Did I lose my mind to science?

That’s the title of a new article at the Patheos website, which describes itself as “the world’s homepage for all religion”. The article is the first in a series by Ted Peters, emeritus professor of theology at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, who understands the threat that materialism (aka physicalism) poses to traditional religious views regarding the self.

There are quite a few misconceptions in the article (and in the others in the series), but I think it’s a good springboard for continuing the discussion we’ve been having in CharlieM’s Body, Soul, and Spirit thread.

A taste:

Did I lose my mind to science? Actually, it was stolen. Who are the thieves? The thieves are the scientific materialists who have eliminated from our cosmology everything that is mental, conscious, meaningful, spiritual, and ideal. You’ll recognize the thieves when you hear them mutter, “the mind is only the brain, ya know.”

464 thoughts on “Did I lose my mind to science?

  1. CharlieM:

    As the soul (res cogitans) is separate from the physical world (res extensa), the means of action between the two requires an explanation. But some of us don’t see the world that way.

    If the soul is nonphysical, and the laws of physics are never violated, then the soul does not control the body. It’s that simple.

    You believe in a soul that controls the body, but that is an impossibility if you accept that the laws of physics are never violated.

  2. keiths:

    There cannot be any nonphysical entity that alters the behavior of the physical body, because the body’s behavior is fully dictated by the laws of physics. There is no room for a soul, and there is no room for a life force.

    BY ‘force’ I don’t mean mechanical force.

    I understand.

    I use the word ‘force’ to refer to a principle common to all living beings. Autopoiesis is a principle of life not of physics.

    Call it whatever you want — an entity, an aspect, a force, a principle. If it is nonphysical, it cannot influence the body. The laws of physics leave no room for that to happen.

    You believe in a life force (or “etheric principle”, or whatever you call it) that animates the body, the removal of which would cause the body to die. That cannot be the case.

    The laws of physics dictate what the body does, so it’s the laws of physics by themselves that animate the body. There is nothing for a nonphysical life force to do. Just like the soul, it cannot have an effect on the body.

  3. keiths:
    “CharlieM: To say that mental events are brain events is equivalent to saying that thunder is lightning.”

    keiths: Says Charlie. But the order of your words suggests that you are likening mental events to thunder and brain events to lightning, meaning that brain events cause mental events. That is basically the idea behind epiphenomenalism, and it is not friendly to the notion of a soul, because the causality runs one way: brain events cause mental events, but not vice-versa. I’m sure that’s not what you’re aiming for.

    But if you meant to put it the other way around, by saying that mental events cause brain events, then you run smack into the PoP — the problem of physics. The kind of soul you envision, which is a nonphysical entity that can direct the brain and body, isn’t tenable.

    I didn’t mean it either way round. Thunder does not cause lightning and lightning does not cause thunder. They are both manifestations of a weather process.

    keiths: Regarding Markus Gabriel, Charlie writes:

    “CharlieM: Yes, he presents a philosophical argument to do with identity between conscious thoughts and brain activity. His argument rests on the whole/part relationship. Riding a bicycle is only possible if all the necessary conditions are present. Legs, bodies, bicycle manufacturers, a mind that invented bicycles in the first place, wheels, a suitable surface to ride on, and on and on.

    He regards the brain as a necessary condition for mindedness. As is the organism to which the brain belongs.”

    keiths: The brain depends on the body for sustenance and sensory input, but presumably he means more than that when he says that the organism is a necessary condition for mindedness, right?

    It was me that said the organism is a necessary condition for mindedness. In order for me to have a mind that I can call my own, I need my bodily development.

    “keiths: The physics problem, Charlie. The physics problem.”

    “CharlieM: Yes, this is a problem for Cartesian dualists.”

    keiths: It’s a problem for you, and you know it. A big problem.That’s why you’ve been trying so hard to find a way out of it. It shows that the soul doesn’t exist, and It clearly bothers you that you haven’t been able to find a way to circumvent it.

    It’s no problem. The processes of my mind and the processes of my body are two sides of the same coin.

    Wolfgang Smith proposes a situation in which there is horizontal causation which is space/time dependent But there is also what he calls vertical causation, not restricted to space/time, which is a higher form of causation.

    He gives a detailed account of it in The Vertical Ascent: From Particles to the Tripartite Cosmos and Beyond. From it he writes:

    …the ascent from the physical to the corporeal plane in the act of measurement brings into play the first manifestation of wholeness in a form of a hitherto unrecognized mode of causality arising no longer from parts-as does the causality upon which physics as such is based, what I term horizontal causality-but originating from wholeness, what I refer to as vertical causation. And this fundamental recognition leads quite readily to another: whiloe horizontal causality, by virtue of its spatio-temporal nature, is restricted to the corporial plane, vertical causation-which springs from wholeness and involves no spatio-temporal transition-is operative without restriction, and proves therefore to be the primary mode. As such it gives rise to the horizontal, and has, moreover, the capacity to override the latter, as happens, for instance, in the act of measurement.

    This is his explanation of how the ‘mind/body’ problem’, ceases to be a problem. When he talks about the physical and the corporeal plane, it should be understood that he doesn’t consider the qualities of the corporeal realm as being purely subjective representations.

    “keiths: The details remain to be worked out, but there is no question that the brain is what does our thinking. Besides, I thought you agreed that the brain is the “organ of thought”

    “CharlieM: And the eye is the organ of sight. But I see and I think.”

    keiths: There is no separate “I” that uses the brain to think. The brain is the “I” that does the thinking. And if you try to assert that there really is a separate nonphysical “I”, then you run into — you guessed it — the PoP.

    So long as we realize that physics is restricted to the time and space which are abstractions of the human mind there is no problem. The trajectory of billiard balls will follow the laws of physics but this is a separate issue from the forethoughts and intensions that resulted in their movements in the first place.

    “CharlieM: There is also the topic of thinking, which is my personal activity, and that which I am thinking about, the concepts I grasp. If I have the concept of the Platonic solids, do they belong to me. I say no. The concepts are universal. The geometrical concept ‘dodecahedron’ which I hold is identical to that which anyone else holds. It has no measurable dimensions so it cannot be ‘in the brain’. It is a unity bound by neither time nor space.”

    keiths: To hold the concept of the dodecahedron in your mind simply means that your brain is in a state that represents the dodecahedron. It’s no different in principle from the way a computer represents the number 23. The Platonic solids don’t belong to you, and the number 23 doesn’t belong to the computer, but you can both represent those concepts by instantiating them physically.

    The physical instantiations are impermanent, temporal representations. But representations of what? The entity underlying them is unrestricted to time and space, a unity which can be represented by an infinite number of 2D, 3D, and mental images.

    keiths: And of course, even if you could somehow show that concepts were floating out somewhere in a Platonic realm, you would still face the PoP.

    You can’t get around it, Charlie. You need to face it head on.

    It’s paradoxical that we have to use language appropriate for physical reality to discuss a proposed higher reality. We have to get past thinking in terms of ‘floating’ and ‘somewhere’ as description of this realm.

  4. keiths, you keep on claiming that I have agreed to the laws of physics never being violated. I haven’t agreed to this. I agree that the laws of physics have limited application in which they hold good. They apply in what Wolfgang Smith termed, the domain of horizontal causation.

    Your solution to animals behaving differently to inanimate objects is to appeal to internal processes within the animal. I don’t see any problem attributing to physical forces interactions between nerves and muscles within bodies. But this doesn’t explain how will forces can be accounted for by physical processes within the body. For example hungry people make movements that ensure food is transferred to their stomachs. When they go on hunger strike, they resist any such movements. Without just stating it as if it were a settled fact, can you clarify the details of processes in their brains that instigate their decisions, how some strikers give up while others are able to keep it up to the point of death?

