Why evolutionary materialism leads to the unreality of your existence

Imagine for a moment that you are a 2D spatial being, living on a sheet of glass. All around you are imprints of iron filings (imprints being the 2D locations where particles of 3D filings are located). Suddenly you perceive the filings to be moving, collecting into a single imprint, which by you calculation does not added up to the total of the dispersed imprints before the motion began. You would not know that a 3D spatial being is passing a magnet under the glass that is your plane of existence, causing the filings to gather in a heap.

I'm sure you can figure out the point of the imaginary scene. The 2D being does not have the complete knowledge of the entire system at work in order to understand that the filing imprints did not randomly collect into a single imprint.

There is growing evidence that branes other than our 4D brane exist and effect our 4D brane. It is sort of like the analogy offered above. The crystallography photos of non-stick coatings appear to be showing how another brane is influencing the disposition of the coating crystals, as one example of the growing body of data regarding 'other' branes which effect our 4D brane. [You can read about this topic in Lisa Randall's recent book: pp 18 – 19, Warped Passages, Harper Collins, 2005] It is currently being tossed around theoretical circles that gravity in our 4D brane is a sort of shadow effect leaking into our brane from a higher dimensional brane.

Not sure what the disagreement is here, but I'd say "random" is a perfectly fine word when used in proper context.
Outside the purity of mathematics, "random" is a general term used to describe unpredictable events -- the flip of a coin, motions of air molecules, etc. -- but what it really means in those cases is: we can't take the time and effort to measure precisely every force influencing the results, and so we'll just pretend those actions are "random".

That's "random" from a human point of view.
But if you will permit me to speculate -- from an omniscient "G*d's eye" point of view, nothing but nothing is "random", since, first, G*d does precisely know every force and factor influencing a particular outcome, and second, since all was planned out by G*d from the beginning, nothing is a surprise to Him.

No, I'm not talking about predestination, because we don't know anything about that -- that's G*d's realm, not ours.
Our role is to do the best we can, hope for the best, and keep the faith that all will be for the best, even when things look worst.

Nobody could say that better than this:

"Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

So "random" is a human idea, sufficient unto the day... ;-)

Thank you so much for sharing your insights and concerns, dear brother in Christ!

Please, Dear Sister, share your preferred term, so that we "mere" scientists don't profane your love of "random" mathematical perfection -- even within our own minds... AND, so that we can discuss the above (the closest we've yet come to examining the conditions at "time=zero" so far) without offending your "peeve"... '-)

LOLOL!

BroJoeK's answer works for me; namely:

"Outside the purity of mathematics, "random" is a general term used to describe unpredictable events -- the flip of a coin, motions of air molecules, etc. -- but what it really means in those cases is: we can't take the time and effort to measure precisely every force influencing the results, and so we'll just pretend those actions are "random".

More specifically, the motion of gas molecules is isotropic meaning it has the same value regardless of direction (not relative) whereas the cosmic microwave background is anistropic meaning it has different values in different directions (relative.)

For Lurkers, metals are examples of isotropic materials - they have the same strength in every direction - whereas woods have different strengths in different directions, e.g. against the grain versus with the grain.

Neither isotropy nor anistropy are "random" in the meaning of mathematics. Rather, they are pseudo-random because they are the effects of prior deterministic events.

Statistical randomness (the property being described in the physical sciences with the use 'random' - the unpredictability) is not the same as algorithmic randomness. Under Kolmogrov complexity, for instance, a numeric sequence must be incompressible to be considered random. Indeed most views in algorithmic randomness would insist on that property as well as the inability to make money betting on it (Martin-Löf–Chaitin Thesis et al).

Thank you, Dear Sister, for that clarification!

Indeed, where I was headed was to expound on the apparent and observed anisotropy of our universe, as illustrated by the CMB measurements, and in its current state -- as observed by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:

AND THEN, to marvel that our very survival depends on the fact that we are generally surrounded by an isotropic atmosphere, and that many things (including the water we require for life) also behave isotropically.

(Of course, our atmosphere can get a bit anisotropic at times (think, "F5 tornado")... '-)

Of course, if the "primordial soup" had remained isotropic ("without form and void"), this

could not be observed -- and we could not exist to observe it...

