[betty boop]

The weakest part of the article, and the one barely supported was the notion that the Universe could not have created life (man). The article is weak; principally it is argument by assertion and the assertion is over stated.

Hello 2ndreconmarine! It’s so good to see you again!

WRT to the above, I’m not clear what you mean by "Universe" in this statement. Do you mean matter plus physical laws?

The subject matter of the article at the top is so very near and dear to my heart. And yet – I have a “front-burner project” going on now that I have to take care of before I’ll have the opportunity to engage in this discussion. With any luck at all, I’ll be back in a day or so. And I’m most anxious for that to be the case, for this promises to be a great feast!

Meanwhile, I just received a very interesting article from a friend, by George F R Ellis, Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town, entitled “Physics and the Real World.” I haven’t read it through yet, but it appears to be on-topic. Maybe you’ll find it of interest. Here’s the abstract:

Physics and chemistry underlie the nature of all the world around us, including human brains. Consequently some suggest that in causal terms, physics is all there is. However we live in an environment dominated by objects embodying the outcomes of intentional design (buildings, computers, teaspoons). The present-day subject of physics has nothing to say about the intentionality resulting in existence of such objects, even though this intentionality is clearly causally effective. This paper examines the claim that the underlying physics uniquely causally determines what happens, even though we can’t predict the outcome. It suggests that what occurs is the contextual emergence of complexity: the higher levels in the hierarchy of complexity have autonomous causal powers, functionally independent of lower-level processes. This is possible because top-down causation takes place as well as bottom-up action, with higher-level contexts determining the outcome of lower level functioning, and even modifying the nature of lower level constituents. Stored information plays a key role, resulting in non-linear dynamics that is non-local in space and time. Brain functioning is causally affected by abstractions such as the value of money and the theory of the laser. These are realized as brain states in individuals, but are not equivalent to them. Consequently physics per se can’t causally determine the outcome of human creativity, rather it creates the possibility space allowing human intelligence to function autonomously. The challenge to physics is to develop a realistic description of causality in truly complex hierarchical structures, with top-down causation and memory effects allowing higher levels of order to emerge with genuine causal powers.

You can download the PDF from this URL:

http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis/realworld.pdf.

Be back soon, God willing!

Thanks ever so much for the ping, 2ndreconmarine!

[marron]

Physics and chemistry underlie the nature of all the world around us, including human brains... Stored information... money and the theory of the laser...

Physics, chemistry, brains, information, money and lasers, all tools in the toolbox. In the absense of intellect and will, nothing happens, or rather (I am a laboratory test case) thanks to the laws of thermodynamics, what happens is they scatter and I can't find them anywhere.

[thomaswest]

Quoting: "Consequently physics per se can’t causally determine the outcome of human creativity, rather it creates the possibility space allowing human intelligence to function autonomously. The challenge to physics is to develop a realistic description of causality in truly complex hierarchical structures, with top-down causation and memory effects allowing higher levels of order to emerge with genuine causal powers."

Whatever that might be imagined to have meaning.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
It's a wet bird that flies by night.

Just where does this differ from scientific and rational thought about "cause and effect"? Is the author saying that psychics, tarot-card readers, and Christian faith-healers have equal standing with biomedical researchers and physicists?

Good old secular engineering works nicely for building bridges and allowing airplanes to fly. Doesn't seem to need a god or a psychic to make it work.

[balrog666]

You should be more critical about what constitutes "thought".

[Alamo-Girl]

I apologize to both of you! I've read your wonderful posts but haven't finished meditating on all the points you raised - and now it's late and I'm exhausted. I'll try to put my thoughts together in the morning!