quote:

---

The contemporary quantum physical paradigm of reality is reinforced by our common experience. Indeed, I would argue that the complementarity of determinacy and indeterminacy is a metaphysical principle, and thus is universally instantiated. Every event seems to exemplify it. From quantum particles to molecular structures and from the behavior of single-celled organisms to the spontaneous movements of insects, birds, mammals, including human beings, we find a dimension of individual indeterminacy within a broader parameter of determinacy. Sociology has taught us, for example, that group behavior is remarkably predictable, though the behavior of any individual within that group is not. So it is with most animal behavior.

This suggests that the indeterminacy we observe in quantum physics is not illusory: it is ontological.

---

quote:

---

I'm wondering why God would create a world with this indeterminacy at the deepest level - why he would VALUE this feature. In the biological world, the adaptation of species to their environment is a means of improving the species. Is indeterminacy at the fundamental level of physical reality an opportunity for ALL of creation to adapt in a way that is better than would have been possible in an up-front design? I believe this is Polkinghorne's view - that God gives freedom to the entire creation.

---

quote:

---

There is a certain indeterminacy about quantum processes. Yet the process as a whole is far from random. The laws of probability work so that most indeterminate and therefore unpredictable events cancel out at hte macro-molecular level, adn leave the highly predictable laws of mechanics intact. In dynamic systems far from equilibrium, however, small unpredictable changes can give rise to major changes of direction in the way things go. This means that there is a certain 'openness' to the future in the natural order, that things are not wholly predetermined in every detail...there can only be an open future if there is a degree of indeterminism. There can only be the sort of freedom that is morally important if there is an open future, at least sometimes. So indeterminism is a necessary condition of the later development of morally important freedom in rational beings.

---

quote:

---

I just found another great quote, this one is from Keith Ward (God, Chance and Necessity, Oxford: Oneworld, 1996, 20-21).

quote:

---

There is a certain indeterminacy about quantum processes. Yet the process as a whole is far from random. The laws of probability work so that most indeterminate and therefore unpredictable events cancel out at hte macro-molecular level, adn leave the highly predictable laws of mechanics intact. In dynamic systems far from equilibrium, however, small unpredictable changes can give rise to major changes of direction in the way things go. This means that there is a certain 'openness' to the future in the natural order, that things are not wholly predetermined in every detail...there can only be an open future if there is a degree of indeterminism. There can only be the sort of freedom that is morally important if there is an open future, at least sometimes. So indeterminism is a necessary condition of the later development of morally important freedom in rational beings.

---

**********************

Every atom of carbon inside our bodies was once inside a star. We are all made from the ashes of dead stars.
John Polkinghorne

Edited by - whasssuuuppp on 08/29/2001 5:31:12 PM

---

quote:

---

I think, but correct me if I'm wrong, that indeterminacy at the DEEPEST level is necessary in order to have indeterminacy, or free will, at HIGHER levels--at the level of human free will. If we don't have the former, we can't have the latter, because indeterminacy at HIGHER levels encompasses indeterminacy at more basic ("deeper") levels.

---

I'm ill-equipped to correct you, or even to know if correction is needed. When it comes to biology I'm pretty clueless. I can see that if human free will is a result of an evolutionary process, indeterminacy at the deepest level would be a critical factor in its development.

I've been operating from an assumption that human free will is a function of our spirit, which I've viewed as distinct from our body, and therefore isolated from evolutionary forces. If this is true, our free will would not require ontological quantum indeterminacy.

However, I'm swimming upstream on this one: I'm not finding confirmation for the human spirit as a distinct entity in recent literature. Pannenberg describes it in terms of fuzzy (to me, at least) metaphors based on our breath, the air we breathe, and the environment we depend on for life. Polkinghorne views us as animated bodies rather than incarnated souls. Similarly, Keith Ward says:

quote:

---

"The purpose of genes is to build bodies, the purpose of bodies is to build brains, and the purpose of brains is to generate consciousness and purpose, and with them, for the first time in the history of the cosmos, the existence of intrinsic values." - Keith Ward - God, Chance, and Necessity, p. 145

---

Funny how boring down deep into one issue raises more questions in another.

