of monism versus dualism.  The monist side of the question is answered by the fact that the diagram is one, a unified whole.  The dualist side is that while the physical is part of the hierarchy, it does exist.  Then there is the hierarchical argument, that reality can be understood in terms of Creator, Creation, Creature:  God, the Universe, Us.

.

Does Consciousness Reconcile Quantum Physics with General Relativity?

Sir Roger Penrose, during a taped interview, said something that has intrigued me for a long time.  He said that, eventually, the answer to the mystery of consciousness, will be found in the gap between General Relativity and Quantum Physics.

 

Such a gap does exist, and the Holy Grail of physics, of its Standard Model, is to fill that gap, to reconcile the two main theories of physics.  Those two theories clash with each other, and thus far, no one has been able to bring them together.  Both are considered to be valid branches of physics, and yet, they seem to exclude each other.

 

There might, however, be a way, an approach, albeit as radically different from the conventional paradigm as was Relativity to physics.  I will present a conceptual approach to the problem that might move us closer to a solution.  I cannot call it a theory, not even properly a hypothesis, so I will timidly refer to it as a provisional hypothesis, more a way of thinking about the problem, than a final answer. 

 

Before explaining this provisional hypothesis of the reconciliation, of relativity and quantum mechanics, let us first set the stage by briefly glancing at the paradigm leap that brought General Relativity into the picture.

 

Before General Relativity was formulated by Einstein, the view of physics was much different than it is now.  Space and time were considered distinctly separate from each other, gravity was considered to be a “force acting at a distance,” and matter was thought to be entirely separate from energy.

 

All of that changed dramatically with Einstein’s theory.  One of his equations, perhaps the most famous equation in history, is, E=MC².  What that equation does, is to unify, or reconcile, matter and energy with each other.  In practice, relativity theory has proven to be wildly successful.

 

The “E” in the equation stands, of course, for Energy, and M for Matter (or Mass).  But the equation would not reconcile anything were it simply to say, E = M.  If they already equal each other, then no reconciliation is necessary.

 

The equation contains the letter, C.  C is the physical, mathematical constant for the speed of light, with a value of about 300,000 meters per second.  The exact value is not what concerns us here; it is the principle of reconciliation between two things that were once thought to be totally separate from each other, that is germane.

 

To complete the reconciliation of energy and matter, any value of E is equal to the value obtained by multiplying the value of the mass, M, and multiplying that times C times C (or C-squared).

 

E=MC². 

 

Let us use the foregoing as a template for predicting what the final reconciliation of relativity with quantum physics will look like.

We can begin with the incomplete equation, R = Q.  The R symbolizes relativity, and the Q is used as a symbol for Quantum (quantum physics).  Of course, neither R nor Q is a number.  They are place-holders for the eventual reconciliation equation.  R will be the side of the equation involving Relativity, and then of course, Q is the other side of the equation, involving Quantum Physics.

 

Just as in the equation, E=MC², where E = M would be incomplete, so also is R = Q incomplete.  We need a reconciling value, or set of values, such as a universal constant in some shape or form.

 

Therefore, to move the equation closer toward its final form, let us write it as, R = Q x C.  This is still incomplete, of course, but we are following the template, E=MC².   So, R=QC².

 

In this new equation, C is not the speed of light, but rather, a universal constant.  It is written here as C – squared, but that is only for symbolic purposes.  It is unlikely that the final equation will contain C².  We now have a new template, which is, R=QC².  Bear in mind this is a provisional template only.

 

Of course, were matters this simple, someone by now would have moved much closer to a solution than in fact has been the case.  It becomes apparent that, while the template (E=MC²) got us started, it needs to be changed quite radically, and this is where the provisional hypothesis takes off in a new direction.

 

The part of the template that needs to be changed next, is not the R, nor the Q, nor the C.  It is the equal sign (=).

 

When the left side of an equation is equal to, or interchangeable with, the right side, then of course the equal sign denotes this.  That is what makes it an equation.  When the two sides are not equal, then we have an “inequation,” and the equal sign is replaced by another symbol.  If the equal sign has a diagonal line through it, this indicates inequality, but with no indication as to which side is greater than the other.  If it is known which side is greater, then either the “greater than” sign (>) or the “less than” sign (<), is used, for example to denote that A > B (A is greater than B) or A < B (A is less), or some combination which may include the equal sign, as in A is greater than or equal to B.

 

There are also modifications to the equal sign that indicate that, while the two sides are not equal, they are a close approximation of each other.  A “wavy” equal sign can indicate this.

 

What there is not a “sign” for, is quantum uncertainty.  In this commentary, we will suggest such a sign, and because of printer limitations, let us design it as, [?], a bracketed question mark.

 

With this innovation, we can now further modify our template to look like, R [?] QC².

 

The quantum uncertainty sign [?] indicates not only that it is unknown which side of the inequation is greater, but more importantly, it indicates oscillation.  One side can be greater, then become less.  For example, the spin of an electron may be plus one (+1) or minus one (-1) in one instant, and may reverse in the next instant.  The exact value of the spin is indeterminate, until it is measured, and this is what the uncertainty sign [?] signifies.