Yet... our very existence depends on local, isotropic conditions.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Without anisotropy we could not exist;
without isotropy we cannot survive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Almost makes one tend to believe in "Divine Providence" or an "Intelligent Designer", eh?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

QUESTION: how can one explain (mathematically or otherwise) that both isotropy and anisotropy coexist in our universe -- without invoking an external "Cause"?

Wow, dear brother in Christ, thank you so very much for those outstanding insights!

Your reasoning will no doubt be seen again and again when we are conversing with atheists. As you say,

Without anisotropy we could not exist; without isotropy we cannot survive.

And yes, it certainly should cause people to recognize "Divine Providence" - i.e. that God is the Creator.

QUESTION: how can one explain (mathematically or otherwise) that both isotropy and anisotropy coexist in our universe -- without invoking an external "Cause"?

I don't see how they can explain it away. It would be interesting to watch and I'm pinging a few from a thread about atheism to solicit their response to the challenge, if they have a response.

BTW, one of the things I find quite annoying with multi-verse physical cosmology theory is the presumption that the physical laws and constants of this universe would apply to prior ones. That is a statement of faith not reason.

Thank you also for that beautiful link to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey!

Another comment for the discussion or any lurkers...

The webpage source for your second image from SDSS, BOSS: Dark Energy and the Geometry of Space explains the project as follows:

he SDSS-III's Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) will map the spatial distribution of luminous red galaxies (LRGs) and quasars to detect the characteristic scale imprinted by baryon acoustic oscillations in the early universe. Sound waves that propagate in the early universe, like spreading ripples in a pond, imprint a characteristic scale on cosmic microwave background fluctuations. These fluctuations have evolved into today's walls and voids of galaxies, meaning this baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) scale (about 150 Mpc) is visible among galaxies today.

The cosmic microwave radiation records the sound waves of the universe at the moment light was formed: Harmonics in the Early Universe. Scripture says:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - Genesis 1:3

Lurkers interested in hearing that sound should click here.

Well I would say that any property is the result of entities acting in accordance with their nature and in accordance with natural laws. The fact that science can’t explain, yet, some phenomenon does not give us permission to invoke a supernatural explanation. What is solved by doing that? It doesn’t explain anything. God by definition is unknowable and incomprehensible. That conception is an attack on reason itself. Far from clarifying anything it puts an end to any rational inquiry.

When looking for the “why” of anything you have to start someplace right? You can’t have an infinite regress of causes, that’s the first cause argument. As soon as you allow for a something that just is and needs no explanation there is no rational reason to exclude nature from that list of things that just are and always have been. So by invoking a supernatural cause you are saying “I know the universe exists with certain natural laws but I don’t like that answer so I am going to jump to some unknowable, undefinable, incomprehensible being instead as an explanation. Something that is unknowable and unexplainable can’t be an explanation for anything.

As for M theory, scientists are proposing it because the big bang theory is limited by the fact that relativity as a theory is incomplete and that is why scientists are looking for a unified theory or quantum theory of gravity. But here is the difference between a theory and a supernatural being as an explanation: Once science has a theory it does not stop there. In fact a theory is only the beginning of the inquiry. It has to be tested and verified and that process never stops. 300 years from now we will still be verifying the theory of relativity or whatever new theory encompasses it and goes further. When you say “God did it” that is the end of any further investigation.

I totally reject the dichotomy between matter and spirit (consciousness). I reject materialism. We know that both matter and spirit exist together in nature, that man is an integration of the two and there is no reason to separate them. All the evidence points to consciousness being a result of biology, of our brains, but even if we never understand where it comes from, an inquiry into the origins of anything can not go outside of existence (nature) to look because there is by definition nothing there.

Thank you so much for your reply, dear albionin!

I must however disagree that "God did it" alone halts the investigation. Either "God did it" or "Nature did it" is a cop-out. It is enough to say that a question cannot be answered by the scientific method at this time, e.g. "why this instead of something else or nothing at all?"

You can’t have an infinite regress of causes, that’s the first cause argument.

Steady state physical cosmologies were debunked when the CMB measurements beginning in the 1960's and accumulating forward since, all show there was a beginning of real space and real time. In other words, space/time does not pre-exist but is created as the universe expands.

It was the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science (Jastrow.) Scripture begins, "In the beginning, God created..."

