O.K. boys and girls, it's time to put on our thinking caps and fasten our seat belts because I just ran across some information that I long suspected was real and the possibilities have me very excited!
(Now this piece is going to be long, and it is going to be difficult to follow, so if you want to tackle it slowly and in small pieces, by all means do so! If ya start to get a headache, come back to it later!)
We have been discussing my book, "The Plain Truth About God" these past few days and in it I state that although there is a God, this "Being," or "First Cause," or "Divine Intelligence," or "Mother Nature," or whatever you want to call it is not, and could not, be anything like what is described in the Bible, the Koran or any other human holy book.
The reasons for this are rather straight forward and simple once you look at them from my "Perspective."
First of all, they attempt to describe something that is not of this Universe, or reality, (If there is such a thing) in simple Earthly terms, and that is about as smart as using an apple to describe an orange! Or describing an apple to give us a sense of what an orange is!
Anyway, you get the picture!
On top of that, anything said about "God" is tainted with not only an Earthly "Perspective" but is also colored with the biases, pre-conceptions and even the "Agenda" of the person doing the describing!
Not a very re-assuring way to get at the truth is it bunky?
BUT! I came across this article in my "stumbles" through the Internet on, of all places, the site of the "Institute for Creation Research!"
Now before you get all hissy and start to look elsewhere, let me explain that the reason The Institute has jumped on this bandwagon is because they can twist it and put a spin on it that seems to give legitimacy to their weird and wonderful philosophies.
This is not the case at all and I will show you why..................!
The Templeton Foundation has a basic goal; Scientific study of matters that seek to advance discovery in areas engaging "life's biggest questions" is a major area of activity for the Foundation.
These areas include questions on the laws of nature and the nature of the universe.
It supports work principally by scientists, but also collaborations between scientists and other academics, such as theologians and philosophers.
Many of these projects attempt to answer some of the big metaphysical questions, such as, "Why is there something rather than nothing? What does it mean to be human? What is the nature of free will?" etc.
First of all the article as I read it......, and what caught my immediate attention!
Physicist Receives Million-Pound Prize for Predicting a 'Hypercosmic God' by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.
On March 16, 2009, (About two weeks ago - ED.) the Templeton Foundation announced the winner of its annual 1 million pound sterling (1.42 million USD) prize, an amount that exceeds the payoff of the prestigious Nobel Prize.
Bernard d'Espagnat, a French physicist at the University of Paris-Sud, will receive the award from the Duke of Edinburgh at Buckingham Palace at an elaborate ceremony in May.
Dr. d'Espagnat was awarded the prize for his work using theoretical physics to predict the reality of a "hypercosmic god," who exists outside of the physical universe.
The Templeton Prize was started in 1972 by Sir John Templeton, an American-born entrepreneur and businessman. Templeton's goal was to provide monetary resources for research and discovery in science and philosophy, with a focus towards university faculty. Candidates for this award have typically performed research involving a strong metaphysical or spiritual side that very few researchers are willing to tackle.
Dr. D'Espagnat received the recognition specifically for his work in "concept reality," an off-shoot from his decades of work in quantum mechanics.
The goal of quantum mechanics is to provide a complete description/model of the physical world.
However, if something exists beyond scientifically predictable phenomena, then there must be some other reality underlying the natural world, another dimension that is not based on time, distance, or physical constraints.
Additionally, events in one dimension are able to simultaneously affect events in the other dimension and distance is not an issue, even though the second dimension is non-local.
D'Espagnat's current hypothesis is that some unknowable divine entity operates in this underlying realm/dimension.
In other words, theoretical physics now predicts the reality of a "Hypercosmic God."
In this model, there is no way to know this Divine being, or connect with it in a meaningful way.
D'Espagnat's notion of the impersonal/unknowable aspect of this God is not actually predicted by the model, but simply represents his own opinion on the matter.
It is interesting that one of the hottest fields in theoretical physics points towards a Divine Being or God and also predicts God's divine attributes of omnipotence, immortality, omniscience, and omnipresence.
Have you got that?
O.K.
Now this is where it starts to get screwed up because Dr. Tomkins works for the Institute for Creation Research and he throws their spin on it for the rest of the article.
(See, I told ya that you can't trust these bastards!)
What is even more exciting is that all of these findings line up with the description of God in the Holy Bible, except for one thing-He IS knowable and we can connect with Him in a meaningful way through the forgiveness of sin available through His Son Jesus Christ!
Although it is exciting that modern scientific research clearly points towards God, it does not take millions of dollars in government grants coupled with years of laborious research to prove His existence and know what He is like.