  5. CharlieM:

    I didn’t mean it either way round. Thunder does not cause lightning and lightning does not cause thunder. They are both manifestations of a weather process.

    Lightning does cause thunder. The lightning bolt superheats the air along its path, and the resultant expansion creates a sound wave.

  6. CharlieM:

    Wolfgang Smith proposes a situation in which there is horizontal causation which is space/time dependent But there is also what he calls vertical causation, not restricted to space/time, which is a higher form of causation.

    I read that bizarre quote, and I must say, he sure sounds like a crackpot.

    Either way, it doesn’t matter, because no matter what bizarre form of super-duper extracorporeal vertical diamond-encrusted causation you or he come up with, it’s going to run into the problem of physics.

    The laws of physics already determine what your brain and body are going to do. Period. Since they are never violated, they leave no room for any form of causation from the nonphysical to the physical, no matter how fancy (or crackpotty) the supposed form of causation is.

    The soul, if it exists, is knocking on the door saying “Hey guys, can I get in there and lend you a hand?” and the laws of physics are saying “No thanks, we’ve got it completely covered. There’s nothing for you to do.”

    It is impossible for any hypothetical nonphysical soul to control the body, given that the laws of physics are never violated.

  7. CharlieM:

    keiths, you keep on claiming that I have agreed to the laws of physics never being violated. I haven’t agreed to this.

    You’ve been saying so since at least November 18th:

    Living systems do not break or contradict the laws of physics.

    I can see why you’d want to back away from that, given that you’ve found no way around the problem of physics.

  8. CharlieM:

    For example hungry people make movements that ensure food is transferred to their stomachs. When they go on hunger strike, they resist any such movements. Without just stating it as if it were a settled fact, can you clarify the details of processes in their brains that instigate their decisions, how some strikers give up while others are able to keep it up to the point of death?

    We should rename this the Groundhog Day thread, because you keep raising the same points over and over even after I’ve addressed them.

    I’ve already explained that there’s nothing at all contradictory or incoherent about the fact that we, in our brains, feel conflicting urges, such as wanting to eat because we’re hungry and also not wanting to eat because we’re on a diet or on a hunger strike. Why would that be a problem for a physical brain if it is not a problem for a nonphysical soul? There is no law of physics that says that a brain cannot host competing urges or desires.

    I know you have a strong intuition that this stuff requires something beyond a physical brain, but it’s only an intuition. See if you can come up with an actual reason why a physical brain should be incapable of the things you are asking me about.

  9. keiths:
    CharlieM: I didn’t mean it either way round. Thunder does not cause lightning and lightning does not cause thunder. They are both manifestations of a weather process.

    keiths: Lightning does cause thunder. The lightning bolt superheats the air along its path, and the resultant expansion creates a sound wave.

    The clue is in the word, lightning. There is an electrical discharge of potential energy as it shorts to earth from the atmosphere. Lightning is the visual effect and thunder is the audible effect of this discharge.

    Some of the electrical energy is radiated as light, some as heat and some as sound energy. It’s no different than when a wire is short circuited. Both a spark and an audible crack are produced as the electrical energy is dissipated.

    Electrical activity can produce sound without any accompanying visual light as in the case of buzzing transformers or overhead electric cables. The sound emanates from the electric flow, not from light.

  10. keiths:
    CharlieM: Wolfgang Smith proposes a situation in which there is horizontal causation which is space/time dependent But there is also what he calls vertical causation, not restricted to space/time, which is a higher form of causation.

    keiths: I read that bizarre quote, and I must say, he sure sounds like a crackpot.

    Of course he does. His point of view is so far from anything that you could even contemplate so, to you, he is a crackpot. He joins the list of other crackpots. A crackpot is someone whose thinking does not conform to keiths’ idea of reality.

    keiths: Either way, it doesn’t matter, because no matter what bizarre form of super-duper extracorporeal vertical diamond-encrusted causation you or he come up with, it’s going to run into the problem of physics.

    The laws of physics already determine what your brain and body are going to do. Period. Since they are never violated, they leave no room for any form of causation from the nonphysical to the physical, no matter how fancy (or crackpotty) the supposed form of causation is.

    You still haven’t explained what laws of physics deals with creativity, forethought, willpower and other such activities.

    keiths: The soul, if it exists, is knocking on the door saying “Hey guys, can I get in there and lend you a hand?” and the laws of physics are saying “No thanks, we’ve got it completely covered. There’s nothing for you to do.”

    Body and soul can interact without the one needing to transgress on the other. To give an analogy I’ve used before. Interactions between states of matter. There can be transfer of heat between a solid object and the surrounding gas without either transgressing on the laws of the other. Both have nested physical laws within the more general laws of physics. Laws that apply to one and not the other.

    keiths: It is impossible for any hypothetical nonphysical soul to control the body, given that the laws of physics are never violated

    And there is no need to violate these laws which have a restricted application.

    Judicial laws exist. Judicial laws are separate from the laws of physics. Conforming to judicial law does not involve breaking any laws of physics. If judicial law stipulates that a man is to be hanged, this will impinge upon the laws of physics. The law of gravity will not be broken but the man’s neck will.

    The laws operate in their applicable domains.

  11. keiths:
    CharlieM: keiths, you keep on claiming that I have agreed to the laws of physics never being violated. I haven’t agreed to this.

    keiths: You’ve been saying so since at least November 18th:

    CharlieM: Living systems do not break or contradict the laws of physics.
    keiths: I can see why you’d want to back away from that, given that you’ve found no way around the problem of physics.

    I don’t see any need to back away from this claim. It’s no different to my claim that the judicial system with all of its laws do not break or contradict the laws of physics.

    But to agree that the laws of physics are never violated is a different proposition. How can I guarantee that? I’ve noticed physicists giving examples of violations. The law of conservation of energy is one that I can think of. It’s violated when the universe as a whole is considered. I can agree I don’t see any violations of physical laws within the domain they operate. But what do I know? I can’t say I’ve tested all the laws.

  12. CharlieM:

    The clue is in the word, lightning. There is an electrical discharge of potential energy as it shorts to earth from the atmosphere. Lightning is the visual effect and thunder is the audible effect of this discharge

    No, lightning is the phenomenon itself. The light you see and the sound you hear are the effects of that phenomenon. Lightning causes thunder.

  13. keiths:
    “CharlieM: For example hungry people make movements that ensure food is transferred to their stomachs. When they go on hunger strike, they resist any such movements. Without just stating it as if it were a settled fact, can you clarify the details of processes in their brains that instigate their decisions, how some strikers give up while others are able to keep it up to the point of death?”

    keiths: We should rename this the Groundhog Day thread, because you keep raising the same points over and over even after I’ve addressed them.

    I’ve already explained that there’s nothing at all contradictory or incoherent about the fact that we, in our brains, feel conflicting urges, such as wanting to eat because we’re hungry and also not wanting to eat because we’re on a diet or on a hunger strike. Why would that be a problem for a physical brain if it is not a problem for a nonphysical soul? There is no law of physics that says that a brain cannot host competing urges or desires.

    I know you have a strong intuition that this stuff requires something beyond a physical brain, but it’s only an intuition. See if you can come up with an actual reason why a physical brain should be incapable of the things you are asking me about.

    You are free to call feelings and emotions physical if it suits your beliefs. But feelings and emotions are not physical objects that can be weighed or measured, dissected or probed in the way brains or bodies can. And we can distinguish between physical pain and emotional pain. But there is no law of physics that advocates that matter in any form, whether brains or whole bodies, should experience feelings such as physical pain or emotional pain.

