3
   

God kills through random chance.

 
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 09:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;124648 wrote:
Spinoza was not merely a determinist. He was a logical determinist. He believe that causal connections were necessary connections, which is why Hume called his view, "Spinoza's horrible hypothesis". Spinoza meant by "Natura" everything. The universe. The "totality of things". And, he identified that with God.
Plus Western Europe developed in the wake of Rome. The Christian use of the word God has roots in the Roman use of the word nature.

Spinoza is famous for suggesting that God has a physical body: the physical universe.

kennethamy;124648 wrote:
"Indeterminism" is the view that some events have no cause sufficient for their occurrence. That is what most (if not all) quantum physicists believe about quantum events. What the relation (if any) between is between micro-events, and macro-events is, as you say, in questionable. It might be that the effect of micro-indeterminism on macro-events is negligible. That is, of course, a scientific question, which philosophers are not competent to answer.
By quantum event, are you talking about the collapse of the wave function? If not... what are you talking about?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 10:03 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;124679 wrote:
Plus Western Europe developed in the wake of Rome. The Christian use of the word God has roots in the Roman use of the word nature.

Spinoza is famous for suggesting that God has a physical body: the physical universe.

By quantum event, are you talking about the collapse of the wave function? If not... what are you talking about?


As it closes, the probability collapses to zero...(or to ONE actual Phenomena...)

Quote:
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the process by which a wave function, initially in a superposition of different eigenstates, appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the condensation of physical possibilities into a single occurrence, as seen by an observer. It is one of two processes by which quantum systems evolve in time according to the laws of quantum mechanics as presented by John von Neumann.[1] The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated, i.e., whether it is a fundamental physical phenomenon in its own right or just an epiphenomenon of another process, such as quantum decoherence.[2] In recent decades the quantum decoherence view has gained popularity.[citation needed] Collapse may be understood as a change in conditional probabilities.
Link: Wave function collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added 02-03-2010 at 11:29 AM ----------


Quote:
The Ensemble Interpretation, or Statistical Interpretation of quantum mechanics, is an interpretation that can be viewed as a minimalist interpretation; it is a quantum mechanical interpretation that claims to make the fewest assumptions associated with the standard mathematical formalization. At its heart, it takes the statistical interpretation of Max Born to the fullest extent. The interpretation states that the wave function does not apply to an individual system - or for example, a single particle - but is an abstract mathematical, statistical quantity that only applies to an ensemble of similarly prepared systems or particles. Probably the most notable supporter of such an interpretation was Albert Einstein[1][/RIGHT]
To date, probably the most prominent advocate of the Ensemble Interpretation is ****** E. Ballentine, Professor at Simon Fraser University, and writer of the graduate-level textbook "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development".[2]
The ensemble interpretation, unlike other interpretations to the Copenhagen Interpretation[citation needed], does not attempt to justify, or otherwise derive, or explain quantum mechanics from any deterministic process, or make any other statement about the real nature of quantum phenomena; it is simply a statement as to the manner of wave function interpretation. It is identical in all of its predictions to the standard interpretations.
Link: Ensemble Interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one is an interesting approach...
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 11:23 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;124648 wrote:
"Indeterminism" is the view that some events have no cause sufficient for their occurrence. That is what most (if not all) quantum physicists believe about quantum events. What the relation (if any) between is between micro-events, and macro-events is, as you say, in questionable. It might be that the effect of micro-indeterminism on macro-events is negligible. That is, of course, a scientific question, which philosophers are not competent to answer.

It is clear to most scientists and philosophers that the climate and other macro-phenomena can be predicted in an essentially deterministic fashion. The problem is not quantum. The problem is that we lack the knowledge of deterministic factors to consistently predict the weather. Spinoza has nothing to do with this, and only clouds the essential issue.

Samm
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 11:29 am
@SammDickens,
Samm;124696 wrote:
It is clear to most scientists and philosophers that the climate and other macro-phenomena can be predicted in an essentially deterministic fashion. The problem is not quantum. The problem is that we lack the knowledge of deterministic factors to consistently predict the weather. Spinoza has nothing to do with this, and only clouds the essential issue.

Samm


Well, all right. But only because you say so.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 11:37 am
@SammDickens,
Samm;124696 wrote:
It is clear to most scientists and philosophers that the climate and other macro-phenomena can be predicted in an essentially deterministic fashion. The problem is not quantum. The problem is that we lack the knowledge of deterministic factors to consistently predict the weather. Spinoza has nothing to do with this, and only clouds the essential issue.

