Science and Religion

[in_servitude]

I design computers for a living. Meaning, I work with other engineers to design computers as the complexity requires each engineer to have their own specialty. When I look at the designs created by other engineers, it is easy to see some aspects of their own internal though process (an invisible characteristic). Some people are very modular in their approach, others will combine many different processes into a larger monolithic structure, others will use convoluted signal names when a simpler name would suffice. All of these various choices made by the designer reveals something about them in their designs (their own creation).

In the same way, science reveals something about the Creator. The choices made by God in the act of creating reveal something about His nature. Therefore, you will not be able to use science to disprove the existence of God - you will only be able to use science to illuminate God. If you know otherwise, then I’d like you to explain how I am wrong.

One common error made by “science alone” types is that they will, in their supposed “search” for God, will make the mistake of excluding everything spiritual in their very first step. They set a framework that excludes the interaction with non-human rational beings. Then, after making that mistake, they will eventually conclude what can only flow from that initial framework - that there does not exist rational beings that are not human.

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

I’ve argued, scientifically, that from an engineering point of view we absolutely, in no way, if you’re a linguist, neuroscientist, and/or engineer, can conclude that a free will exists. I think that my argument was very persuasive, and I have to admit that I think that I’m responsible for the scientific consensus (even on the part of the Supreme Court in the USA). The argument can be summed up like this.

Language has had an explosion of inquiry in the last 60 years by any means necessary. A lot of people used to claim that you “can’t calculate language.” This is where I said, “what would it take to make a computer able to learn any language?” To which I came to a conclusion. The conclusion is that, as the absolute necessity, the most fundamentally necessary mechanism, is pattern detection.

Through my research, I have come to conclude that it is a quantum mechanical process (which most people would consider counter intuitive). The most powerful argument against the freedom of will, at this point, is that you cannot accept it as an engineer because that would mean that things are inherently random. A basic premise of statistical mechanics, neural networks, computational linguistics, statistics, Bayes theorem, and computational neuroscience is that randomness does not exist. If you were to participate in these sets of research, you would contradict yourself by saying that things are random. You’re basically conceding at that point. This is why one cannot call themself a believer of the free will on scientific grounds. If you consider yourself a scientist and engineer, you must submit to the idea that free will does not exist solely for the sake of benefit.

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

This ideology can be carried on to the extent that saying “freedom in itself is a false premise” on empirical grounds.

 

[in_servitude]

I’ve argued, scientifically, that from an engineering point of view we absolutely, in no way, if you’re a linguist, neuroscientist, and/or engineer, can conclude that a free will exists. I think that my argument was very persuasive, and I have to admit that I think that I’m responsible for the scientific consensus (even on the part of the Supreme Court in the USA). The argument can be summed up like this.

Language has had an explosion of inquiry in the last 60 years by any means necessary. A lot of people used to claim that you “can’t calculate language.” This is where I said, “what would it take to make a computer able to learn any language?” To which I came to a conclusion. The conclusion is that, as the absolute necessity, the most fundamentally necessary mechanism, is pattern detection.

Through my research, I have come to conclude that it is a quantum mechanical process (which most people would consider counter intuitive). The most powerful argument against the freedom of will, at this point, is that you cannot accept it as an engineer because that would mean that things are inherently random. A basic premise of statistical mechanics, neural networks, computational linguistics, statistics, Bayes theorem, and computational neuroscience is that randomness does not exist. If you were to participate in these sets of research, you would contradict yourself by saying that things are random. You’re basically conceding at that point. This is why one cannot call themself a believer of the free will on scientific grounds. If you consider yourself a scientist and engineer, you must submit to the idea that free will does not exist solely for the sake of benefit.

In your research, did you first restrict your framework that such that every emotion, every decision, every aspect of the intellect, everything imagined is strictly the result of a electro-chemical/physical process? If so, then you did exactly what I say is the common error in my previous post. You excluded the soul that every human has.