With the notable exception of Tegmark's theory, all other physical cosmologies known to me (multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time) all lead to the infinite regress with the presupposition that prior universes have the same physical laws/constants as this one.

an inquiry into the origins of anything can not go outside of existence (nature) to look because there is by definition nothing there.

To the contrary, that is a philosophical presupposition not a scientific one.

The only closed physical cosmology known to me, Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe, posits that 4D space/time is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist outside of space and time.

Newer Geometric Physics theories also illuminate physical cosmologies, e.g. f-Theory (Vafa), 5D2T (Wesson.) Both of these theories call for additional dimensions of time. Vafa's continues the compactification (string theory) model of Kaluza/Klein whereas Wesson's is a higher dimensional dynamic.

Your reasoning will no doubt be seen again and again when we are conversing with atheists. As you say,
Without anisotropy we could not exist; without isotropy we cannot survive.
And yes, it certainly should cause people to recognize "Divine Providence" - i.e. that God is the Creator.
QUESTION: how can one explain (mathematically or otherwise) that both isotropy and anisotropy coexist in our universe -- without invoking an external "Cause"?
I don't see how they can explain it away. It would be interesting to watch and I'm pinging a few from a thread about atheism to solicit their response to the challenge, if they have a response.

I do not identify as an atheist, but regardless, I don't understand the value of this argument. It seems as though you've chosen a phenomenon that you don't think science will ever be able to explain and said, "See? That means God must have done it." But what do you do if science does explain it? What if there turns out to be a perfectly reasonable, all-nature explanation for the existence of both isotropy and anisotropy? What does that do to your confidence in Divine Providence? Why make God dependent on what we understand and don't understand about how His universe works?

It's awesome, like the observation that there is no known origin for inertia, information [Shannon, successful communication], space/time, autonomy and so on.

By His own choice, there will be no logical proofs or empirical tests to "find" Him.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: - I Cor 1:19-22

Man is not the measure of God.

Nevertheless, we can observe and be amazed at His creation and see His hand in everything!

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, - Romans 1:20-22

I for one see mathematics as God's copyright notice on the cosmos (Wigner, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.")

Others may be in awe of God by seeing a newborn child, a cathedral, a mountain range, a glimpse of deep space, hearing certain sounds and so on.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3

Knowing God is a very personal thing.

God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.

Indeed, I know Him better than I know my older brother. No one doubts me when I tell them about my older brother, but yet some doubt me when I tell them about God. LOLOL! Go figure...

Genesis account creationists hold that our Creator, the living, personal Triune God, the Divine Source of life who exists outside of the space/time dimension is Jesus Christ, the angel who spoke with Moses at Sinai.

No they do not! Not "all" of them!

Evolutionists and chrstian creationists apparently have one thing in common: they completely forget about the existence of Judaism, which gave Genesis to the world in the first place. What ignorance and/or arrogance!

Man is not the measure of God.
Nevertheless, we can observe and be amazed at His creation and see His hand in everything!

Yes, we can. Which is why I don't get the attempt to single out one part of creation and insist that that should "cause" people to recognize that God is the creator. You held out the coexistence of istropy and anisotropy as a "challenge" to atheists, asserting that if they couldn't explain it, they had to recognize Divine Providence. And my question is, what if they can explain it--if not now, someday? Does that somehow diminish the idea that God is the Creator? If there are no logical proofs to find Him, why do you propose one?

I think part of it is to answer the challenge. If we say nothing ever, it makes it appear we cannot answer the challenges with a sound response. Again, we have nothing to fear against science, science is on our side. God is the master of “science”. What passes for “science” today is a joke. It is not objective, it is dogmatic and cannot handle objectivity. I give you global warming. I give you in the 1970s, the coming global ice age. I give you eggs (good, bad, good again), I give you butter (good, bad, better than margarine good again). I give you the appendix and the coccyx. and a whole host of other organs ad structures once considered vestigial by the biggest and brightest minds of “science”.

I think part of it is to educate and strengthen the belief of our brothers and sisters in Christ, especially those that may have weaker faith and don’t know how to respond to the attacks of the evolutionists. Or anyone trying to undermine the faith of others. They don’t have to feel stupid or embarrassed if they have a reasonable answer that they can understand and explains it for them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.