Health and Religion

[BADecker]

I'll never get tired of writing this:

"complex universe" is not a law. If you think it is, please link to a peer reviewed paper which asserts that there is a law called the "complex universe law".

Call our complex universe what you will or what you will not. But the fact is that the complexity of our universe is a fact.

What this means is, if science somehow fails to recognize cause and effect as a law of science, then science is simply remiss in this area.
<snip>

Not recognised by science? So you're admitting "complex universe" not a scientific law then?

Your duplicity, as usual ^^.

...
Christianity relies on free will. Without it people cannot ask for salivation, rendering Christianity false.

So take your pick:

1) We don't have free will. Thus Christainity is false.
2) We do have free will. Christainity could be true.

Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments tell us that certain quantum phenomena operate outside of what we traditionally think of as time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

Delayed choice experiments raise questions about time and time sequences, and thereby bring our usual ideas of time and causal sequence into question.[note 1] If events at D1, D2, D3, D4 determine outcomes at D0, then effect seems to precede cause. If the idler light paths were greatly extended so that a year goes by before a photon shows up at D1, D2, D3, or D4, then when a photon shows up in one of these detectors, it would cause a signal photon to have shown up in a certain mode a year earlier. Alternatively, knowledge of the future fate of the idler photon would determine the activity of the signal photon in its own present. Neither of these ideas conforms to the usual human expectation of causality.

• Orch OR theory posits that conscious arises from quantum computations in brain microtubules.
• As noted by Kant in his model of a noumenal self free will requires a true self that is independent of time.
• Grounding consciousness in quantum mechanics provides this independence.

Therefore we have free will.
 

Why do we "ground consciousness in quantum mechanics"? Is there some experiment that proves consciousness is a phenomenon affected more by quantum scale effects? I'm astonished - I didn't even know we were at the point that consciousness was that well understood.

If OTOH you're just putting forward a conjecture then until there is proof we cannot know whether or not free will exists.

You didn't see the word "theory?" And you are right. Theory is conjecture.

[BADecker]

You are suggesting that you don't even have ignorance as an excuse, right?

[CoinCube]

Why do we "ground consciousness in quantum mechanics"? Is there some experiment that proves consciousness is a phenomenon affected more by quantum scale effects? I'm astonished - I didn't even know we were at the point that consciousness was that well understood.

If OTOH you're just putting forward a conjecture then until there is proof we cannot know whether or not free will exists.

I have provided metaphysics that define what is necessary for free will Kant's noumenal self outside of time. Such a self is free because it is causally undetermined.

I have provided information on emperic and reproducable scientific experiments. Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments show that quantum phenomona can operate outside of what we traditionally think of as time and causal sequence.

I have provided robust scientific theory (Orch objective reduction) that argues consciousness is grounded in these same quantum phenomona that have been shown to operate outside of traditional time and causality.

Obviously from my stated conclusion I believe the Orch OR theory to be true. However this is not a question of metaphysics but one of science.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

the Orch OR scheme has so far stood the test of time better than most other schemes, and it is particularly distinguished from other proposals by the many scientifically tested, and potentially testable, ingredients that it depends upon.

From this one can conclude that current emperic scientific theory supports the existance of Kant's noumenal self which is required for free will. Free will is thus entirely consistent with modern science and undeniably possible. If Orch OR theory holds up under further and in depth emperic testing I would argue that free will becomes overwhelmingly probable.

[Jmild1]

No pleading involved at all. Cause and effect are only for this universe. To us people, this universe is all that there is, because we are part of it, and not part of anything outside of it. When God is in this universe, He does operate by cause and effect. But because He is outside of it as well, cause and effect constraints do not affect Him.

So, how'd you know that your god is outside this observable universe? Because he's "God"

[BADecker]

No pleading involved at all. Cause and effect are only for this universe. To us people, this universe is all that there is, because we are part of it, and not part of anything outside of it. When God is in this universe, He does operate by cause and effect. But because He is outside of it as well, cause and effect constraints do not affect Him.