    Even if you are right that feelings, thoughts and will stem from the physical, it would not be from physical material but from a well coordinated, combined, dynamic interaction of bodily processes. And I can’t think of any laws of physics that would cause this to come into being.

    There are no laws of physics that account for living substance. I say that life coming from life can be said to deserve the label inviolate to a greater degree than the law of conservation of energy.

  14. keiths:

    I read that bizarre [Wolfgang Smith] quote, and I must say, he sure sounds like a crackpot.

    CharlieM:

    Of course he does. His point of view is so far from anything that you could even contemplate so, to you, he is a crackpot.

    Oh, I can definitely contemplate woo, but I can also recognize it as woo.

    He joins the list of other crackpots. A crackpot is someone whose thinking does not conform to keiths’ idea of reality.

    There’s a big difference between someone I merely think is wrong vs someone who is a certifiable crackpot.

  15. CharlieM:

    You still haven’t explained what laws of physics deals with creativity, forethought, willpower and other such activities.

    I have explained this over and over. There are no laws of physics dedicated to creativity, forethought, etc., just as there are no laws of physics dedicated to can opening. Arrange particles in a particular way, however, and you get a can opener that opens cans. Arrange particles in a particular way and you get a brain that creates, wills, displays forethought, etc. Once the arrangements are in place, the laws of physics — the same laws of physics that apply everywhere, to all phenomena — take care of the rest. You don’t need dedicated laws of physics for can opening and creative thought.

    Body and soul can interact without the one needing to transgress on the other. To give an analogy I’ve used before. Interactions between states of matter. There can be transfer of heat between a solid object and the surrounding gas without either transgressing on the laws of the other. Both have nested physical laws within the more general laws of physics. Laws that apply to one and not the other.

    There are higher-order laws of physics that apply to things such as gases, but these do not violate the fundamental laws of physics. In fact, the higher-order laws are a consequence of the fundamental laws. That means that there cannot be a higher-order law that conflicts with the fundamental laws. The fundamental laws apply everywhere, including in your body and your brain, so there is no room for the soul to intervene. If it exists at all, the soul has no power whatsoever over bodily action and brain activity.

    And there is no need to violate these laws which have a restricted application.

    Judicial laws exist. Judicial laws are separate from the laws of physics. Conforming to judicial law does not involve breaking any laws of physics. If judicial law stipulates that a man is to be hanged, this will impinge upon the laws of physics.

    It will not impinge upon the laws of physics. There won’t be a single violation of the laws of physics in that entire process, and the laws of physics will in fact dictate the entire process, including the death of the man. Just as there’s no room for the soul, there’s no room for a nonphysical life force, or principle, or etheric thingamabob.

    The laws operate in their applicable domains.

    Yes, and the applicable domain of the laws of physics is the entire physical world, including every particle of your brain and body. No nonphysical entity or higher-order law can change that.

  16. CharlieM:

    I don’t see any need to back away from this claim. It’s no different to my claim that the judicial system with all of its laws do not break or contradict the laws of physics.

    The fact that the laws of physics are never violated rules out the existence of a soul of the type that you, Steiner, most Christians, and a whole lot of other people believe in. To rescue the soul, you have to claim that the laws of physics are violated, and on a massive scale. So yes, at the very least you need to back away from the claim that the laws of physics are never violated.

    CharlieM:

    But to agree that the laws of physics are never violated is a different proposition. How can I guarantee that? I’ve noticed physicists giving examples of violations. The law of conservation of energy is one that I can think of. It’s violated when the universe as a whole is considered. I can agree I don’t see any violations of physical laws within the domain they operate. But what do I know? I can’t say I’ve tested all the laws.

    I knew that in the end you would have to resort to this. You want the soul to exist; the laws of physics stand in your way; therefore it’s time to start talking about how maybe the laws of physics are violated after all, despite having claimed otherwise throughout the entire discussion leading up to this point.

  17. CharlieM:

    You are free to call feelings and emotions physical if it suits your beliefs.

    I call them physical because of the scientific evidence, not because it suits my beliefs. You, on the other hand…

    But feelings and emotions are not physical objects that can be weighed or measured, dissected or probed in the way brains or bodies can. And we can distinguish between physical pain and emotional pain. But there is no law of physics that advocates that matter in any form, whether brains or whole bodies, should experience feelings such as physical pain or emotional pain.

    See my comment above about can openers and brains.

    Even if you are right that feelings, thoughts and will stem from the physical, it would not be from physical material but from a well coordinated, combined, dynamic interaction of bodily processes. And I can’t think of any laws of physics that would cause this to come into being.

    Can opener, brain.

    There are no laws of physics that account for living substance.

    The ordinary laws of physics account for it quite nicely.

  18. keiths:
    CharlieM: The clue is in the word, lightning. There is an electrical discharge of potential energy as it shorts to earth from the atmosphere. Lightning is the visual effect and thunder is the audible effect of this discharge

    keiths: No, lightning is the phenomenon itself. The light you see and the sound you hear are the effects of that phenomenon. Lightning causes thunder.

    Admittedly lightning gets defined in different ways, but my analogy still stands if it is taken in the sense I was using it. Lightning flashes and thunder are both effects of the storm processes.

  19. keiths: There’s a big difference between someone I merely think is wrong vs someone who is a certifiable crackpot.

    You’ll need to make an argument if you want to defend that claim.

  20. Did you lose your mind to Murderna and ShFizer science, keiths? I got their clinical trial raw data. There is no evidence the spike was ever expressed.
    Is it good or bad news? Wanna see the data?

  21. CharlieM:

    Admittedly lightning gets defined in different ways, but my analogy still stands if it is taken in the sense I was using it. Lightning flashes and thunder are both effects of the storm processes.

    Fair enough.

  22. CharlieM:

    You’ll need to make an argument if you want to defend that claim.

    Wolfgang Smith is a crackpot. The quote you provided makes it abundantly clear, but if you aren’t convinced, watch a few minutes of this video:
    “The Principle” Interview With Dr. Wolfgang Smith

    He’s a geocentrist, Charlie. A geocentrist. He believes the earth is stationary and that the universe rotates around it once every 24 hours. He thinks Einstein knew this but couldn’t quite bring himself to accept it, and that relativity was Einstein’s way of avoiding the issue.

    That is batshit stuff, the mark of a 100% certifiable crackpot.

    Why are you drawn to crackpots like Steiner and Smith?

  23. keiths:
    CharlieM: You still haven’t explained what laws of physics deals with creativity, forethought, willpower and other such activities.

    I have explained this over and over. There are no laws of physics dedicated to creativity, forethought, etc., just as there are no laws of physics dedicated to can opening. Arrange particles in a particular way, however, and you get a can opener that opens cans. Arrange particles in a particular way and you get a brain that creates, wills, displays forethought, etc. Once the arrangements are in place, the laws of physics — the same laws of physics that apply everywhere, to all phenomena — take care of the rest. You don’t need dedicated laws of physics for can opening and creative thought.

    No we don’t need dedicated laws of physics for can opening or creative thought. But what is needed is something that the laws of physics don’t account for, the existence of creators.

    “CharlieM” Body and soul can interact without the one needing to transgress on the other. To give an analogy I’ve used before. Interactions between states of matter. There can be transfer of heat between a solid object and the surrounding gas without either transgressing on the laws of the other. Both have nested physical laws within the more general laws of physics. Laws that apply to one and not the other.”

    keiths: There are higher-order laws of physics that apply to things such as gases, but these do not violate the fundamental laws of physics. In fact, the higher-order laws are a consequence of the fundamental laws. That means that there cannot be a higher-order law that conflicts with the fundamental laws. The fundamental laws apply everywhere, including in your body and your brain, so there is no room for the soul to intervene. If it exists at all, the soul has no power whatsoever over bodily action and brain activity.