His Divine attributes are clearly outlined in the Bible.
THERE....! SEE WHAT I MEAN? RIGHT THERE IS BLACK AND WHITE PROOF OF HOW RELIGION SPINS THINGS INTO IT'S OWN VERSION OF WHAT THE TRUTH IS! INSTEAD OF LEAVING THE THEORY TO STAND ON IT'S OWN, THEY TURN IT INTO A COMMERCIAL FOR THE BIBLE AND THEIR PARTICULAR FAITH!
I'm sorry for the outburst, but these people get me so pissed at their sneaky, lying, underhanded ways that that sometimes I'm beside myself!
Anyway, back to the story!
Among the great ironies of quantum mechanics is not only that its conceptual foundations seem strange even to the physicists who use it, but that philosophers have largely ignored it.
Here, Bernard d'Espagnat argues that quantum physics--by casting doubts on once hallowed concepts such as space, material objects, and causality, - demands serious reconsideration of most of traditional philosophy.
His book; "On Physics and Philosophy" is an accessible, mathematics-free reflection on the philosophical meaning of the quantum revolution, by one of the world's leading authorities on the subject.
D'Espagnat presents an objective account of the main guiding principles of contemporary physics-in particular, quantum mechanics-followed by a look at just what consequences these should imply for philosophical thinking.
The author begins by describing recent discoveries in quantum physics such as non separability, and explicating the significance of contemporary developments such as decoherence.
Then he proceeds to set various philosophical theories of knowledge--such as materialism, realism, Kantism, and neo-Kantism--against the conceptual problems quantum theory raises.
His overall conclusion is that while the physical implications of quantum theory suggest that scientific knowledge will never truly describe mind-independent reality, the notion of such an ultimate reality--one we can never access directly or rationally and which he calls "veiled reality"--remains conceptually necessary nonetheless.
(Wheew! This is heavy shit!)
Bernard d'Espagnat is Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Paris-Orsay, where he was director of the Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Particules Élémentaires (Laboratory of Theoretical Physics and Elementary Particles) from 1970 to 1987. His books in English include the classic Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Veiled Reality.
AND NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SOME WORDS FROM THE DOC HIMSELF;
I believe that some of our most ingrained notions about space and causality should be reconsidered. Anyone who takes quantum mechanics seriously will have reached the same conclusion.
What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects - the particles, electrons, quarks etc. - cannot be thought of as "self-existent".
The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality".
This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ?
The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.
How did I arrive at this conclusion? My interest in the foundations of quantum physics developed at quite an early stage in my career, but I soon noticed that my elders deliberately brushed aside the problems the theory raised, which they considered not to be part of physics proper.
It was only after I attained the status of a fully-fledged physicist that I ventured to take up the question personally.
To put it in a nutshell, in this quest I first found that whatever way you look at it the quantum mechanical formalism, when taken at face value, compels us to consider that two particles that have once interacted always remain bound in a very strange, hardly understandable way even when they are far apart, the connection being independent of distance.
Even though this connection-at-a-distance does not permit us to transmit messages, clearly it is real. In other words space, so essential in classical physics, seems to play a considerably less basic role in quantum physics.
I soon found out, as often happens, that these things had been known for quite a long time. Schrödinger had even given them a name: entanglement, and had claimed entanglement is essential. But strangely enough he had not really been listened to.
Indeed he had been unheard to the extent that the very notion of "entanglement" was hardly mentioned in regular courses on quantum physics.
And in fact most physicists felt inclined to consider that, if not entanglement in general, at least the highly puzzling 'entanglement at a distance' was merely an oddity of the formalism, free of physical consequences and doomed to be removed sooner or later, just through improvements on the said formalism.
At the time the general view was therefore that if any problems remained in that realm these problems were of a philosophical, not of a physical nature so that physicists had better keep aloof from them.
I was not convinced I must say, and in the early sixties I wrote and published a book and some articles developing physical arguments that focused attention on such problems by showing that entanglement is truly something worth the physicist's attention.
And then a real breakthrough took place in that John Bell, a colleague of mine at Cern, published his famous inequalities, which - for the first time - opened a possibility of testing whether or not entanglement-at-a-distance had experimentally testable consequences.
The outcome confirmed my anticipations. Entanglement-at-a-distance does physically exist, in the sense that it has physically verifiable (and verified) consequences. Which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of our most engrained notions about space and causality should be reconsidered.