Samm


How come Spinoza only clouds the subject ???
Well, maybe for you...:brickwall:

---------- Post added 02-03-2010 at 01:10 PM ----------

Quote:
he holomovement is a key concept in David Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics and for his overall wordview. It brings together the holistic principle of "undivided wholeness" with the idea that everything is in a state of process or becoming (or what he calls the "universal flux"). For Bohm, wholeness is not a static oneness, but a dynamic wholeness-in-motion in which everything moves together in an interconnected process. The concept is presented most fully in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", published in 1980.
Quote:
Background

The basic idea came to Bohm in the early 1970s, during an extraordinary period of creativity at Birkbeck College in London. The holomovement is one of a number of new concepts which Bohm presented in an effort to move beyond the mechanistic formulations of the standard interpretation of the quantum theory and relativity theory. Along with such concepts as undivided wholeness and the implicate order, the holomovement is central to his formulation of a "new order" in physics which would move beyond the mechanistic order.
[edit] Early Development of the Idea

In an essay published in 1971, Bohm continued his earlier critique (in "Chance and Causality in Modern Physics") of the mechanistic assumptions behind most modern physics and biology, and spoke of the need for a fundamentally different approach, and for a point of view which would go beyond mechanism. In particular, Bohm objected to the assumption that the world can be reduced to a set of irreducible particles within a three-dimensional Cartesian grid, or even within the four-dimensional curvilinear space of relativity theory. Bohm came instead to embrace a concept of reality as a dynamic movement of the whole: "In this view, there is no ultimate set of separately existent entities, out of which all is supposed to be constituted. Rather, unbroken and undivided movement is taken as a primary notion" (Bohm, 1988, p. 77). He then goes on to paraphrase da Vinci to the effect that movement gives shape to all forms and structure gives order to movement, but adds modern insight when he suggests that "a deeper and more extensive inner movement creates, maintains, and ultimately dissolves structure." (78).
In another article from the same period, "On the Metaphysics and Movement of Universal Fitting," Bohm identifies some of the inadequacies of the mechanistic model, particularly the inability to predict the future movement of complex wholes from the initial conditions, and suggests instead a focus on a general laws of interaction governing the relationship of the parts within a whole: "What we are doing in this essay is to consider what it means to turn this prevailing metaphysics of science 'upside down' by exploring the notion that a kind of art - a movement of fitting together - is what is universal, both in nature and in human activities" (90). This movement of the whole is what he calls here the artomovement, which he defines as the "movement of fitting" (91), and which is clearly related to what he would later call the holomovement.
[edit] Undivided Wholeness

The term holomovement is one of many neologisms which Bohm coined in his search to overcome the limitations of the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This approach involved not just a critique of the assumptions of the standard model, but a set of new concepts in physics which move beyond the conventional language of quantum mechanics. Wholeness and the Implicate Order is the culmination of these reflections, an attempt to show how the new insights provided by a post-Copenhagen model can be extended beyond physics into other domains, such as life, consciousness, and cosmology.
The holomovement concept is introduced in incremental steps. It is first presented under the aspect of wholeness in the lead essay, called "Fragmentation and Wholeness." There Bohm states the major claim of the book: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement" (Bohm, 1980, 11). This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the 'things' that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow. He notes how "each relatively autonomous and stable structure is be understood not as something independently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and what will ultimately dissolve back into this movement. How it forms and maintains itself, then, depends on its place function within the whole" (14). For Bohm, movement is what is primary; and what seem like permanent structures are only relatively autonomous sub-entities which emerge out of the whole of flowing movement and then dissolve back into it an unceasing process of becoming.
[edit] All is Flux

The general concept is further refined in the third chapter, "Reality and Knowledge considered as Process," this time under the aspect of movement, or process. "Not only is everything changing, but all is flux. That is to say, what is the process of becoming itself, while all objects, events, entities, conditions, structures, etc., are forms that can be abstracted from this process" (48). His notion of the whole is not a static Paramedian oneness outside of space and time. Rather, the wholeness to which he refers here is more akin to the Heraclitian flux, or to the process philosophy of Whitehead.
[edit] Formal Presentation

The formal presentation of the concept comes late in the book, under the general framework of new notions of order is physics. After discussing the concepts of undivided wholeness and the implicate and explicate orders, he presents the formal definition under the subheading "The Holomovement and its Aspects." Consistent with his own earlier Causal Interpretation, and more generally with the de Broglie-Schroedinger approach, he posits that a new kind of description would be appropriate for giving primary relevance to the implicate order. Using the hologram as a model [link to holographic universe], Bohm argues that the implicate order is enfolded within a more generalized wave structure of the universe-in-motion, or what he calls the holomovement:
Generalizing, so as to emphasize undivided wholeness, we can say that the holomovement, which is an unbroken and undivided totality, 'carries' implicate order. In certain cases, we can abstract particular aspects of the holomovement (e.g. light, electrons, sound, etc.), but more generally, all forms of the holomovement merge and are inseparable. Thus in its totality, the holomovement is not limited in any specifiable way at all. It is not required to conform to any particular order, or to be bounded by any particular measure. Thus, the holomovement is undefinable and immeasurable." (151).
As the interconnected totality of all there is, the holomovement is potentially of an infinite order, and so cannot be pinned down to any one notion of order. It is important to note that Bohm's concepts of the implicate order and the holomovement are significant departures from the earlier "Hidden Variables" interpretation, and the conceptual framework is somewhat different from that articulated in the Bohm-Vigier interpretation, sometimes called the Causal-Stochastic Interpretation, and the interpretations of the proponents of "Bohmian Mechanics," where the general assumption is of an underlying Dirac ether (see F. David Peat's Introduction to Quantum Implications). While the concept of the holomovement has been criticized as being "metaphysical," it is actually subtler, while at the same time encompassing the whole range of interconnected physical phenomena.
[edit] The Law of the Holomovement: Holonomy