    The fundamental laws you refer to are mainly pointwise physical laws which deal with locations and measurement. But this is only one half of reality. It ignores the peripheral aspect which is immeasurable. It cannot be formulated in measurable quanities because it is all-encompassing, working in from all directions. That is the realm of the spirit. where the inflowing spiritual realm meets the radiating physical realm this is the domain of the soul.

    Imagine the entities of the physical world as points moving on a plane. The spiritual realm is like an all-encompassing infinity sphere and the soul world can be likened to threads connecting these separate points on the plane to the infinite sphere which holds everything in unity. The points can be envisioned as moving around on the two-dimensional plane in lawful ways from the point of view of this dimension. The connections to the higher dimensions can be ignored when studying these movements. This is the realm of classical physics. Then along comes quantum physics with its ensuing paradoxes. The higher dimension was being probed. A dimension in which separate entities began to reveal their hidden connections. Where point-like particles reveal their infinite aspect.

    “CharlieM: And there is no need to violate these laws which have a restricted application.

    Judicial laws exist. Judicial laws are separate from the laws of physics. Conforming to judicial law does not involve breaking any laws of physics. If judicial law stipulates that a man is to be hanged, this will impinge upon the laws of physics.”

    keiths: It will not impinge upon the laws of physics. There won’t be a single violation of the laws of physics in that entire process, and the laws of physics will in fact dictate the entire process, including the death of the man. Just as there’s no room for the soul, there’s no room for a nonphysical life force, or principle, or etheric thingamabob.

    Sorry, that was carelessness on my part. I meant, “…this will not impinge upon the laws of physics”, meaning it won’t alter the laws of physics.

    The laws of physics will have remained unbroken, but there are no laws of physics in place, I know of anyway, that determines the sentence that a judge passes. If you know of any laws please let me know which ones specifically.

    “CharlieM: The laws operate in their applicable domains.”

    keiths: Yes, and the applicable domain of the laws of physics is the entire physical world, including every particle of your brain and body. No nonphysical entity or higher-order law can change that.

    Nor should any higher laws change physical laws operating on physical systems. True enough, the entire physical world is their domain.

    The laws of mathematics are non-physical laws. And a great training for breaking out of the physical box we tend to get trapped in is through projective geometry. It deals with dimensions, polarities and infinities without the restraints of measurement.

  24. keiths:
    “CharlieM: I don’t see any need to back away from this claim. It’s no different to my claim that the judicial system with all of its laws do not break or contradict the laws of physics.”

    keiths: The fact that the laws of physics are never violated rules out the existence of a soul of the type that you, Steiner, most Christians, and a whole lot of other people believe in. To rescue the soul, you have to claim that the laws of physics are violated, and on a massive scale. So yes, at the very least you need to back away from the claim that the laws of physics are never violated.

    “CharlieM: But to agree that the laws of physics are never violated is a different proposition. How can I guarantee that? I’ve noticed physicists giving examples of violations. The law of conservation of energy is one that I can think of. It’s violated when the universe as a whole is considered. I can agree I don’t see any violations of physical laws within the domain they operate. But what do I know? I can’t say I’ve tested all the laws.”

    keiths: I knew that in the end you would have to resort to this. You want the soul to exist; the laws of physics stand in your way; therefore it’s time to start talking about how maybe the laws of physics are violated after all, despite having claimed otherwise throughout the entire discussion leading up to this point

    I’m not talking about the laws of physics being violated. I am talking about my personal uncertainty. I have never witnessed any laws of physics being violated. But these laws are not set in stone. What we consider as laws of physics have changed over the centuries, added to and altered in some ways.

    How can I categorically guarantee that they will never be violated? I am not omniscient. I am told that the conservation of energy does not apply to the whole universe. Is this an example of the law being violated? If I am to believe what the experts say, it is an act of faith on my part. I am not in a position to guarantee whether this is true or false.

  25. keiths:

    The ordinary laws of physics account for it (living substance) quite nicely.

    The laws of physics and chemistry are remarkably accommodating for life. The attributes of the solar system, carbon molecules, water, solids, all conducive to the appearance of earthly life. Nobody has yet been able to fiddle with dead matter to produce life from non-life, yet here we are. And not just living but aware that we are part of this life. Material processes presuppose life.

    Corpus, anima, spiritus, reality seen as threefold. Polarity holds the key. Polarity between the contributions of the physical laws of separation and the spiritual law of wholeness. Like salt crystalizing out of the surrounding solution, physical life forms out of the peripheral realm. It isn’t an emergence from below, it’s a condensation from the subtle to the corporeal. That is my opinion.

  26. keiths:
    CharlieM:

    Wolfgang Smith is a crackpot. The quote you provided makes it abundantly clear, but if you aren’t convinced, watch a few minutes of this video:
    “The Principle” Interview With Dr. Wolfgang Smith

    He’s a geocentrist, Charlie. A geocentrist. He believes the earth is stationary and that the universe rotates around it once every 24 hours. He thinks Einstein knew this but couldn’t quite bring himself to accept it, and that relativity was Einstein’s way of avoiding the issue.

    That is batshit stuff, the mark of a 100% certifiable crackpot.

    Why are you drawn to crackpots like Steiner and Smith?

    Movement is relative and from our perspective the earth is stationary.

    Even in the link you provided about energy, the lecturer talks about a stationary object in outer space What does he mean by this? Is anything in space stationary?

    By chance, while looking into the “axis of evil”, I came across a talk that I noticed was by the same person as in your link. Here he discusses puzzling mysteries of the universe such as the “axis of evil”.

  27. keiths:

    He’s [Wolfgang Smith is] a geocentrist, Charlie. A geocentrist. He believes the earth is stationary and that the universe rotates around it once every 24 hours. He thinks Einstein knew this but couldn’t quite bring himself to accept it, and that relativity was Einstein’s way of avoiding the issue.

    That is batshit stuff, the mark of a 100% certifiable crackpot.

    Why are you drawn to crackpots like Steiner and Smith?

    CharlieM:

    Movement is relative and from our perspective the earth is stationary.

    That is not what Smith is saying. If it were, then I would agree with him, and so would the entire reality-based physics community.

    He is saying something far more ridiculous and bizarre. He actually thinks there is a single absolute frame of reference in the universe and that the earth is stationary in that frame of reference, meaning that every object in the universe is orbiting the earth once every 24 hours. That is monumentally stupid, and it’s something a freshman physics student could debunk with a five-minute calculation.

    I’ll show you how to do it:

    The earth rotates 360° every 24 hours, or 2π radians. The angular velocity ω can therefore be expressed in radians/sec as

    ω = (2π radians/24 hrs) * (1 hr/60 min) * (1 min/60 sec) = 7.27 x 10^-5 radians/sec

    The lateral velocity of an object revolving in a circular orbit is simply the angular velocity in radians times the radius:

    v = ωr

    So the lateral velocity of a given object in Wolfgang’s Weird and Wacky World is

    v = (7.27 x 10^-5 radians/sec) * r

    Plugging in 1 light-year for r, we get a velocity of

    v = (7.27 x 10^-5 radians/sec) * 1 light-year = 7.27 x 10^-5 light-years/sec

    Converting that to meters per second, we get

    v = (7.27 x 10^-5 light-years/sec) * (9.46 x 10^15 meters/light-year) = 6.88 x 10^11 meters/sec

    Dividing that by the speed of light, we get

    (6.88 x 10^11 meters/sec)/(3.00 x 10^8 meters/sec) = 2,293

    That means that in Wolfgang’s World, an object a mere light-year from earth is moving laterally at almost 2300 times the speed of light. That, to put it mildly, is not permitted by the laws of physics. What about something on the opposite side of the observable universe? Well, the observable universe is 92 billion light-years in diameter, so the lateral velocity of an object at that distance would be

    92 billion * 2,293 times the speed of light = 211 trillion times the speed of light

    The guy is an utterly useless crackpot, Charlie. In terms of physics skills, he can’t find his ass with both hands.