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

No, I didn’t. I did not claim that the mind is either solid or empty. I made the argument that while the mind is empty, perform a recursive process to enumerate units that can or cannot be placed in an output depending on their statistical strength. It’s basically saying that while 0 = 0, do this. The same could go for any number though. (While 1749 = 1749, do this). But there is a point in the equation where the mind becomes a unit, but it always becomes empty again before waiting for (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Beryllos]

I’ve argued, scientifically, that from an engineering point of view we absolutely, in no way, if you’re a linguist, neuroscientist, and/or engineer, can conclude that a free will exists. I think that my argument was very persuasive,

Clearly you have convinced yourself. I am familiar with the scientific arguments, and I am not convinced. What makes you so sure you have the last word on science? Even Einstein didn’t claim to know all the secrets of nature.

and I have to admit that I think that I’m responsible for the scientific consensus (even on the part of the Supreme Court in the USA).

In what way are you responsible?

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

Clearly you have convinced yourself. I am familiar with the scientific arguments, and I am not convinced. What makes you so sure you have the last word on science? Even Einstein didn’t claim to know all the secrets of nature.

In what way are you responsible?

I’m soap boxing here, please forgive me.

The argument still stands about that part, but I sincerely believe that the mind is inherent in the universe. The matter is just what contains the knowledge, otherwise the mind is just experiencing “déjà vu”.

 

[in_servitude]

No, I didn’t. I did not claim that the mind is either solid or empty. I made the argument that while the mind is empty, perform a recursive process to enumerate units that can or cannot be placed in an output depending on their statistical strength. It’s basically saying that while 0 = 0, do this. The same could go for any number though. (While 1749 = 1749, do this). But there is a point in the equation where the mind becomes a unit, but it always becomes empty again before waiting for (name removed by moderator)ut.

Your restriction, then, assumes that the mind is limited to:

1. Receiving (name removed by moderator)ut.
2. Making functional decisions/computations based on that (name removed by moderator)ut.
3. Producing output based on the internal functions of the mind and the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Is that correct?

 

[Beryllos]

Well, I suppose there is some value in soapboxing. When you try to explain your thoughts, you sometimes think things through more clearly, and you may come to a better understanding. Just don’t be so proud that you think you know it all; if you stumble across the truth, you may fail to recognize it.

May the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus called the Spirit of truth, assist and guide you in your search for truth, and beyond that to salvation.

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

Your restriction, then, assumes that the mind is limited to:

1. Receiving (name removed by moderator)ut.
2. Making functional decisions/computations based on that (name removed by moderator)ut.
3. Producing output based on the internal functions of the mind and the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Is that correct?

Yes, always.

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

Computations particularly, I don’t believe in freedom.

 

[57Bill]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Faith and understanding
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm
…
**
159 Faith and science**: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

Great post.

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

I was going to say the same thing. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the citation.

Sorry for not quoting

 

[in_servitude]

Computations particularly, I don’t believe in freedom.

Ok, I think I get what you are saying.

You are saying that any human mind has an equivalent logical equation - or, maybe the human mind IS a logical equation. Therefore, the output of the mind is strictly based upon a logical equation (current state plus (name removed by moderator)ut equals output).

Then, you say that IF this is NOT the case, then there MUST be randomness. Randomness is required to produce non-predictable output.

Then, you conclude that free will does not exist.

If your initial assumption is that the human mind (or will) is equivalent to a computer, how can you have any other conclusion than free will does not exist? What is required, within your framework, to demonstrate that free will exists?

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

In order to demonstrate that free will does exist, you must be able to reach out and grab infinitely separate items simultaneously with one hand.

You might think that this experiment is absurd, but it’s not necessarily impossible. The only problem is that we have a finite span of existence.

I do think that I have made quantum entanglement intuitive though, and I’m excited to share my hypothesis with you guys :x

 

[in_servitude]

In order to demonstrate that free will does exist, you must be able to reach out and grab infinitely separate items simultaneously with one hand.

The question I asked is: when you assume (your going-in assumptions) the human mind can be implemented as a computer, how can free will ever possibly be proven to exist (within that framework)?

You might think that this experiment is absurd, but it’s not necessarily impossible. The only problem is that we have a finite span of existence.

How do you prove that we have a finite span of existence? Wait - do you suggest that the human mind is implemented within the our human bodies?

I do think that I have made quantum entanglement intuitive though, and I’m excited to share my hypothesis with you guys :x

It’ll be interesting to see where this goes…

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

The experiment to demonstrate was really a thought experiment because of this-

Time is a collection of organized discreet linear bounded units. This means that crime, weather, and even intuition is predictable by previous events. This much is called “pattern detection”.