The starting point for Bohm's articulation of what he means by a "new order in physics" is his notion of wholeness. Thus crucial for understanding the holomovement is his notion of how interconnected phenomena are woven together in an underlying unified fabric of physical law. In the following section, called "Law in the Holomovement," he takes up the question of order, and the laws of organization which relate the parts to each other and to the whole. This is what he calls the "law of the whole," or holonomy. Rather than starting with the parts and explaining the whole in terms of the parts, Bohm's point of view is just the opposite: he starts with a notion of undivided wholeness and derives the parts as abstractions from the whole. The essential point is that the implicate order and the holomovement imply a way of looking at reality not merely in terms of external interactions between things, but in terms of the internal (enfolded) relationships among things: "The relationships constituting the fundamental law are between the enfolded structures that interweave and inter-penetrate each other, through the whole of space, rather than between the abstracted and separated forms that are manifest to the senses (and to our instruments)" (185).
[edit] Extension to Life, Consciousness and Cosmology

In the final chapter of the book, "The enfolding-unfolding universe and consciousness," Bohm elaborated further on the need for new notions of order of physics, and set forth a general view in which totalities are continually forming and dissolving out of the universal flux, or what he designates as the holomovement. He recapitulates: "Our basic proposal was that what is the holomovement, and that everything is to be explained in terms of forms derived from this holomovement. (178)." And again: "The implicate order has its ground in the holomovement which is, as we have seen, vast, rich, and in a state of unending flux of enfoldment and unfoldment, with laws most of which are only vaguely known (185). As such, the holomovement includes not just physical reality, but life, consciousness and cosmology. As Bohm sums it up at the end of the book: "Our overall approach has thus brought together questions of the nature of the cosmos, of matter in general, of life, and of consciousness. All of these have been considered to be projections of a common ground. This we may call the ground of all that is" (212).
Link: Holomovement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 08:51 am
@kennethamy,
LoL, KennethAmy! I'm an old fart, set in my ways, and I come across often as much more self-certain than I ever have been or will be. I'm glad to be greeted with humor, and I hope you see through the attitude to the heart of my contentions.

Samm

---------- Post added 02-04-2010 at 09:04 AM ----------

Fillipe, Spinoza was introduced into this discussion in post #14 by Kennethamy who protested his stance on God & Nature. Now we can continue to discuss the relation between God and Nature as we wish, but no-one here offered Spinoza's views as a source of truth so there is no reason to argue about him. It is superfluous to our discussion.

Samm
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 09:41 am
@SammDickens,
Samm;124879 wrote:
LoL, KennethAmy! I'm an old fart, set in my ways, and I come across often as much more self-certain than I ever have been or will be. I'm glad to be greeted with humor, and I hope you see through the attitude to the heart of my contentions.

Samm

---------- Post added 02-04-2010 at 09:04 AM ----------

Fillipe, Spinoza was introduced into this discussion in post #14 by Kennethamy who protested his stance on God & Nature. Now we can continue to discuss the relation between God and Nature as we wish, but no-one here offered Spinoza's views as a source of truth so there is no reason to argue about him. It is superfluous to our discussion.

Samm


---------- Post added 02-04-2010 at 11:04 AM ----------

prothero
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 06:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;124648 wrote:
Spinoza was not merely a determinist. He was a logical determinist. He believe that causal connections were necessary connections, which is why Hume called his view, "Spinoza's horrible hypothesis". Spinoza meant by "Natura" everything. The universe. The "totality of things". And, he identified that with God.
God for Spinoza had infinite attributes. The universe was part of god, contained within god, but not identical with god, at least not the universe as viewed by man who could only apprehend two of gods infinite traits mind and matter.

kennethamy;124648 wrote:
"Indeterminism" is the view that some events have no cause sufficient for their occurrence. That is what most (if not all) quantum physicists believe about quantum events. What the relation (if any) between is between micro-events, and macro-events is, as you say, in questionable. It might be that the effect of micro-indeterminism on macro-events is negligible. That is, of course, a scientific question, which philosophers are not competent to answer.
Indeterminism as the term is used in reference to quantum events is not "random chance" but a stochastic probability distribution. Identical circumstances appear to give rise to a variety of outcomes which are distributed along a probability wave function, but the pattern over many events is not random and not chance. Neither are earthquakes, floods or other natural disasters random or chance. There may be epistemological limitations on our ability to predict them.

