Posts by rawe

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

rawe

Hi Bohm,

"But yes, in reality, it is possible for the cat to be DEAD, ALIVE and in an infinite number of states that are composed of both DEAD and ALIVE AT THE SAME TIME. This does *NOT* refer to a probability we believe it is dead or alive. It is the STATE of the cat. It is very strange, i know.

It took me a long time to grasp this is not just an abstraction (like you, i kept thinking to myself it is just a fancy way of saying something else). But yes, it is in both states."

Please bear with me... I have yet to fully understand this issue, let alone form a solid opinion.

In my QP for Dummies book there is only a one paragraph mention of Schrödinger's Cat. So far in my reading about this again this evening, I'm left with the impression that in terms of real cats it is an abstraction.

The thought experiment was crafted to show a possible macro-world implication of quantum superposition. To quote the Wikipedia article on this...

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.[2]

Thus the conclusion I have reached for the moment is while Schrödinger's cat idea is in the cat-size world absurd, it has not removed in reality the conclusions of QM in regards to superposition and entanglement. The reality of superposition and entanglement at the quantum level has been demonstrated. Yet, I don't understand why it does not scale up, or if it does, why we can't readily detect such.

Cheers,

-Randy

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

rawe

Hi Seraphim23,

"They understand how to use equations to get the desired results in predicting quantum systems, which are accurate, but it is to do with probabilities and where probabilities exist complete understating is lacking. Probabilities would not have to be taken into account if it was known exactly what was going on."

On the other hand what would be the implications of knowing exactly? It would make the universe, at least in principal, completely predictable. In reality there is an essential randomness at the heart of the universe, yet no matter how hard I personally throw a stone it will follow a predicable arc that relates to the forces involved.

For a long while, after reading a Scientific American article on quantum loop gravity I thought perhaps the correct understanding of the universe was one wherein very small integers reigned supreme. The idea that if you get small enough, there literally was nothing there between the discrete quantum bits -- either expressed as ticks of time or distance across the smallest possible object. I now look back on that as rather naive on my part.

I struggle enough in the area where I do have some expertise (programming in C in my case), so while this is all fun and all, I must simply admit I probably cannot personally gain enough information and expertise to know any of this on a deep level. All I can do is make educated guesses at what seems most plausible then defer to the experts.

Now I have moved away, in thought from the digital/integer under-pining of the universe. One of the motivations was another article in SA that posed the question: Is the universe digital and analog? The author was surprised that most responses went over to the analog, despite how cool ideas about the "Matrix" might sound. One of the lines of argument I found very convincing was the difficulty scientists have creating computer models suitable for the study of QP. If the universe were itself digital, it should not have problems being modelled within a computer, that itself is digital.

Since then I've run into pi (3.14) in QP equations. Page 175 of my For Dummies book shows the wave function laid out like this...

w(x,y,z,t) = 1/((2 x pi)^(3/2)...

The problem of course is pi, as far as we can see, goes on for ever -- it seems to resist boiling down to a number that can be represented as any form of an integer. Thus if you solved for this equation, you could always get more "exact" by adding more digits to your value for pi.

In terms of philosophy, I do think science asks us to embrace the unknown and perhaps permanently so. We may never know the exact pathway form the non-living to the first living thing. We may never know exactly how a star like our sun is formed. Such events simple may resist all our attempts to probe them for knowledge.

But as I said earlier on this thread -- be careful asking God to fill in these knowledge gap. Because in doing so, one may create a knowledge gap that is impossible to fill, even in principal.

On this score I must credit the TV series the Twilight Zone. In one episode aliens arrive and announce that their plans for earth and humanity have failed and they have decided to end the experiment. The leaders of earth beg for one week to demonstrate the promise of humanity. After sweating it out for one week, they make an incredible breakthrough -- a true ironclad peace treaty for the entire earth, presented in several hundred pages. The alien ambassador returns and is given the treaty. Upon reading just a few pages, he begins to laugh hysterically. "Silly humans! We breed warriors! Your puny weapons have amounted to nothing and what is more you long for peace! Experiment over!"

And that is the problem. An almighty God who interacts with the material universe in violation of the laws of nature, means, that any knowledge gained by trusting the laws of nature is suspect. That is why I said, if such a God exists, then nothing can be known.