Magneton

"Quantum theory provides us with a striking illustration of the fact that we can fully understand a connection though we can only speak of it in images and parables." - Werner Heisenberg - Physics and Beyond (New York 1971)

quote:

---

I've been operating from an assumption that human free will is a function of our spirit, which I've viewed as distinct from our body, and therefore isolated from evolutionary forces. If this is true, our free will would not require ontological quantum indeterminacy.

---

I believe that you are absolutely right. All the "ONTOLOGICAL" indeterminacy that God would ever need would lie in the agency of non-divine sentient beings. Thus "ontological" indeterminacy elsewhere is quite superfluous for moral culpability, etc. If I may suggest, read my "conversion" on the "To Mephi" thread in the Board-Related Questions section of the forum. This speaks to this idea.

Holla,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/30/2001 5:57:48 PM

quote:

---

I've been operating from an assumption that human free will is a function of our spirit, which I've viewed as distinct from our body, and therefore isolated from evolutionary forces. If this is true, our free will would not require ontological quantum indeterminacy.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that there is no such thing as time as an independently existing entity. Time is a PROPERTY of events, just as length and reflectivity are properties of matter in space. Time depends on events, which require matter or fields to change or move. This would imply that before the creation, time didn't exist, although interaction between members of the Trinity must qualify as events of a spiritual nature, resulting in some sort of pre-creation time.

Looking forward to seeing people's ideas.

Blessings,
Magneton

---

The Time Man Returneth
Megneton, ask yourself the simple question: "What is the forth demension?"
I'll wait . . . .
Thant's long enought. TIME is the forth demension.
Dimensions are not created things.
One problem I have with my good friends at ICR is the idea that time was created in the first act of creation. They also falsely believe that other dimensions were created then as well. (I don't use the term "friends" losely, they really are my friends
We need some deductive reasoning here.
If there were no dementions to expand into, God could not have expanded the universe to where he did and if the three dimensions are not beyond the bounds of the physical universe, it can't be expanding, both because it would have not place to go. Right?
OK, next step.
Doc is correct in saying let's use sequence instead of "time" because they are synonymous in this sense. A=A.
If time began at creation, then God could do nothing before creation, why? because actions require sequences. There is a "before" the action, and an "after" the action. That is a sequence, that requires time.
God is the only neccessary BEING, but not the only necessary THING. For anything to exist, certain other things must also be true. Dimensions are one of those things that are necessary.
Now, were we have two or more dimensions, we can have a domain. Other things can exist in domains. The more dimensions that there are, the more domains that can exist. Heaven is in a different domain that what we call the physical universe. They are all related or there can be no interaction as there is in scripture and in our lives, providence or not :)
Without sequences, nothing happens. This is the problem with Plato's ultimate being that cannot move because it would infer that he either was not or now is not in the perfect position, and he must be or he wouldn't be perfect. A rock god is not the God of the Jews and Christians, he is the ultimate being to the Greeks. He didn't need time because he couldn't sequence. Yaddah Yaddah Yaddah.
Sorry I've been away so long.
"Neuk'em"

"Neuk'em"

quote:

---

There is no 'pre-existing empty space' into which the material produced by the explosion pours. The space itself, i.e. 'the balloon's surface', is brought into being by the explosion. We must appreciate that it is only for visualization purposes that our pictures … have used an 'ambient space'. … The space inside or outside the balloon is there only to help us visualize the balloon's surface. It is the balloon's surface alone which is to represent the physical space of the universe.

---

quote:

---

If you agree that what we know "correlates" in some way with ontological reality, then with what does our knowledge of indeterminacy "correlate with" if not an "indeterminacy in reality?

---

Correlation with our experience works well for our knowledge, but not for our lack of knowledge. I liken the situation to looking into a cave. I don't see a thing, so I might conclude by correlation that there is nothing there. But I prefer to think it's just dark in there. I can't see the causality; maybe it's not there, or maybe it's just dark in there.