    Why do you keep getting sucked in by these guys? Is it because the stuff they say makes you feel good? Do you have a positive emotional reaction and think “Yes, this must be true” ? Whatever the reason, your methods of evaluation need a serious overhaul.

    Even in the link you provided about energy, the lecturer talks about a stationary object in outer space. What does he mean by this?

    One that isn’t moving from the perspective of the observer. I don’t remember that part of the video, so I don’t know what point he was trying to make, but it might have been simply the fact that a stationary object — one that isn’t moving with respect to the observer — has no kinetic energy. Since motion is relative, this means that kinetic energy depends on the frame of reference.

    Suppose you and I are in deep space, and I see you approaching me at a speed of 10 meters per second. From my frame of reference, I am stationary and you are moving. You have kinetic energy but I don’t. From your frame of reference, it’s the opposite. You are stationary and I am moving, and I have kinetic energy but you don’t. A third person might see each of us as moving 5 m/s toward the other, in which case we have equal amounts of kinetic energy. A fourth person might see us as racing away from him at an enormous speed, with you moving just slightly faster — 10 m/s faster — than me. In that case each of us has an enormous amount of kinetic energy. All of those views are valid, each one within its own reference frame. Motion is relative, and so is kinetic energy.

  28. keiths,

    By the time Wolfgang Smith was 18 years old he had gained degrees in phsics, mathematics and philosophy, so if he is a crackpot, he is a very intelligent crackpot.

    After a very superficial glance into what Smith has to say, you make the judgement that he is a crackpot, therefore not worth bothering with any further.

    I don’t operate that way. I would like to try to understand why Smith has come to believe these things he says. He has obviously spent decades asking questions of physics and philosophy. From what I can see, he considers e=mc^2 to be correct, but Einstein’s relativity theories to be mistaken.

    Smith is quite capable of calculation angular velocities in the same way that you have, but they only hold if the prevailing cosmological theories on time and space are correct. Smith believes that modern physics has taken a wrong turn. There are certain assumptions that cosmological theorists use when calculating distances. Smith questions these assumptions which are necessary in calculating angular velocities.

    Before I criticize either modern physics or Smith’s point of view, I would like to get a better understanding of where and why they differ. Hopefully I’ll have more to say on this.

  29. CharlieM:

    By the time Wolfgang Smith was 18 years old he had gained degrees in phsics, mathematics and philosophy, so if he is a crackpot, he is a very intelligent crackpot.

    Promising starts do not immunize against crackpottery. He is far from the only person who has followed such a trajectory.

    After a very superficial glance into what Smith has to say, you make the judgement that he is a crackpot, therefore not worth bothering with any further.

    He’s a geocentrist, Charlie. It’s an utterly ridiculous, thoroughly debunked position. I could spend days explaining to you how ridiculous it is, and why. It is not something I have only superficially glanced at. Nor has the rest of the reality-based community only superficially glanced at it.

    I don’t operate that way. I would like to try to understand why Smith has come to believe these things he says.

    Why? What has led you to focus on Smith, of all people? Why are you spending time on him, when there are countless people worth studying whose ideas are not obviously wrong and easily debunked by their peers? I suspect your honest answer to this question will reveal a lot about how you’ve gotten yourself into the wooish mess you’re in. What draws you to crackpots instead of to competent thinkers?

    He has obviously spent decades asking questions of physics and philosophy.

    So have many other crackpots. They tend to be obsessed with their crackpot ideas and spend huge amounts of time on them.

    From what I can see, he considers e=mc^2 to be correct, but Einstein’s relativity theories to be mistaken.

    Which is a stupid position to take, considering that general relativity has passed every experimental test that scientists have been able to come up with.

    Smith is quite capable of calculation angular velocities in the same way that you have, but they only hold if the prevailing cosmological theories on time and space are correct.

    Not just cosmological theories. Basic physics. Newtonian mechanics. Gravitation. What force do you think keeps every object in the universe orbiting around the earth, in Wolfgang World? It sure as hell ain’t gravity.

    Smith believes that modern physics has taken a wrong turn.

    And that he, alone, can see the problems that the entirety of the physics community is unaware of. Typical crackpot position.

    There are certain assumptions that cosmological theorists use when calculating distances. Smith questions these assumptions which are necessary in calculating angular velocities.

    What is your evidence that those assumptions are wrong, apart from the fact that a crackpot has challenged them? Do you give equal credence to other crackpots (and there are thousands) who claim that modern physics is massively mistaken, and that they alone have seen the Truth? Do you think all of them deserve your time and intense study? Obviously not, so the question is: why Smith?

    Before I criticize either modern physics or Smith’s point of view, I would like to get a better understanding of where and why they differ. Hopefully I’ll have more to say on this.

    Why spend time on Smith at all? There are thousands of crackpots to choose from. Why does this particular crackpot deserve the time and attention you are devoting to him? And why is it more important to spend time on crackpots, as opposed to the many competent and reality-based thinkers who are available to you?

    What specifically has led you to think that it’s important to spend time on Smith, versus all of the other thinkers, both crackpots and not, that you could be spending your time on?

  30. One of the occupational hazards of being a prominent scientist is that you get bombarded with correspondence from crackpots who want you to validate their ideas. There are some funny stories about that. I may post some later.

  31. CharlieM:

    No we don’t need dedicated laws of physics for can opening or creative thought. But what is needed is something that the laws of physics don’t account for, the existence of creators.

    In what way don’t the laws of physics account for the existence of creators? Creativity is a function of brains, brains are physical objects, and the laws of physics explain the behavior of physical objects such as brains.

    The fundamental laws you refer to are mainly pointwise physical laws which deal with locations and measurement.

    Not sure where you got the idea that the laws of physics are “pointwise”. Is that from Steiner?

    The laws of physics apply to far more than mere points. The question of whether the universe is flat vs curved, for example — the entire universe — is a concern of the theory of general relativity. If the entire universe falls under your definition of a point, then your definition needs some work.

    But this is only one half of reality. It ignores the peripheral aspect which is immeasurable. It cannot be formulated in measurable quanities because it is all-encompassing, working in from all directions. That is the realm of the spirit. where the inflowing spiritual realm meets the radiating physical realm this is the domain of the soul.

    Suppose the “other half of reality” you just described actually exists, and that the soul is part of that reality. The problem of physics still applies. The laws of physics govern what the body does, and there is no room for the soul to intervene. You and Steiner believe in an interventionist soul, but that kind of soul simply cannot exist. It’s a fiction. Steiner was entranced by it, and you got sucked into his fantasy world, but the thing that you and he [and many others, including most Christians] believe in does not and cannot exist.

    Imagine the entities of the physical world as points moving on a plane. The spiritual realm is like an all-encompassing infinity sphere and the soul world can be likened to threads connecting these separate points on the plane to the infinite sphere which holds everything in unity. The points can be envisioned as moving around on the two-dimensional plane in lawful ways from the point of view of this dimension. The connections to the higher dimensions can be ignored when studying these movements. This is the realm of classical physics. Then along comes quantum physics with its ensuing paradoxes. The higher dimension was being probed. A dimension in which separate entities began to reveal their hidden connections. Where point-like particles reveal their infinite aspect.

    Nothing about the laws of quantum physics provides a means for a nonphysical soul to control the physical body. We’ve been over this. Quantum physics is not going to rescue the soul.