So, how'd you know that your god is outside this observable universe? Because he's "God"

You say "your god." He is the God of all people. Some people simply don't recognize Him. All people who DO recognize Him hold at least a few misconceptions about Him.

We have no evidence of anything bringing itself into being before it existed. The universe could not have brought itself into being out of absolutely nothing. If there is some theory to the effect that the universe could do such a thing, it will be a difficult theory to prove. Or are you trying to suggest that God went instantaneously inside the universe at the time He created it?

[Jmild1]

No pleading involved at all. Cause and effect are only for this universe. To us people, this universe is all that there is, because we are part of it, and not part of anything outside of it. When God is in this universe, He does operate by cause and effect. But because He is outside of it as well, cause and effect constraints do not affect Him.

So, how'd you know that your god is outside this observable universe? Because he's "God"

You say "your god." He is the God of all people. Some people simply don't recognize Him. All people who DO recognize Him hold at least a few misconceptions about Him.

We have no evidence of anything bringing itself into being before it existed. The universe could not have brought itself into being out of absolutely nothing. If there is some theory to the effect that the universe could do such a thing, it will be a difficult theory to prove. Or are you trying to suggest that God went instantaneously inside the universe at the time He created it?

So that's it. We have no evidence for it, so why you still force your opinion and confidently saying it as fact? So I just wait for him to come and show and tell me in the face. Cause AFAIK he's omnipresent right?

[Buffer Overflow]

You say "your god." He is the God of all people.

Of course it's your god. Your the one who has blindly sticky taped all these silly attributes to it. Nothing to do with me.

[organofcorti]

I'll never get tired of writing this:

"complex universe" is not a law. If you think it is, please link to a peer reviewed paper which asserts that there is a law called the "complex universe law".

Call our complex universe what you will or what you will not. But the fact is that the complexity of our universe is a fact.

What this means is, if science somehow fails to recognize cause and effect as a law of science, then science is simply remiss in this area.
<snip>

Not recognised by science? So you're admitting "complex universe" not a scientific law then?

Your duplicity, as usual ^^.

1. You state that the "complex universe" is a scientific law.
2. You state that the "complex universe" is not a scientific law.

How on earth is my summary of your double-dealing "duplicity"?

[organofcorti]

Why do we "ground consciousness in quantum mechanics"? Is there some experiment that proves consciousness is a phenomenon affected more by quantum scale effects? I'm astonished - I didn't even know we were at the point that consciousness was that well understood.

If OTOH you're just putting forward a conjecture then until there is proof we cannot know whether or not free will exists.

I have provided metaphysics that define what is necessary for free will Kant's noumenal self outside of time. Such a self is free because it is causally undetermined.

I have provided information on emperic and reproducable scientific experiments. Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments show that quantum phenomona can operate outside of what we traditionally think of as time and causal sequence.

I have provided robust scientific theory (Orch objective reduction) that argues consciousness is grounded in these same quantum phenomona that have been shown to operate outside of traditional time and causality.

Obviously from my stated conclusion I believe the Orch OR theory to be true. However this is not a question of metaphysics but one of science.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

the Orch OR scheme has so far stood the test of time better than most other schemes, and it is particularly distinguished from other proposals by the many scientifically tested, and potentially testable, ingredients that it depends upon.

From this one can conclude that current emperic scientific theory supports the existance of Kant's noumenal self which is required for free will. Free will is thus entirely consistent with modern science and undeniably possible. If Orch OR theory holds up under further and in depth emperic testing I would argue that free will becomes overwhelmingly probable.

"Physics of Life Reviews" is not a peer-reviewed paper I'm familiar with, and I couldn't see any other papers that were scientifically credible.

Can you link to any other papers that back your ideas?

[BADecker]

You say "your god." He is the God of all people.

Of course it's your god. Your the one who has blindly sticky taped all these silly attributes to it. Nothing to do with me.

God set up the process whereby you came into being. He holds your life in His hands.   