Bernard d'Espagnat is a theoretical physicist, philosopher and winner of the Templeton Prize 2009. He is the author of On Physics and Philosophy, Princeton University Press, 2006
Reviews:
"Bernard d'Espagnat eschews the technical philosophical and mathematical jargon . . . while nonetheless getting deeply into the consistency and plausibility of significant metaphysical claims. For all collections on the philosophy of science. . . . Highly recommended."--Choice
"In this valuable work, Bernard d'Espagnat brings his considerable expertise in contemporary physics to bear on the difficult philosophical issues arising from the current understanding of the subatomic domain."--Thomas Oberdan, Isis
Endorsements:
"This book is a monument to d'Espagnat's excellent work and style; it is surely the most complete book to have been written on this subject and one likely to last a long time, at least until we come to fully understand the remaining mysteries in the field."--Roland Omnès, Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics, Université de Paris-Sud
"Bernard d'Espagnat is an accomplished theoretical physicist and philosopher, whose two disciplines are interrelated in the present book. He conclusively argues that features of quantum mechanics--particularly the Uncertainty Principle, the nonlocality exhibited by entangled systems, and the measurement problem--revolutionize epistemology and metaphysics. His novel and lucid philosophy, called 'veiled realism,' criticizes Kant's doctrine of synthetic a priori knowledge but shares the thesis that scientific knowledge provides empirical regularities while pointing to an underlying 'noumenal' reality whose structure is not revealed."--Abner Shimony, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Physics, Boston University
Told ya it was long and windy, but I hope you got something from it!
Allan:
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know......!) and is available as an E-Book H E R E! and H E R E! And as a paperback H E R E ! and H E R E !
Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://allans-perspective.blogspot.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 48 ( 6 removed by Allan Janssen )
(You missed it ; )
John..... Nice poem!
The foundation has also funded critics of the movement.
A New York Times article said the foundation asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research and quoted Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, as saying "They never came in" and that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review", he said.
The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding.
Harper stated; "They're political - that for us is problematic", and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science"........, "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth".
First principles, Allan... Where'd HE come from? You have to have a better answer than "turtles all the way down." But that's all the answer I ever get.
Maybe that's the difference between me and mainstream religion, we both claim a God but they claim to have the answer to what God is, says, and wants, and I say it's not possible to know.
As far as I can figure out with my little brain what this guy did was this......!
In quantum physics you can have two atoms, or particles, or something like that, come together and interact.
Then you separate them by putting them in different rooms (Or on the other side of the universe!) and they still act like they are connected.
Apparently communication between them is instantaneous (?) or something.
I don't begin to understand it except I think quantum mechanics states that objects can remain connected through some other way than normal space-time and that it is outside of this universe and not bound by time nor distance.
Even though we can postulate this "other" reality, (The realm of "God?") trying to explain it or studying it puts us back to square one since we are stuck in this universe.
This is what I have felt for quite some time based strictly on Intuition and what makes sense...... hopefully science is now getting to the point where they can provide some concrete answers.
Sorry about the headache but I did warn you!
Allan W Janssen
I think you would do well to study quantum physics more, cause you seem to have missed the really fascinating mystery. You see, it's not just that there is a "connection" between "separated" quanta, but that there is a very odd "connection" . .
If one "looks" at a beam of subatomic particles, and attempts to measure certain aspects of those itty bitty pieces of what everything is actually made up of, it is possible to do so, but there's a catch. One cannot measure more than one aspect they can have, since the measuring itself changes the bitties, cause they are so small that there's nothing else to "look" at, but the particles themselves. No "wake", or emissions, or anything like that, due to even smaller things being effected by them; They are the smallest . . . So, one cannot know more than a portion of the quanta's actual "state", at any time.
Now, here's the really weird part; The idea of splitting a beam of such particles would seem to make it possible to "look" at one aspect of the particles in half the split beam, and another aspect in the other half, and so deduce both aspects of the original beam . . . But, no can do. When one "looks" at the one half, the other becomes something entirely different, scattered and wave-like, and no longer can be measured in the way the first was . . . And, when one reverses the order, and "looks" first at the other half, the half of the split beam one originally "looked" at, dissolves instantly into an unreadable scattered wave-like affair. In simple English; The beams "know" you're looking at them, and will not let you see more than the one aspect . . . ever.
So, science is pretty much out of it's league on this. It cannot possibly explain how beams of particles can know we are looking at them. Subatomic particles aren't supposed to know anything, are they?
". . . we both claim a God but they claim to have the answer to what God is, says, and wants, and I say it's not possible to know."
Allan, how can you claim a God if you can't describe what He is? What in the world are you talking about?
-Mark
People such as you "claim God" as their own and then "claim to know God" when the only one they're deluding is themselve's!