    The laws of physics will have remained unbroken, but there are no laws of physics in place, I know of anyway, that determines the sentence that a judge passes. If you know of any laws please let me know which ones specifically.

    The same laws of physics that govern everything else. The passing of sentences by judges is a brain activity, and brains are physical objects governed by the laws of physics. Just like everything else.

    The laws of mathematics are non-physical laws. And a great training for breaking out of the physical box we tend to get trapped in is through projective geometry. It deals with dimensions, polarities and infinities without the restraints of measurement.

    Nothing about Steiner’s odd fixation on projective geometry rescues the notion of the soul. The problem of physics remains.

  32. CharlieM:

    I’m not talking about the laws of physics being violated. I am talking about my personal uncertainty. I have never witnessed any laws of physics being violated. But these laws are not set in stone. What we consider as laws of physics have changed over the centuries, added to and altered in some ways.

    How can I categorically guarantee that they will never be violated? I am not omniscient. I am told that the conservation of energy does not apply to the whole universe. Is this an example of the law being violated? If I am to believe what the experts say, it is an act of faith on my part. I am not in a position to guarantee whether this is true or false.

    That is the desperate position you find yourself in. If the laws of physics are never violated, then the soul doesn’t exist. You want the soul to exist, so you float the idea that perhaps the laws of physics are violated. Problem is, we have no evidence that this happens, and it would have to happen on a massive scale in order for nonphysical souls to control physical brains and bodies. Do you really think that no one would have noticed that by now, if it were actually happening?

    And let me remind you of all the other problems we’ve discussed regarding the soul, including those posed by dementia. You have no solution for those, either, so even if we were to stipulate the existence of a soul that can control the body, you’d still face the problem that the soul would be useless:

    What is the point of having such a useless soul? Suppose I tell you “The good news is that there is an afterlife. You have a soul which will live on after your body dies. The bad news is that your soul won’t be able to do much of anything. Its memories will be wiped out and it won’t be able to form new ones. Its capacity for language will vanish. It won’t be able to do even the simplest mental tasks. It won’t recognize or even remember your family members. It won’t…” As the list goes on, are you thinking “Yay! What a great afterlife!”?

    What’s the point of an afterlife if all the good stuff dies along with your body, and all you’re left with is this soul that hung around uselessly while you were alive and is incapable of doing anything worthwhile now that you’re dead?

    The truth, of course, is that there wasn’t a soul then, and there isn’t a soul now. The good stuff dies with your body because there is no soul within which it can live on.

  33. CharlieM,

    I’m fascinated by crackpots, and especially crackpots who ought to know better, so I watched some more of the Wolfgang Smith video and came across this interesting bit:

    He’s [Einstein is] very much the heliocentrist, and as a relativist, it should be perfectly plain to him that you can put the origin of your coordinate system at the sun, or the center of the sun/planet two-body system, but you can equally well put the origin of your coordinate system at the earth. So why is there this absolutely, in a sense uncritical, postulation of heliocentrism? He speaks of the earth moving in an orbital velocity of 30 km/sec around the sun. Why not equally well speak of the sun moving with such-and-such orbital velocity around the earth?

    The short answer, Wolfgang, is that Einstein was a genius, not an idiot.

    The longer answer is that Einstein understood that the cosmos is more than a “sun/planet two-body system, and that when you bring other celestial bodies into the picture, the supposed equivalence between the geocentric and heliocentric systems falls apart. A mere change of coordinate system does not take you from one to the other. I’ve had a few discussions with Neil Rickert on this issue, including one that took place in this very thread. Like Smith, Neil believes that geocentrism and heliocentrism are mathematically equivalent, but that’s incorrect. I explain why here.

    Einstein also understood, and most freshman physics students understand this as well, that gravity operates in the solar system and that the paths of celestial objects are governed by this force. The heliocentric model predicts those paths perfectly. The geocentric model is a complete disaster at this. Since Einstein wasn’t an idiot, he picked the model that worked, not the model that was hopelessly broken.

    Charlie, do you recognize that the success of planetary probes depends on the truth of the heliocentric system, and that those missions would fail miserably if geocentrism were true?

    Smith is a bottom-of-the-barrel thinker who can’t even see the implications of his own views. He’s a complete crackpot. Why are you wasting time on him?

  34. CharlieM,

    I’ve noticed that after watching the Don Lincoln video, you’ve latched onto the fact that conservation of energy is not strictly obeyed in an expanding universe. You’ve mentioned it more than once, and you seem to be hoping that if the law of conservation of energy is violated, that somehow makes it possible for a nonphysical soul to influence the physical brain and body. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but that isn’t the case. The effect is noticeable when dealing with cosmological volumes of space, but is infinitesimal under local conditions, including those under which your brain and body operate. The problem of physics is just as serious as ever. Therefore, you can be confident that the soul does not exist.

    It’s similar to the situation with Newton’s laws. As I explained earlier in the thread, Newton’s laws aren’t strictly correct either. They are superseded by the laws of nonclassical physics, which make different predictions and have been confirmed experimentally. Despite that, Newton’s laws are still regarded as laws. Why? Because under normal conditions, like those we deal with every day, the error is so small as to be negligible.

    The fact that Newton’s laws are ever so slightly incorrect as applied to your brain and body does not leave enough room for the soul to intervene. Not by a long shot. As with Newton’s laws, so with the law of conservation of energy.

  35. Readers who have followed the ID debates will get a kick out of this:

    Irreducible Wholeness and Dembski’s Theorem

    I wish now to point out that — in 1998 to be exact — IW has made its appearance in the form of a mathematical theorem of truly epochal significance…

    I am referring of course to the famous theorem discovered by the mathematician and information theorist William Dembski, and associated from the start with the notion of “intelligent design”…

    Yet the fact remains that Dembski’s theorem is epochal in its significance: it suffices, after all, to invalidate — in a single mathematical stroke — the mechanistic worldview that has dominated Western civilization since the Enlightenment.

    Wolfgang got suckered by Dembski. Charlie, do you understand why Dembski’s CSI idea is bogus?

  36. keiths:
    CharlieM: After a very superficial glance into what Smith has to say, you make the judgement that he is a crackpot, therefore not worth bothering with any further.

    keiths: He’s a geocentrist, Charlie. It’s an utterly ridiculous, thoroughly debunked position. I could spend days explaining to you how ridiculous it is, and why. It is not something I have only superficially glanced at. Nor has the rest of the reality-based community only superficially glanced at it

    I didn’t say that anyone has only glanced superficially at cosmology in general. I said your glance into what Smith has to say was superficial. Disregarding whether he is right or wrong, what are his reasons for making statements that are geocentrist?

    He says:

    In the Einsteinian universe the earth is a random speck within a galaxy which is itself just a random speck. So this speck within a speck now controls the global geometry of the cosmos. The fact is that classical physics together with Mach’s princilple tells us that the earth is at the centre of the universe. It is stationary, it is at rest, and the cosmos at large is revolving around it every 24 hours. So therefore I am persuaded that you do not require revelation to tell you this fact. So the heliocentrism is a higher way of looking at things where you looked not with your senses but with your intellect. And so there the sun is at the centre of the universe because the sun is a cosmic manifestation of God. It gives light, in a sense it gives being to all that is in the universe so heliocentrism has its own truths but on a physical level in relation to the equations of physics it is false, demonstrably so.

    Smith believes that the ‘axis of evil’ has been confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt and this shows an alignment between the plane of the ecliptic and certain variations in the CMB. This implies that we have a central position in the cosmos.