[BADecker]

I'll never get tired of writing this:

"complex universe" is not a law. If you think it is, please link to a peer reviewed paper which asserts that there is a law called the "complex universe law".

Call our complex universe what you will or what you will not. But the fact is that the complexity of our universe is a fact.

What this means is, if science somehow fails to recognize cause and effect as a law of science, then science is simply remiss in this area.
<snip>

Not recognised by science? So you're admitting "complex universe" not a scientific law then?

Your duplicity, as usual ^^.

1. You state that the "complex universe" is a scientific law.
2. You state that the "complex universe" is not a scientific law.

How on earth is my summary of your double-dealing "duplicity"?

It's not about what I say, and it is not about the fact that you misquote me. It's about the fact that God exists and holds you in life, giving you the chance to turn to Him.

[BADecker]

No pleading involved at all. Cause and effect are only for this universe. To us people, this universe is all that there is, because we are part of it, and not part of anything outside of it. When God is in this universe, He does operate by cause and effect. But because He is outside of it as well, cause and effect constraints do not affect Him.

So, how'd you know that your god is outside this observable universe? Because he's "God"

You say "your god." He is the God of all people. Some people simply don't recognize Him. All people who DO recognize Him hold at least a few misconceptions about Him.

We have no evidence of anything bringing itself into being before it existed. The universe could not have brought itself into being out of absolutely nothing. If there is some theory to the effect that the universe could do such a thing, it will be a difficult theory to prove. Or are you trying to suggest that God went instantaneously inside the universe at the time He created it?

So that's it. We have no evidence for it, so why you still force your opinion and confidently saying it as fact? So I just wait for him to come and show and tell me in the face. Cause AFAIK he's omnipresent right?

Since you haven't explained what your "it" is, there is no way I can answer your questions.

The scientific laws of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal complexity, when combined, prove that God exists. Cause and effect almost does it alone.

Why is it that you would rather remain in ignorance? After all, since the proof is there, God exists. Work with God rather than trying to stick your head in the sand, hoping that He won't see you. You are much better off acknowledging Him and His greatness than trying to hide it from yourself.

After all, He essentially came and told you face to face through the science that proves He exists. Why should He do more for you, since you won't accept facts?

[organofcorti]

I'll never get tired of writing this:

"complex universe" is not a law. If you think it is, please link to a peer reviewed paper which asserts that there is a law called the "complex universe law".

Call our complex universe what you will or what you will not. But the fact is that the complexity of our universe is a fact.

What this means is, if science somehow fails to recognize cause and effect as a law of science, then science is simply remiss in this area.
<snip>

Not recognised by science? So you're admitting "complex universe" not a scientific law then?

Your duplicity, as usual ^^.

1. You state that the "complex universe" is a scientific law.
2. You state that the "complex universe" is not a scientific law.

How on earth is my summary of your double-dealing "duplicity"?

It's not about what I say, and it is not about the fact that you misquote me. It's about the fact that God exists and holds you in life, giving you the chance to turn to Him.

I didn't misquote you. It's all in your original post for anyone to see.

It's also nothing to do with God. It's only about your continual lying about what does and does not constitue a 'scientific law'

[BADecker]

I'll never get tired of writing this:

"complex universe" is not a law. If you think it is, please link to a peer reviewed paper which asserts that there is a law called the "complex universe law".

Call our complex universe what you will or what you will not. But the fact is that the complexity of our universe is a fact.

What this means is, if science somehow fails to recognize cause and effect as a law of science, then science is simply remiss in this area.
<snip>

Not recognised by science? So you're admitting "complex universe" not a scientific law then?

Your duplicity, as usual ^^.

1. You state that the "complex universe" is a scientific law.
2. You state that the "complex universe" is not a scientific law.

How on earth is my summary of your double-dealing "duplicity"?

It's not about what I say, and it is not about the fact that you misquote me. It's about the fact that God exists and holds you in life, giving you the chance to turn to Him.

I didn't misquote you. It's all in your original post for anyone to see.

It's also nothing to do with God. It's only about your continual lying about what does and does not constitue a 'scientific law'

Well, you know better.