 

Now then, is there anything more that will direct the reconciliation?  Yes.  The symbol C, in the equation, stands not for the speed of light, but for Consciousness.

 

Unlike the speed of light, consciousness does not have a mathematical value, yet it is very likely a factor in quantum mechanics, which is why it is placed on the Q side of the inequation.

 

Here, we have radically changed the template of E=MC².   The new template is hardly recognizable, but the old template did help us to form the new one, which is, R [?] QC².

 

R [?] QC².

 

We should now get rid of the 2 super-script, and replace it with an indeterminate symbol, X.

 

R [?] QC^x. 

 

The X is not necessarily a power to which C is raised, but rather, a place-holder for a further modification yet to be devised. 

 

As you see, this is all murky, possibly with none of the mathematical precision that the Standard Model of physics demands.  What else, however, can we expect?  We are in unexplored territory, trying to peer through the fog in search of a path forward.  Such a search cannot be restricted to methods that, so far, have not borne fruit.  At the same time, we wish not to stray any further from conventional searches than is necessary.

 

This new template may be somewhat along the lines of what Penrose was suggesting in the opening paragraph of this commentary, with quantum uncertainty filling the gap. 

 

Whatever the final reconciliation between Relativity and Quantum Physics will be, it probably will not follow the template of E=MC².  What will be needed is new physics, perhaps a new innovation in mathematics, and a new paradigm in which consciousness is not an outcome of physics, but a fundamental reality that underlies physics, both relativistic and quantum.

 

If the new paradigm includes spiritual influences, why should that be a problem, if the solution turns out to be useful?

 

There is also, the possibility that the final description of reality will be something for which the human brain may be inherently and forever inadequate to sort out.  This does not necessarily mean, however, that the human mind, apart from the brain, cannot make sense of it all, at least enough sense to fulfill its needs, and its purpose, in the grand scheme of things.

-

Can the Universe Have Arisen from Nothing?

.

Sometimes it happens that, just as I begin to think that I am smarter than I really am, I get reminded otherwise.  Here is an exchange between two people, both of whom are smarter than me.  They were discussing the question of whether the universe could have spontaneously arisen from nothing.  The deeper question, of course, involves what nothingness is, and what “somethingness” is.  Here is what Nicholas and Simon had to say about the matter:

 

https://www.freethoughtforum.org/blog/did-the-universe-come-from-nothing

[Begin Quote by Nicholas Burk, Executive Board Member © 2019 Free Thought Initiative]

When I run into religious arguments against mainstream science, I often hear a line that goes something like this: “And what about the Big Bang? Now scientists would have us believe that something came from nothing. How absurd! Something is something and nothing is nothing and to think otherwise is nonsense! Besides, we never ever see something come out of nothing do we?”

Do we? Here is this common misconception in a nutshell: “The universe couldn’t have possibly popped into existence out of nothing.”

[Skip to next segment]

[Resume quotes by Nicholas—bolding by me]

Through mathematics and indirect observation of quantum fluctuations, scientists can now make the case that our universe did indeed come into existence out of what people call, “nothing.”

Now most people’s problem with this astonishing discovery comes from the use of this word, “nothing.” In everyday language, when we say nothing, we mean the opposite of something. We mean absolute emptiness, an unambiguous void. This pure, theoretical, and definition-based abstract doesn’t really exist. This idea isn’t exactly what cosmologists and quantum physicists mean.

[End quote, Let's turn to Simon]

[Response segment by “Simon”]

Hi Nick

Having once been an atheist, I find it interesting that when I now talk to atheists, I realise how powerful “confirmation bias” is on both sides in these discussions. Previously the idea of positing god as an explanation for the big bang was a bit like the atheist Stephen Hawkins famous description of never ending turtles on top of turtles - if god caused the big bang then who caused god etc. Quantum fluctuations underpinning spacetime, seething with ‘zero point’ energy seemed a far better hint at what could become a clearer, tangible answer.

Now my view of god is very different, and whilst I fully appreciate that science by definition must avoid untestable theories such as “god did it” from the process, I find that atheists are working with turtles. Ignoring for now the questions about the nature of quantum fluctuations, and how these manifest in a ‘universe’ that has neither space nor time, the god I believe in is absolute, not created and underpins everything. All energy ultimately comes from him and all time, space and quantum phenomena sit within him.

[End response segment]

[Now, for my comments] 

Nicholas has made a flawed argument, and Simon recognizes that.  The universe could have come from “nothing,” but only if you carefully re-define “nothing” as “something.”  Net zero is not “nothing.”  Plus one minus one equals zero, but in this case, that “zero” contains plus one and minus one, which clearly are not zero, and not “nothing.”  Even the vaunted Stephen Hawking stumbled on that matter.

Many atheists, having concluded that there is no God, cut their feet to fit their shoes.  Likewise, some of my fellow Christians make the most bone-headed arguments FOR God.

IMO, when we argue for or against (you name it, Idealism, God, atheism, physicalism) we should recognize that when it comes to ultimates and absolutes, human reason is inadequate to define them, much less to prove/disprove them.

We can at best only say WHY we believe as we do.

Thereafter, any further discussion should center as much on learning as it does on persuading.

.