    Smith proposes a reality which is tripartite. There is an ontological ascent from the realm of the physicist to the intermediate realm, and then on to the intelligible realm. The realm of the physicist has been bifurcated into the physical and the corporeal. This should not have happened and it has led to contradictions. The corporeal realm is the world of perception and from this position the earth appears to be stationary and central, But from the point of view of the physicist, the earth is rotating around the sun which in turn is rotating around the galactic centre. And from a corporeal point of view, what we actually see as we look up is the heavenly bodies moving across the sky from East to West as the day progresses.

    According to Smith reality consists of irreducible wholes and not from parts assembled into wholes. I think that contemplating this approach is fruitful and I am slowly getting a better understanding of what Smith has to say.

    As it stands I believe his proposals on the nature of being at the intelligible realm is too static. But from his Platonic position he does make some very good points.

  37. keiths:
    “CharlieM: I don’t operate that way. I would like to try to understand why Smith has come to believe these things he says.”

    keiths: Why? What has led you to focus on Smith, of all people? Why are you spending time on him, when there are countless people worth studying whose ideas are not obviously wrong and easily debunked by their peers? I suspect your honest answer to this question will reveal a lot about how you’ve gotten yourself into the wooish mess you’re in. What draws you to crackpots instead of to competent thinkers?

    I am spending time on Smith because this inspires me to look more closely at the writings and theories of people such as Einstein (who I am told, Smith had met and had discussions with), Ernst Mach, Georges Sagnac, James Gibson, and many others. Also he has revealed some perspectives that I share and I’m interested in the evidence he gives in support of them. Like him I am a great admirer of Plato.

    “CharlieM: He has obviously spent decades asking questions of physics and philosophy.”

    keiths: So have many other crackpots. They tend to be obsessed with their crackpot ideas and spend huge amounts of time on them.

    I just don’t happen to be as quick to judge as you appear to be.

    “CharlieM: From what I can see, he considers e=mc^2 to be correct, but Einstein’s relativity theories to be mistaken.

    keiths: Which is a stupid position to take, considering that general relativity has passed every experimental test that scientists have been able to come up with.

    Smith has implied that time measurements involving GPS signals have contradicted what should occur according to the special theory of relativity. The Sagnac effect has been a topic of debate that relates to this. That is something I would like to look into. Up until now I have had no reason to doubt Einstein on this, even if it’s difficult to square with some findings of quantum physics. I don’t want to believe Einstein as a matter of faith, so if there are contradictions, I’d like to know.

    According to Smith e=mc^2 had been derived from the Maxwell equations long before Einstein came up with this formula, and Einstein admitted as much in later life. This is a separate issue from relativity theories.

  38. keiths:
    “CharlieM: Smith is quite capable of calculation angular velocities in the same way that you have, but they only hold if the prevailing cosmological theories on time and space are correct.”

    keiths: Not just cosmological theories. Basic physics. Newtonian mechanics. Gravitation. What force do you think keeps every object in the universe orbiting around the earth, in Wolfgang World? It sure as hell ain’t gravity.

    We all know that ad hoc proposals have had to be postulated to allow present theories to align with observations. Dark matter and dark energy are two obvious examples.

  39. CharlieM,

    Are you aware that gravity fits perfectly with the heliocentric model, but clashes with the geocentric model? That if the geocentric model were correct, the planets would necessarily disobey the law of gravity? Do you really think this would have gone unnoticed by scientists, if it were actually happening?

    Are you aware that the distances to planets and other solar system objects have been measured by radar, and that they confirm heliocentrism?

    Are you aware that observations of the angular sizes of the planets confirm heliocentrism and falsify geocentrism?

    Are you aware that planetary probes successfully reach their targets, and that the mission planners rely on the heliocentric model? And that those missions would fail if the planners were stupid enough to employ a geocentric model?

    Why waste your time on a guy who believes something as idiotic as geocentrism?

  40. Regarding the movements of the sun and the earth, keiths wrote:

    keiths: The longer answer is that Einstein understood that the cosmos is more than a “sun/planet two-body system, and that when you bring other celestial bodies into the picture, the supposed equivalence between the geocentric and heliocentric systems falls apart.

    I think you misunderstand what Smith is saying. He is talking about movement from the relative position of one (superhuman being 🙂 ) observer located on the sun and one observer located on the earth. As far as the ‘earth being’ is concerned it/she/he is motionless while the sun appears to be in orbit; while the ‘motionless’ ‘sun being’ sees a spinning earth orbiting the sun.

    You are talking about their relative movements seen from an entirely different frame of reference outside of the sun/earth system.

    These are the two aspects that Smith terms the ‘physical’ (scientific position) and the ‘corporeal’ (naive realist position).

  41. CharlieM:

    Smith has implied that time measurements involving GPS signals have contradicted what should occur according to the special theory of relativity.

    Are you aware that the behavior of GPS satellites and signals is predicted perfectly by general, not special, relativity?

    Smith is an incompetent crackpot.

  42. CharlieM:

    I think you misunderstand what Smith is saying. He is talking about movement from the relative position of one (superhuman being 🙂 ) observer located on the sun and one observer located on the earth. As far as the ‘earth being’ is concerned it/she/he is motionless while the sun appears to be in orbit; while the ‘motionless’ ‘sun being’ sees a spinning earth orbiting the sun.

    I understand what Smith is saying, and it’s idiotic. First, he thinks that using a sun-centered coordinate system is tantamount to assuming heliocentrism. Second, he thinks that Einstein didn’t realize that an earth-centered coordinate system was possible, which is especially ridiculous considering that Einstein’s work was all about how things appear in different reference frames. Third, he thinks that since the sun appears to move around the earth from our perspective, and that the earth appears to move around the sun from the sun’s perspective, that those perspectives are somehow on an equal footing, completely ignoring what we know about gravity. Fourth, he doesn’t realize that the equivalence he is trying to establish falls apart when you bring other bodies besides the earth and the sun into the picture.

    He’s a crackpot, Charlie.

  43. keiths:
    CharlieM,

    I’ve noticed that after watching the Don Lincoln video, you’ve latched onto the fact that conservation of energy is not strictly obeyed in an expanding universe. You’ve mentioned it more than once, and you seem to be hoping that if the law of conservation of energy is violated, that somehow makes it possible for a nonphysical soul to influence the physical brain and body. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but that isn’t the case. The effect is noticeable when dealing with cosmological volumes of space, but is infinitesimal under local conditions, including those under which your brain and body operate. The problem of physics is just as serious as ever. Therefore, you can be confident that the soul does not exist.

    It’s similar to the situation with Newton’s laws. As I explained earlier in the thread, Newton’s laws aren’t strictly correct either. They are superseded by the laws of nonclassical physics, which make different predictions and have been confirmed experimentally. Despite that, Newton’s laws are still regarded as laws. Why? Because under normal conditions, like those we deal with every day, the error is so small as to be negligible.

    The fact that Newton’s laws are ever so slightly incorrect as applied to your brain and body does not leave enough room for the soul to intervene. Not by a long shot. As with Newton’s laws, so with the law of conservation of energy.

    It’s as I’ve been saying all along. The laws of physics are relevant in their limited domain and there are higher laws in play above these laws.

    Biology has been held back by a way of thinking that assumes the laws of life should be the same as the laws of physics only more complex.

    One example of an erroneous application is the belief in the causal relationship between genes and development of form. Michael Levin has revealed many processes in which creation of form is not supplied by the genome. The genes provide the proteins that allow the structures to be built.
    One of Levin’s favourite examples is the formation of tubules in newts, and I can see why. They can manipulate the cells that make up the tubules to increase their size. This doesn’t result in larger tubules, instead the number of cells are reduced so that the tubule size remains the same. They can produce gigantic cells that are of such a size as to be able to make tubules from one cell. In that case the process no longer requires inter-cell cooperation, the single cell reforms into the shape of the tubule. The same outcome achieved by an entirely different mechanism.