Cheers,

-Randy

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

rawe

Hi Seraphim23,

I have to head off to work in a few minutes -- so this will be quick reply. Thanks for your comments. For some time I've kinda disliked the questions, "What happened before the big bang?" and "How did the Universe come from nothing?" Both seems to miss the rather obvious point that being in the universe does put some limits on questions one can ask. The box of the universe may be big, but it is a box nonetheless, making questions about what is outside the box somewhat nonesensical (to me). However, after reading Roger Penrose's Cycles of Time, it did make me thing about the 'before' question a bit different. Specifically, we might be able to look in the far flung future and then imagine a very spread-out universe forming the basis for the next 'big bang', that would appear to come from a single point.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps. When I have some more time I would like to respond and explore this idea of what science can and cannot know and how such effects philosophy.

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

rawe

Hi Seraphim23,

"But scientists don’t understand quantum mechanics so how do they THINK it works? It works to predict small scale phenomena but breaks down at a certain point in scale."

Recently I've been reading two books Quatum Physics for Dummies and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Catholicism. I've been enjoying both. Up to this point most of my reading about Quantum Physics has been in science magazines such as Scientific American. A difference has struck me between a book-size discussion of QP vs what one reads in SA. The difference is the book starts out by laying out the actual equations used in QP. The actual details of the wave function and these constructs called 'bras' and 'kets'. SA articles tend to focus on the more "fun" implications of the theory.

I wish I could tell you that the material was presented in a simple enough matter that I actually understand the equations -- alas, they're still over my head! :( But it has made me think about just how "loose" this subject is -- and my conclusion for the moment is "not very." Even though QP is truly about probabilities, the equations that work are the ones that do, not just anything. E = mc^2 just can't be E = mc^1.87, likewise the calculus used in QP is one way and not the other.

The book on Catholicism is good for what it is -- but you get this sense of philosophy is constrained only by historical precedence and the whim of the powers that be. For example the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not what I thought it was (I thought wrongly that it was: virgin birth of Jesus) -- but what it was, was... well... in reality, just something that has been made up and now forms part of the doctrine of the faith.

Cheers,

-Randy

16

The Sudden Catastrophic Collapse of Evolutionary Time

by Perry in

i have met dr. gentry personally and found his reasearch on readio-halos fascinating.

it has been unanswered in published scientific journals, though lots of unscientific "just so" theories abound on the internet.

this video is a nice overview of several processes that are in much conflict with the worldview of materialists.

rawe

Hi Perry,

I didn't want to comment specifically on the Polonium Halos in my first post, since it has been awhile since I've read material on this. I just re-read this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html

The author, John Brawley, is an amateur scientist, however I was impressed by the length he went to study this issue and produce a report. It takes awhile to read the report, so if you stop before reaching the end, you'll miss a funny bit about him trying to get people to let him on their land to get samples. To quote him: "[some from a] high-security mining operation and could not wait to get me the hell off their property."

After his research and examining several examples his conclusion was the Polonium Halos are mostly likely formed by Radon-222. This is consistent with other reports I have read about this. In any regards, it is telling that Dr. Gentry is trying to hang so much on one thing, without considering many lines of evidence that contradict the Genesis creation account and Noah's flood. I mentioned a few above, but there are many -- even simple things like asking would enough population be available after the flood to build Stonehenge, The Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Egypt? Or why don't we find evidence of lemurs outside of Madagascar?

I think the best approach to these things is to accept the theories that are most encompasing of all lines of evidence. Yet at the same time appreciate there will always be outliers wherein some small bits of data doesn't seem to fit. Such might indicate a refinement in our theories is required, but jumping to some wild conclusion that is opposed to mountains of other evidence based on an unexplained anomaly is not productive.

Here is John Brawley's conclusions. If you feel inclined to comment it would be appreciated, but in any regards I enjoy the opportunity these threads create to discuss such things.

"In Conclusion, I believe that Radon-222 is the most likely candidate for the source of certain "Polonium-218" halos in biotite mica. The process envisioned is most consistent with the data (including some observational data not mentioned by previous researchers), and providentially is unique in its characteristics: Radon is an inert gas, the only gas in the Uranium-238 decay chain, having the thermodynamic ability and more than enough time to migrate about in the mica, a few atoms at a time. Also significant is the apparent impossibility of distinguishing Radon-222 halos from Polonium-218 halos under the microscope."

Cheers,

-Randy

16

The Sudden Catastrophic Collapse of Evolutionary Time

by Perry in

i have met dr. gentry personally and found his reasearch on readio-halos fascinating.

it has been unanswered in published scientific journals, though lots of unscientific "just so" theories abound on the internet.

this video is a nice overview of several processes that are in much conflict with the worldview of materialists.

rawe

Hi Perry,

One of the most powerful quotes in the book Life How Did It Get Here? - By Evolution or Creation was this one from Robert Gentry:

Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off -- not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.