Roger Penrose discussed this in The Emperor's New Mind. He divides the picture of quantum mechanics into two procedures: U, a totally deterministic process based on the wavefunction, and R, a probabilistic process invoked when we magnify the quantum effects to the classical level to make an observation (p 250).

Penrose says the answer to the puzzles of quantum theory lies in finding an improved theory. (He cites as a colorful example of quantum theory's inconsistency with experiment that we don't observe superimposed cricket balls.) He says that some kind of 'hidden variable' viewpoint may eventually turn out to be acceptable (p 298). ('Hidden variables' are widely viewed with contempt, as denying the underlying indeterminacy of physical reality.)

As I said on the 3's thread,

quote:

---

The mysterious nature of quantum mechanics is very interesting to me, particularly the puzzle of wave-particle duality. People argue whether the "reality" is in the particle, which we can visualize, or in the wave function, for which we can find causality. To view the wave function as a measure of the "probability" of finding a "particle" loses its meaning when there is no such thing as a localized particle.

---

The wavefunction is deterministic, as Penrose says, but we get confused when we view it as representing a probability of finding a 'particle' in a given region.

Whether indeterminacy is ontological at the quantum level is not an issue I'd go to the mat on, but seeing purpose in it all is such an issue. At the other end of the above question is whether God would design this openness into creation in order to allow natural selection of states that are more desirable than those that could be designed from first principles. For example, there may be aspects of stellar evolution that demonstrate the purposes of God which make quantum indeterminacy useful to him. I'm clueless in this area, so perhaps others can bring some ideas.

With the current state of quantum theory, we're left with some contradictions. So making ontological statements in quantum mechanics at some point requires a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. Physics and theology aren't so different after all!

Blessings,
Magneton

"To be a sign of contradiction is to be a something else that stands in immediate contrast to what one immediately is. So it is with the God-man. Immediately he is an individual human being, just like others, a lowly unimpressive human being, but now comes the contradiction - that he is God." - Soren Kierkegaard, Practice in Christianity (Hong, Princeton Univ. Press, p. 125-6)


Edited by - magneton on 09/04/2001 12:01:31 PM

Edited by - magneton on 09/04/2001 2:08:33 PM

quote:

---

I would say there is no such THING as time. As I said before, it is not an independently existing entity, but a PROPERTY of sequential events.

---

To make an entity out of something that is not an entity is to reify it. You may have known this already, but my experience is that it saves a lot of typing if people understand what it means to reify something. For example, "You're reifying time" or "You're reifying sin."

I've thought about forming a group of Christians known as CART. That stands for

Christians
Against
Reifying
Time



What do you think?

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

quote:

---

Dimensions, including time, are not pre-existing eternal entities, except in the sense of a mathematical concept or Platonic ideal. Not only does the expanding universe need no 'pre-existing empty space' to move into, but sequences of events need no 'pre-existing empty time' to allow them to occur.

---

How do you know this? It is something you (or Penrose) measured? Of course not. If not, then it must be an idea, story, or known through deductive logic. Science uses inductive logic, thus my question (was it measured?).
OK, so Penrose was outside his field of expertise (physics) when he said that. I think we would agree that even if he is speaking as a professor in his field of expertise, to accept what he said without question would be to commit the expert falacy, but, in this case we don't have to do so, he is outside his field. He can not measure what is on the other side of the "baloon." In fact, in his idea of the big bang, there is indeed absolutely nothing on the other side because all that exists including demensions is inside the physical universe. (This brings up the problem of naturalism and other self defeating aspects of the philosophical aspects of Penrose's view, but let's not go there now.)
Let's use an analogy to look at both idea, that is that there are no dimentions outside the universe, or there are. Let's use your home or apartment. Let's say that the three dimensions, length, width, height are all there is in the universe. But you have too many things and you want to put something outside. In my house, there is an outside and I can expand into that area because there is a space there. In Penrose's scenario, there is no outside until you put something there. Huh?
That's right. Penrose and other scientists think there is nothing at all, not even room (i.e. space) until something moves into it.
Well, can you put something nowhere? No, you can't. First there must be space for something (a physical thing) to be put into, you simply cannot put it into nothing because there is, of course, no room to put it. This isn't simply a play on words, it is the actual situation. You cannot put something into nothing.