    Levin has shown structures forming in accordance with electrical patterns already in place. These are examples of top down causation.

  44. CharlieM:

    It’s as I’ve been saying all along. The laws of physics are relevant in their limited domain and there are higher laws in play above these laws.

    The “limited domain” of the laws of physics is the entire physical universe.

    Here’s an exchange from an earlier comment:

    keiths:

    …the applicable domain of the laws of physics is the entire physical world, including every particle of your brain and body. No nonphysical entity or higher-order law can change that.

    CharlieM:

    Nor should any higher laws change physical laws operating on physical systems. True enough, the entire physical world is their domain.

    No higher order law can supersede the laws of physics, and since the laws of physics dictate what happens in the physical world, no nonphysical entity, including the soul, can have any influence there.

    Biology has been held back by a way of thinking that assumes the laws of life should be the same as the laws of physics only more complex.

    Biology involves living organisms, and living organisms are physical. Any “laws of life” are simply consequences of the laws of physics, not something separate. It’s analogous to the situation with the gas laws. Those laws are simply restatements of the laws of physics at a higher level, when dealing with a particular form of matter: gases. We state those laws for convenience, but they bring nothing that wasn’t already implicit in the fundamental laws of physics. As with the gas laws, so with any “laws of life”.

  45. Charlie,

    Smith just keeps making mistakes, one after the other. A couple more blunders from the video:

    Wolfgang Smith:

    To find fault with the Michelson-Morley experiment is like shooting the messenger. I mean, they measured something, the verdict was in, and they don’t accept it. They say something strange must be happening because we know the earth moves.

    Far from finding fault with it, scientists celebrate the Michelson-Morley experiment as one of the great experiments in the history of science. And they haven’t rejected the result, they’ve embraced it. It shows that the luminiferous ether does not exist and that the speed of light is the same whether measured in the direction of motion or in a direction perpendicular to it. It helped set the stage for the theory of special relativity.

    Smith also mangles Mach’s Principle:

    It is generally believed that the earth rotates around its polar axis every 24 hours, and therefore, from this point of view, it cannot be regarded as stationary. But it so happens that a physicist by the name of Ernst Mach came up with a principle known as Mach’s Principle… but what Mach’s Principle tells us is that you cannot really distinguish empirically, by means of experiment, whether the earth is rotating and the cosmos is at rest, or that it’s the other way around. There’s no conceivable way of putting this to the experimental test. So in other words, one is at liberty to take the geocentric reference frame as being at rest.

    Mach’s Principle says no such thing. It is trivial to determine experimentally that the earth is not at rest. I already showed you, via a simple calculation, that if geocentrism were true. objects in the universe would have to be traveling at trillions of times the speed of light. That ain’t happening. There’s also the simple fact that a rotating object experiences centrifugal force. Centrifugal force is what makes the earth bulge at the equator, and that bulge wouldn’t be there if Wacky Wolfgang were correct and the earth was stationary. Consider a figure skater spinning on the ice. Wolfgang would have us believe that there is no experimental way of determining whether she is spinning and the ice is not, or vice-versa. I can think of one: have her draw her arms inward. Notice how she speeds up? That wouldn’t happen if she were stationary and the ice were spinning.

    Wolfgang Smith is a crackpot, Charlie. Find someone better to spend your time on.

  46. keiths: Readers who have followed the ID debates will get a kick out of this:

    Irreducible Wholeness and Dembski’s Theorem

    “Smith: I wish now to point out that — in 1998 to be exact — IW has made its appearance in the form of a mathematical theorem of truly epochal significance…

    I am referring of course to the famous theorem discovered by the mathematician and information theorist William Dembski, and associated from the start with the notion of “intelligent design”…

    Yet the fact remains that Dembski’s theorem is epochal in its significance: it suffices, after all, to invalidate — in a single mathematical stroke — the mechanistic worldview that has dominated Western civilization since the Enlightenment.”

    keiths: Wolfgang got suckered by Dembski. Charlie, do you understand why Dembski’s CSI idea is bogus?

    I see nothing wrong with the idea of complex, specified information. But I do see problems with the way both Dembski and Smith seem to understand these things, at least from the way they argue about them. They emphasize the machine-like nature of biological structures and this produces a tendency to ignore the dynamism inherent in these structures.

    Smith’s ‘irreducible whole’ has no room for further development. And the argument over Dembski’s CSI seems to concentrate on building complex structures solely from information within the DNA code.

    The arguments revolve around building a functional ‘machine’ and then putting it to work. But we all know living systems don’t operate that way. These processes are more like the analogy of the Ship of Theseus, only in the place of a simple wooden craft it is the most up-to-date modern warship. The building work is extremely flexible and it does not disrupt the functioning organism.

    And looking at the work of Michael Levin it becomes obvious that from a single starting arrangement the path towards the whole can take many directions, even novel directions, with novel ways of using the material, as in the newt tubules. And the same end point can be reached from a variety of initial conditions as Levin’s Picasso tadpoles demonstrates.

    Levin also talks about memory in butterflies, and how, after metamorphosis when the brain cells get quite thoroughly taken apart, and is then reformed to produce the butterfly brain, it can retain memories it had as a caterpillar.

  47. Germany has over 40% excess death most of which are not related to covid-19 but mainstream media doesn’t seem concerned about it because they do not report it at all.
    Why should they when it is brought you by SFizer and Murdena

    https://youtu.be/xNT-YNLhprw?t=260

  48. keiths:
    “CharlieM: Smith has implied that time measurements involving GPS signals have contradicted what should occur according to the special theory of relativity.”

    keiths: Are you aware that the behavior of GPS satellites and signals is predicted perfectly by general, not special, relativity?

    Smith is an incompetent crackpot.

    Your faith in authority is much greater than mine.

    There are plenty of experts mentioned online who support the Einsteinian position. Then again there are dissenters who have spent decades working and experimenting in fields of relating to this.

    I been having a look since we began discussing this and I’ve found some dissenters from the Einsteinian position. There was Ronald R. Hatch who wrote ‘Escape from Einstein’. Also Reg Cahill who gave this talk in which he reviews several experiments which he claims have contradicted Einstein.

    I’m no expert in this field so I cannot say where the truth lies with any confidence. But it has given me the inspiration to study these things in more depth. I think Cahill makes a good argument, but I’m open to any evidence against his arguments.

  49. keiths:
    CharlieM: I understand what Smith is saying, and it’s idiotic. First, he thinks that using a sun-centered coordinate system is tantamount to assuming heliocentrism. Second, he thinks that Einstein didn’t realize that an earth-centered coordinate system was possible, which is especially ridiculous considering that Einstein’s work was all about how things appear in different reference frames. Third, he thinks that since the sun appears to move around the earth from our perspective, and that the earth appears to move around the sun from the sun’s perspective, that those perspectives are somehow on an equal footing, completely ignoring what we know about gravity. Fourth, he doesn’t realize thatthe equivalence he is trying to establish falls apart when you bring other bodies besides the earth and the sun into the picture.

    He’s a crackpot, Charlie.

    Smith isn’t trying to make a scientific argument. He is making a philosophical argument from the point of view of his proposed tripartite reality. This reality consists of the corporeal, the psychic, and the spiritual domains. The geocentric/heliocentric divide is the result of the bifurcation of the corporeal into the cognitive world of perception and the physical world taught by natural scientists. Neither the historic argument for geocentrism nor for heliocentrism lead to reality since both are the result of the erroneous bifurcation. The same applies for geocentrism versus an origin from the big bang.

Leave a Reply