The thing is that one particle can exist in multiple locations simultaneously. This much seems counter intuitive.

So, to top it all all off, Einstein says that “nothing can travel faster than the speed of light”. The scientific community repeats this premise often. The irony of the argument is that I proved, in theory, that nothing really does travel faster than the speed of light.

So, in other words, “nothing” travels faster than the speed of light…

They say that “I’m not even wrong” on this one. This leads me to believe that it needs further explanation.

The law is-
Nothing travels faster than t while t = 0(o)

This goes to say that nothing travels faster than time (t) while time (t) is equal to 0 (zero) occurrences (o).

Basically, if nothing happens between you and your destination, then you’re traveling faster than light.

 

[in_servitude]

Do you remember my post when I talked about common errors by “science alone” types?

One common error made by “science alone” types is that they will, in their supposed “search” for God,** will make the mistake of excluding everything spiritual in their very first step**. They set a framework that excludes the interaction with non-human rational beings. Then, after making that mistake, they will eventually conclude what can only flow from that initial framework - that there does not exist rational beings that are not human.

The theory of relativity pertains to matter and energy - the physical world. The spiritual world is not bound by physics.

Did you answer my question about the human mind and if it is implemented within the human body? If so, I didn’t get it.

Did you answer my question about how it is possible to demonstrate free will exists within the framework you assume going in (that the human mind can be implemented in a computer)?

When we die, our bodies will decay. Our brains will no longer function as they do now. I assert that all humans have a soul - a soul that will never perish even if every physical atom, every subatomic particle, every photon were to be somehow annihilated. And, I also assert that our decisions, our emotions, our imagination are fundamentally emanating from our soul. All of that lies outside your analysis that tried to wrap all of that in a computational analysis.

From everything you are saying here, you exclude the spiritual world.

Also, you assert that time can be quantized. I see no evidence for this.

 

[Popcorn_Sutton]

You’re not necessarily right by saying those things. I think that you’re taking a radical stance on the subject. I never said that I’m excluding the soul on this topic. What I said is that knowledge is a linear bounded unit and time is an organized collection of those units with respect to their location in space. This much is arguably proven by now (look at pattern detection, neural networks, and progressive policing).

I do make a claim that time itself is phlogiston but only because it’s not useful in any other means. Time must be organized in the correct order so as to make grammaticality possible. In order to do this, we must assume that there is no inherent randomness to the system. In other words, it must be deterministic.

The soul may be the Higgs field for all I know. It actually seems very plausible to me.

 

[in_servitude]

You’re not necessarily right by saying those things. I think that you’re taking a radical stance on the subject.

What, that there is more to the human mind than math? That’s radical? That there exists a spiritual world that lies completely outside all physics? That’s radical?

I never said that I’m excluding the soul on this topic.

But, you are. Why can’t you answer my question about the implementation of the human mind? It is a question about the framework you created. It should be an easy question to answer.

What I said is that knowledge is a linear bounded unit and time is an organized collection of those units with respect to their location in space.

I assert that the soul is not bound by space, or time. So, your framework excludes the soul from the start.

This much is arguably proven by now (look at pattern detection, neural networks, and progressive policing).

Applying a logical construct to an already logical mechanism makes sense. The error, from you’ve been able to share so far, comes when you try to apply a logical construct to something that isn’t.

I do make a claim that time itself is **phlogiston **but only because it’s not useful in any other means. Time must be organized in the correct order so as to make grammaticality possible. In order to do this, we must assume that there is no inherent randomness to the system. In other words, it must be deterministic.

From the goog…

phlogiston: A hypothetical colorless, odorless, weightless substance once believed to be the combustible part of all flammable substances and to be given off as flame during burning. In the 18th century, Antoine Lavoisier proved that phlogiston does not exist.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

The soul may be the Higgs field for all I know. It actually seems very plausible to me.

I assert: You have a soul. If you want to experience it - it is involved in your decision to sin. When you are struggling with a decision (for example - to steal or to stay honest), your soul is involved in the struggle - and your soul may choose to be good or to commit evil.