"Schrödinger's cat" is a thought experiment, often described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics being applied to everyday objects. The thought experiment presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. In the course of developing this experiment, he coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement).
To illustrate the putative incompleteness of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger applied quantum mechanics to a living entity that may or may not be conscious. In Schrödinger’s original thought experiment he describes how one could, in principle, transform a superposition inside an atom to a large-scale superposition of a live and dead cat by coupling cat and atom with the help of a ‘‘diabolical mechanism.’’ He proposed a scenario with a cat in a sealed box, where the cat's life or death was dependent on the state of a subatomic particle. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the box is opened.
Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse: the thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation—the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935—the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics; how each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths and weaknesses.
"People such as you "claim God" as their own and then "claim to know God" when the only one they're deluding is themselve's!"
And just how do you know all people that speak of knowing God, are deluding themselves? Did a god tell you that? Did you read it in some tea leaves? How?
Obviously, if there is a real God, "It" could do such a simple thing as let "Itself" be known to a human being. Why on earth would one refer to something which could not do such modest things, as "God" ?
Head games? It is you that are playing head games, I know. You don't believe it is possible, but what you believe is just what you believe, not the limits all must conform to . . . least of all Him.
It is not possible to know God is not real, if He's not, for there would be no God to inform one of that fact. It is possible to know God is real, if He is, for there would be a God to inform one of that fact.
(I'm not saying this proves anything, except that it is not logical to say one knows, that no one knows, God exists)
I don't understand. . . Can you be more specific? What is this 'God' that it is impossible to prove or disprove?
-Mark
" John, if what you're saying is that it is impossible to either prove, or disprove the existence of God then I agree 100%. "
Naturally, if God exists, He can prove Himself to a human being, that's what I'm saying. It is simply not logical to call something a "God", that could not do something you or I can easily do.
The only thing I can say for sure is that no human being can "know" the existence of God, all they can do is "believe" in God.
And Mark, if you're being funny.... ha,ha, and if you're too fucking stupid to follow this go look at that Gather site about flowers! (Or something!)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . .
Is this the God you are talking about? - the Creator of all things?
-Mark
"The only thing I can say for sure is that no human being can "know" the existence of God"
You still haven't explained how you know that "for sure" . . . Kinda makes it hard to take anything you say seriously, when you claim to know things for sure, that any teenager with half a minute and a functioning mind, can figure out is not even possible to know. Nice touch with that calling me stupid too, you're all kinda easy to read, sport ; )
No, that's God. . .He's the One I'm speaking about as well. I'm glad to discover that you know about Him. He's awesome and wonderful all at the same time. Do you realize that He loved the world so much that He sacrificed His only Son on Calvary's cross so that all who believe on Him should not perish but have eternal life? The whole story is fantastic and true all at once. . .
-Mark
Yet your book about 'God' is named The Plain Truth About God. Sounds pretty bunky, bunky.
Your title is The Plain Truth About God. According to the title you have spoken ABOUT GOD. It's not the plain truth about believers, or the plain truth about heresy, or the plain truth about the truth. If anything about God is tainted with human perspective yours is none the less. You can't have it both ways.
I don't disagree with most of what you said there, but I still don't understand why you keep speaking of me (for instance) trying to "prove" the existence of God to "non-believers". I simply did not do that, but rather, much like yourself, I pointed our the fallacy of what I here called "negative knowledge" about God.
Whether Allen can grasp the irrationality of what he is herein declaring or not, it is irrational, and ought not be something any person, believer or not, should be hesitant to approach as such, I don't think. Plenty of know-it -alls make such declarations of negative knowledge about God, and if no one points out the fallacious nature of their words, naive or uncareful reasoners can be misled into accepting the pointlessness of attempting to "approach" God, believing that it would not be possible, even if God exists. I don't believe all "non-believers" are incapable of seeing that makes no sense, if they think it through, and so I encourage that thinking.
There is a distinct difference between trying to prove the existence of God, and trying to keep the "door open" in the mind of the listener, to the potential they have, to investigate further themselves, and not to fall for phony pseudo intellectual gibberish that speaks of silly limitations on something as distinctly and profoundly unlimited as God would necessarily have to be, if He does indeed exist. Double-talk can work it's mind closing magic, on some, if no one mentions the contradictions in it, I fear.
Certainly, the lack of rational thought here has nothing to do with whether one believes or not. Unfortunately, logic on this site is usually determined by what a majority wants to believe for their own benefit at any given moment.
John's was the best, he spent about three long paragraphs giving me advice, but guess what?
They have all been deleted!
And everytime I get a comment from any of these S.O.B.'s in the future, they will be deleted too!
allan W Janssen