The point is, God is proven to exists, in very easy manner. Why won't you accept the truth? If it bothers you to call complex universe a scientific law, don't, since it is a fact no matter what you call it.

Is it your honor? Have you decided to ignore the truth just because I say it? How silly of you if you do this.

However, it is completely okay if you don't state that you understand that God exists to me or the people in this forum. But DO accept Him in your heart, and find out about Him, for your own good.

[organofcorti]

I'll never get tired of writing this:

"complex universe" is not a law. If you think it is, please link to a peer reviewed paper which asserts that there is a law called the "complex universe law".

Call our complex universe what you will or what you will not. But the fact is that the complexity of our universe is a fact.

What this means is, if science somehow fails to recognize cause and effect as a law of science, then science is simply remiss in this area.
<snip>

Not recognised by science? So you're admitting "complex universe" not a scientific law then?

Your duplicity, as usual ^^.

1. You state that the "complex universe" is a scientific law.
2. You state that the "complex universe" is not a scientific law.

How on earth is my summary of your double-dealing "duplicity"?

It's not about what I say, and it is not about the fact that you misquote me. It's about the fact that God exists and holds you in life, giving you the chance to turn to Him.

I didn't misquote you. It's all in your original post for anyone to see.

It's also nothing to do with God. It's only about your continual lying about what does and does not constitue a 'scientific law'

Well, you know better.

The point is, God is proven to exists, in very easy manner. Why won't you accept the truth? If it bothers you to call complex universe a scientific law, don't, since it is a fact no matter what you call it.

Is it your honor? Have you decided to ignore the truth just because I say it? How silly of you if you do this.

However, it is completely okay if you don't state that you understand that God exists to me or the people in this forum. But DO accept Him in your heart, and find out about Him, for your own good.

You've lost track of the conversation. As a reminder:

1. You state that the "complex universe" is a scientific law.
2. You state that the "complex universe" is not a scientific law.

Will you now please stop mentioning this "complex universe scientific law" thing?

[BADecker]

You've lost track of the conversation. As a reminder:

1. You state that the "complex universe" is a scientific law.
2. You state that the "complex universe" is not a scientific law.

Will you now please stop mentioning this "complex universe scientific law" thing?

You've lost track of the thread. It seems you like it that way, because you won't stop lying about me.   

[organofcorti]

You've lost track of the conversation. As a reminder:

1. You state that the "complex universe" is a scientific law.
2. You state that the "complex universe" is not a scientific law.

Will you now please stop mentioning this "complex universe scientific law" thing?

You've lost track of the thread. It seems you like it that way, because you won't stop lying about me.   

You really don't care if something is a "scientific law" or not, do you? You just use the term if you think it will convince other people of your ideas.

Here's the quote where you actually say this:

What this means is, if science somehow fails to recognize cause and effect as a law of science, then science is simply remiss in this area.

So, no lies or misleading statements on my part.

[CoinCube]

"Physics of Life Reviews" is not a peer-reviewed paper I'm familiar with, and I couldn't see any other papers that were scientifically credible.

Can you link to any other papers that back your ideas?

Some Primary References:

Metaphysics of free will and life
https://thewinnower.com/papers/3497-reconceptualizing-the-metaphysical-basis-of-biology-a-new-definition-based-on-deistic-teleology-and-an-hierarchy-of-organizing-entities
http://praxeology.net/kant4.htm

The holographic principle reconciles quantum mechanics with gravity
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3668
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jmp/36/11/10.1063/1.531249
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4089

Quantum phenomona can operate outside of what we traditionally think of as time and causal sequence
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v353/n6344/abs/353507b0.html

Consciousness may be grounded in the same quantum phenomona that have been shown to operate outside of traditional time and causality
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567633
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/102/12/10.1063/1.4793995

This will be my last post for some time as I have some projects that require my undivided attention. I have enjoyed this recent debate and found it informative. I hope others have as well. Until next time.

[Moloch]

[Moloch]