You can see this on page 96. This one quote, for many years, made me suspicious of such so-called "radioactive dating methods." After I left the faith I actually went down the Phoenix Public Library main branch and found the November 1979 Popular Science article that contains this quote. I've copied the full quote (see below) from Jan Haugland's website where I found a copy. You'll notice of course PopSci calls Gentry's views "odd speculations" and offers this information mostly to show somethings are still unknown. Elsewhere I've read that Gentry is a Seventh Day Adventist and believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis that involves believing the Earth is not much older than 6000 years.

In terms of how the Witnesses used the quote, you don't have to get into the U238 / Pb206 ratios, to see dishonesty. PopSci could just as easily said "elephants" or "rivers" or "polar icecaps" where the word used is "man." But if it had, the quote wouldn't have worked for the Witnesses, because they hold the very odd position of old earth, but young age for the history of mankind.

Not having an explanation for some anomaly does not mean Dr. Gentry has built a case against every other line of evidence. Certainly layers of ice at the poles are also a measure of time and they go far beyond the time frame of the Genesis creation account as well as the global flood of Noah's day. Rates of change in MtDNA is yet another measure of time. A literal understanding of Genesis would compel us to believe all of us have MtDNA from Eve who was the first human female and she lived just over 6000 years ago. His comment about "rates of decay" not varying being an "untestable assumption" means what exactly? Basically it would mean fundemental physics of radiation is not understood. Actually the reliability of the laws of nature is an important reason why we know anything at all.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps: Quote from PopSci...

So, today, everything -- human artifacts, animal remains, ancient rocks -- can be dated fairly accurately. The dates may be off a little, but that's mainly a matter of impurities in the sample or need to refine techniques, say the scientists involved. Yet major mysteries and curious anomalies remain -- the odd speculations advanced by Columbia Union College's Robert Gentry, for instance. Physicist Gentry believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off -- not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude. His theory revolves around "halos," tiny, ringlike discolorations found within coalified wood (wood on its way to becoming coal) and mica, often in the proximity of radioactive uranium or thorium. Some halos can be explained in terms of conventional radioactive decay. Others, known as giant halos, cannot. They're simply too big to be caused by alpha particles thrown off by known isotopes, and they don't fit into any accepted theory. If the theory of radioactive decay is weak in one spot, says Gentry, doubt is cast on whatever answers isotopes give you. Further, when Gentry studies halos in coalified wood, he finds that the uranium/lead ratios are often not at all what they should be. "Since the coalified wood was obtained from deposits supposedly at least tens of millions of years old," he says, "the ratio between uranium-238 and lead-206 should be low." They're not. They're so high, in fact, that "presently accepted ages may be too high by a factor of thousands." And man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand. "The possibility of reducing the 4.5-billion-year history of earth by a factor of a thousand," he says with some ire, "has not yet been seriously considered." Most scientists simply dismiss the idea. As one physicist told me, "You can believe it or not; I don't." "I realize it's difficult to believe," counters Gentry. "It would invalidate the whole underlying principle of radioactive dating: that the rates of decay are forever unvarying -- an untestable assumption.

8

My Favorite Scriptures When I'm Fearful

by Perry in

isaiah 41:13 esvfor i, the lord your god, hold your right hand; it is i who say to you, fear not, i am the one who helps you.. .

proverbs 3:5-6 esv trust in the lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.. .

rawe

Hi Perry,

While I'm an atheist and don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, I continue to read it regularily and some of verses still resonate with me. Here are a few...

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. - Hebrews 11:1

Many times you'll see comments disparaging faith. Certainly where 'faith' stands in for belief in the highly unlikely, maybe even harmful, then I too would say that I don't admire such faith. But here faith is connected to "hope" and belief in what is "real." Thus I feel that hope and belief in something that is likely real -- but just out of reach for the moment -- is important. I see it in my work as a software engineer. Much of my work is not creating new software as much as it is hunting down bugs in existing systems. Having a sort of unshakable faith that logic will prevail and given enough time and energy any bug can be teased out into the open and understood and solved.

The senseless one has said in his heart: "There is no Jehovah." They have acted ruinously, they have acted detestably in [their] dealing. There is no one doing good. - Psalms 14:1 (repeated as Psalms 53).

True, this verse calls atheists such as myself 'senseless' (a 'fool' in other translations). But using it as a mere put down misses some important conclusions the next words speak to -- doing good and avoiding acting ruinously and being destestable in our dealings. I have little doubt the Psalmist literally means a real existing Creator God when he says "Jehovah." However, I don't think it is going too far afield to read this verse as "There is no moral authority" and then think about where denial of such would lead. So I see myself, even as an atheist, continuing to "seek Jehovah" (verse 2) in the sense of continuing to look for insight and find the best way forward in terms of how to act towards myself and others.

Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, with tens of thousands of torrents of oil? Shall I give my firstborn son for my revolt, the fruitage of my belly for the sin of my soul? 8 He has told you, O earthling man, what is good. And what is Jehovah asking back from you but to exercise justice and to love kindness and to be modest in walking with your God - Micah 6:8

Bible writers truly reach wonderful conclusions at certain points! Perhaps even reflecting on what they saw as misguided approaches to worship in others. In this case making great sacrifices. How much better off would the world be if all that we committed to do religious or not was to "exercise justice", "love kindness" and "be modest"?

Of course they are many others -- such as how Proverbs opens up with the focus on gaining wisdom and how important that is, etc.

Cheers,

-Randy

41

If You Were A Bro(tm) Did You Enjoy The Prestiage Of Giving A Talk? Do You Miss It?

by LoisLane looking for Superman in

jw
friends

i was a sister(tm).

i was only allowed to give talks to my householder.. you brother's(tm), all eyes were on you.. what was that like?.

did you enjoy it?.

rawe

Hi LoisLane,

I found giving parts pretty nerve wracking upto the point of starting, but if I was well prepared I felt good about it, especially when it was done! I can still recall vividly some of the parts, especially one funeral talk I gave for a pre-mature baby that died at 9 days.

After leaving the faith I had the truly odd experience of two individuals who left the faith ahead of me tell me that something I had said during The Watchtower review of the circuit assembly made them think that perhaps being a Witness wasn't for them. It went this way. The Watchtower made the point the 'law' was a 'tutor' leading to Christ and in ancient times a 'tutor' was one who lead the student on the path to the teacher. Furthermore, the Jews had failed to appreciate this role of the law, but instead hung on to it.

I thought that was kind of a neat idea. So I said... you know what it is like when your child first goes to school. Afterwards you'll ask your child how their day had gone and make sure not to leave out any details. So they start by telling you they got on the bus, the bus stopped several times to pick up additional students, then finally the bus got to school and the students got off, then the bus went to the bus garage stayed there for the day, then... "Wait... did you not get off the bus?" "Those Jews needed to get off that bus... I concluded." Although I really wasn't trying to make a joke the illustration got a fairly hearty chuckle from the audience. But for my two, now ex-JW friends, it was apparently an epiphany moment when they realized... "I need to get off THIS BUS!"

Cheers,

-Randy

45

If anyone is interested in my 'Coming out' video on Youtube....

by Newly Enlightened in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hx5mghrvbs.

rawe

Hi Kim,

Very much enjoyed your video! I like how you answered the question of "why make a video?" When some Witnesses raise that objection there is this implication that somehow it is wrong for former members to express themselves. How ironic! A faith that teach it's members to invade the private lives of people in a door-to-door fashion should be the very last ones to suggest others should not be allowed to express themselves. I also liked your point about the Reasoning Book. Indeed, I think few leave the organization because they've stumbled on material from sites like jwfacts.com. Rather the story you hear time and again is the very material produced by The Watchtower Society creates concern. Or the actions of leaders or others in the faith. It is only after the internal search fails that folks tend to finally give themselves permission to look outside. It is then that sites like jwfacts.com and others give the seeker the confidence they are not crazy or alone in the doubts about the faith.

I'm sorry to hear local elders decided to slander you and your husband, simply because you've decided you can no longer believe what Witnesses believe. Of course we appreciate this is one clear sign the doctrine of the faith is really not solidly based. Instead fear and intimitation tactics are used in place of direct honesty -- sad really. Many good people are in the faith, alas the leadership does not treat them with honor.

If ever you are in the Phoenix/Chandler, AZ area -- look up our meetup groups (one on meetup.com and the other on groupspaces.com). It is nice to meet with follow ex-Witnesses face to face.

Cheers,

-Randy

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

rawe

Hi Everyone,

fwiw: I self-identify as an atheist, but...

I believe God does exist, within the minds of believers and often as a shared cultural experience/concept within groups.

I believe it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, thus I would not claim I can prove God does not exist.

I believe that if God does exist, is a law-of-nature-breaker-miracle-worker and interactive with our world, then knowledge, any knowledge, even in principal, is beyond what we can reach.

As an atheist, I do exactly what I want. Just turns out I want to do things, like work, be loyal, not steal or lie, etc.

Cheers,

-Randy