quote:

---

Sequence, rather, is primary, and our perception and measurement of time is based on these sequences, whether they be heartbeats, ticks of a clock, atomic oscillations, or celestial events.

---

I appreciate you letting me know this, the next time I have my engineer adjust our Rubidium clock in one of our time and frequency standards, accurate to 10E-12, I'll check to see that it still sequences.
OK, you can define it as the passage of time, as time, or as sequencing, it is merely the definition you choose to use, this is correct and reflects what I stated before. To use your definition then, sequencing is a dimension. but to then say:

quote:

---

but not because it eternally existed. Rather, I would say there is no such THING as time.

---

Now you are taking redefinition too far. This is absurd. You go on to state a contradiction almost immediately:

quote:

---

As I said before, it is not an independently existing entity, but a PROPERTY of sequential events.

---

Properties are things that exist, but I didn't state it was an entity either, I stated it was a dimension. An entity is something that exists in a domain. Domains exist when two or more dimensions interact.
I have just finished watching a NOVA program about time travel. Sagan, Hawkings, and others were involved. It is interesting to see how much story telling the scientists became involved with. Speculation was piled so high, it became just a funny story. Very little science was involved. Why? Because it is all speculative, nothing proved. Even the testing of Einstein's theory that time moves more slowly in a fast moving vehicle can be explained differently than how they did it. They proved that Eistein acurately preducted the way a clock would behave, but not time itself. One man stated that in a black hole even time stops (a spin off of Hawkings earlier theory of black holes which earned him his PhD), but even Hawkings believes that the matter that is transformed comes out the side as an energy burst. OF course for there to be movement into the black hole and out the side requires time (a sequence of events), therefore, time cannot have stopped inside or there could be no more sequences at that spot. It can't be both ways. OK, so Hawkings is wrong too.
Sorry Stephen.
Megneton, you are repeating modern scientific theories, but are making truth claims with no explainations behind them.
Again, if there are no sequences without a physical universe, then God could not have created the universe since it would require a sequence that didn't exist. The effect of the universe would be required before the universe which caused the effect was created. This violates the law of non-contradiction, vis, it cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
"Neuk'em"



"Neuk'em"

quote:

---

Again, if there are no sequences without a physical universe, then God could not have created the universe since it would require a sequence that didn't exist.

---

quote:

---

I think chance would say you're reifying time.

---

quote:

---

Hence Magneton insists there is no space outside the universe, while Newcomb insists there is.

---

quote:

---

There is a certain indeterminacy about quantum processes. Yet the process as a whole is far from random. The laws of probability work so that most indeterminate and therefore unpredictable events cancel out at the macro-molecular level, and leave the highly predictable laws of mechanics intact. In dynamic systems far from equilibrium, however, small unpredictable changes can give rise to major changes of direction in the way things go. This means that there is a certain 'openness' to the future in the natural order, that things are not wholly predetermined in every detail...there can only be an open future if there is a degree of indeterminism. There can only be the sort of freedom that is morally important if there is an open future, at least sometimes. So indeterminism is a necessary condition of the later development of morally important freedom in rational beings.

---

quote:

---

I think it's time to ask a direct question: How can something physical move to no place?

---

quote:

---

My best answer is that space is created to make room for something physical to move into it. . .As I mentioned before, this view entails that creation is a continuous process, not one that is characterized as occurring just at the beginning. We certainly see evidence of a long process that God has directed in bringing the cosmos to where it is today, so it doesn’t seem surprising if the effect of the Big Bang was a continuous creation of space, as the universe expands.

---