Creation Ex Nihilo?

[Aloysium]

rock-gas interaction:
Rock: You are taking me for granite.
Gas: Well, you could be a little boulder.
No?

 

[Bahman]

rock-gas interaction:
Rock: You are taking me for granite.
Gas: Well, you could be a little boulder.
No?

Not like that but pretty similar.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How do could interact then? What we call force is in fact show that they are sentient. They are not as sentient as we are but they are aware of their surrounding otherwise they could not interact.

" Attraction " does not imply sentient potential. Sentient capabilities are signs of living beings, other signs are self movement, growth, reproduction, nourishment, self-preservation, thinking. Characteristics ranging from microbs to insects, to animals, to man. An atom, a rock, an electron are not sentient. Where did you learn that?

Inanimate beings do have natures/essences from which they derive their intentiality or directed activity, including " attraction " to other elements or other inanimate beings. For example, Oxygen and hydrogen are " attracted " under certain conditions. This is the result of the natural intentionality of their natures. This does not make them living, for they lack all the other characteristics of animate or living beings.

I don’t think there is a text in chemistry or physics which would claim that inanimate objects, elements are living. Nor would an engineer say that a bridge, ship, or airplane is living. Are your false teeth living?

Linus2nd.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

" Attraction " does not imply sentient potential. Sentient capabilities are signs of living beings, other signs are self movement, growth, reproduction, nourishment, self-preservation, thinking. Characteristics ranging from microbs to insects, to animals, to man. An atom, a rock, an electron are not sentient. Where did you learn that?

Inanimate beings do have natures/essences from which they derive their intentiality or directed activity, including " attraction " to other elements or other inanimate beings. For example, Oxygen and hydrogen are " attracted " under certain conditions. This is the result of the natural intentionality of their natures. This does not make them living, for they lack all the other characteristics of animate or living beings.

I don’t think there is a text in chemistry or physics which would claim that inanimate objects, elements are living. Nor would an engineer say that a bridge, ship, or airplane is living. Are your false teeth living?

Linus2nd.

Linus2nd

I believe everything is composed of mind and form in which mind control form. The interaction between a pair of particles is nothing than exchanging information (quantum filed theory) which happens in a more complex manner between us.

Moreover there is system of belief Panpsychism which believe everything is mind.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I believe everything is composed of mind and form in which mind control form. The interaction between a pair of particles is nothing than exchanging information (quantum filed theory) which happens in a more complex manner between us.

Moreover there is system of belief Panpsychism which believe everything is mind.

I thought that is where you got this idea. But that is an incoherent philosophy. In such a philosophy there is no possibility of a Creator God who is absolutely beyond the beings he created. Reduced to its basic assumptions it means there is no difference between a rock and god which is the same as saying that the universe created itself, which is impossible. Nothing causes itself, that is incoherent. Also, it removes responsibility for personal acts and decisions, because there would be no difference between my mind and yours, which is clearly false. If my mind and yours were the same, we would both know it. This is a false philosophy. Aristotle proved it false centuries ago.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I thought that is where you got this idea. But that is an incoherent philosophy. In such a philosophy there is no possibility of a Creator God who is absolutely beyond the beings he created. Reduced to its basic assumptions it means there is no difference between a rock and god which is the same as saying that the universe created itself, which is impossible.

The life is continuous. We are very similar to advance mammal like chimpanzee and advance mammal are very close to simple mammal…

Nothing causes itself, that is incoherent.

And God who is uncaused caused is consistent. Isn’t where that we try to hide all our ignorance?

Also, it removes responsibility for personal acts and decisions, because there would be no difference between my mind and yours, which is clearly false.

Our intellects were same but not anymore since we were exposed to different objective reality and we got mature.

If my mind and yours were the same, we would both know it. This is a false philosophy. Aristotle proved it false centuries ago.
Linus2nd

Do they claim that there is only one mind?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The life is continuous. We are very similar to advance mammal like chimpanzee and advance mammal are very close to simple mammal…

Certainly all living things have some similar characteristics. However there is a discontinuous change from one genus to another. From vegetative to sentient, to thinking represent discontinuous changes. Even current evolutinary theory has abandoned the idea of a continuous, gradual change from one genus to another and from one species to another.

And God who is uncaused caused is consistent. Isn’t where that we try to hide all our ignorance?

Of course not. Both Aristotle and Aquinas have demonstrated othewise. But you seem uninterested in pursuing them. And to discuss them thoroughly in this format is difficult, if not impossible. But the bottom line is that an Uncaused Cause, absolutely other than the universe. is a necessary inference. This can easily be seen in the Five Ways of Aquinas and in the argument presented in Existnece and Essence, which we are discussing on another thread.

And by the way, I could make the same observations in regard to " lower intellect " and " higher intellect " and to your insistence that all things have an intellect. These are assumptions that cannot be proven by either science or philosophical inference. So they fall into the category of " gap " explanations.

Our intellects were same but not anymore since we were exposed to different objective reality and we got mature.

They are similar in nature but not ontologically. They are different in substance and being because they exist in different human beings. Certainly we are exposed to different experiences and objects. That has nothing to do with the argument.

Do they claim that there is only one mind?

No, we each have our own individual and ontologically distinct minds, and Angels and God have minds which are of different and distinct genuses, with God being simply pure existence or pure mind.

Linus2nd

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Pilot waves, the implicate order, Bohm’s theories, etc. all end up predicting that electrons just sit still near the nucleus of the hydrogen atom in certain low energy states, the evidence for which is entirely lacking. There are many other theories which also purport to do away with the collapse of the wave function, wave-particle duality, etc., and they do it without something so improbable as that which I just described.

Bohm wrote an OK introductory textbook on quantum mechanics, which I liked and occasionally refer to, and I even kind of liked his treacle model of quantum particles and the implicate order, but, as I said, I found his model of the hydrogen atom implausible to say the least.

If memory serves, I read about most of this in a book titled The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics by David Wick. I’ve got a copy in a box around here somewhere, but most of my books are still in boxes from my move. Here it is at Amazon.

I’ve worked lots of problems in elementary quantum mechanics, but I don’t do field theory (although I wish I could) nor do I spend any effort on other sorts of effort such as the above. The only way to get a good feel for what’s good and what isn’t is to work problems.

If Bohm’s theories were any good, people would be using them and teaching them all of the time instead of sticking to conventional theories. I think he came up with most of his stuff in the '50s and '60s, so it isn’t like there hasn’t been time yet to adopt them. One of the things he wanted to do, and what his theories were intended to do, was move back from probability to determinism. That hasn’t happened either. Probabilistic quantum wave functions as quantum representations are still very much with us.

For the sake of both completeness and honesty, I will provide an interesting link to a favorable view of Bohm’s pilot wave theory, one that I find intriguing. Please remember though, that as I indicated in the previous post of mine that I just quoted, there have been whole books written about various approaches to interpretations of quantum mechanics, and that the book I mentioned above provides capsule descriptions of several of them.

Here is the new interesting article on Bohm’s take on pilot waves and quantum mechanics, now, finally, illustrated with a physical model: Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

Please try to remember though, that just because there is now a physical model, that does not mean that Bohm’s model has to be right.