"god kills through random chance" the provocative opening post.

Assumes many things and is a less formal statement of the problem of evil. It assumes
1. God is
2. God either could or should prevent natural disasters.
3. That natural disasters are "random chance".

If you are an atheist the statement is a direct challenge to traditional theistic belief.
If you are a theist, it challenges the picture of god as omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent as asserted in traditional western monotheism.
If you are a panentheist or process theology person like me, it represents a misunderstanding of the nature and attributes of god and how god acts in the world.
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 10:45 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Filipe, if you want to add Spinoza to the discussion, then that itself is reason enough. If no-one else sees any pertinence in Spinoza to this discussion, and I don't know that to be the case, it still suffices and is your right to bring him in if you wish to defend a particular stance he has taken. It was only my impression before you raised the issue that Spinoza had been brought up inadvertently by someone who didn't agree with him anyway. But now I stand in full agreement and support of you position.

Samm

---------- Post added 02-04-2010 at 10:56 PM ----------

I threw out the concept of an omnipotent deity some time ago. It encourages the rock-so-big-he-can't-chew-it paradox and other stupidity. And most limitless concepts (infinity, perfection, etc.) are indefensible on close examination...and yes, that includes omniscience and all loving and good as well. We are defined by our limitations.

Samm
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 06:52 am
@SammDickens,
Samm;124996 wrote:
Filipe, if you want to add Spinoza to the discussion, then that itself is reason enough. If no-one else sees any pertinence in Spinoza to this discussion, and I don't know that to be the case, it still suffices and is your right to bring him in if you wish to defend a particular stance he has taken. It was only my impression before you raised the issue that Spinoza had been brought up inadvertently by someone who didn't agree with him anyway. But now I stand in full agreement and support of you position.

Samm

---------- Post added 02-04-2010 at 10:56 PM ----------

I threw out the concept of an omnipotent deity some time ago. It encourages the rock-so-big-he-can't-chew-it paradox and other stupidity. And most limitless concepts (infinity, perfection, etc.) are indefensible on close examination...and yes, that includes omniscience and all loving and good as well. We are defined by our limitations.

Samm


I see your point Samm...

In my Portuguese Philosophy Forum I had a very long discussion on that Paradox, precisely trying to demonstrate that there are no infinite attributes, and that they are not needed (as infinite) in Order to be what they are...
- Firstly, any infinite power would implicate Freedom from itself (not consistent) and secondly, Freedom towards the Future, witch in my position I cannot accept...(nor should anyone... )
- Perfection or Omnipotence for instance, apply to what "exists" or what necessarily will become...they have to MATCH ITimplicate Whole (Noum)...without them there would be only Chaos...(or in fact, to be precise, much less than that...CHAOS is an ILLUSION...)
...but if no other argument remains, Communication ( Hegel Dialectic ) is itself sufficient proof of Perfection and Cohesion in Reality...

BEST REGARDS>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
0 Replies
 
awareness
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 04:25 pm
@Krumple,
God did neither act. It is called causality and God has nothing to do with it. God's only 2 acts is the creation of your consciousness and the return of that consciousness to it's created state after the person is finished with all their desires.
0 Replies
 
nap40
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2014 10:58 pm
@Krumple,
Maybe, God's true intention, if there is a God, was for this unfortunate event to occur and cause you ask this very question.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 01:00 pm
@Arjuna,
I too appreciate Spinoza, both for his character and his equation of "God" with the actual (natural or physical universe) Reality. What I reject is his excessive attachment to logic: the "religious" obligation to understand God in terms of all His logical connections.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 01:04 pm
@JLNobody,
By the way, if you want to make God laugh tell Him your plans.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 01:34 pm
"Dying" is not ceasing to exist, but it rather refers to the limited finite extension of something existent.
It has beginning and end.
Well what this means is that whatever exists is rational, thank God...

Dying as we see it requires time to be a fundamental property of reality.
I am not so sure about that. Archetypes, information, never dyes.
If anything given an infinite amount of time "stuff" repeats infinitely many times.
Infinity within a finite rational system is beautiful. (Self circularity)

As for randomness what can I say worth saying ?
...it seams it speaks more on the limits of knowledge and observation then it speaks about any thing's behaviour.
"Random" reports something beyond the scope of inquiry. Inquiry has focus and extension to.
But random it is more about perception n less about things.
0 Replies
 
mikeymojo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 09:46 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Here is a religious and philosophical question for you.

A man is trapped in an elevator. Eventually he is rescued and in his relief he decides to rush off to his church to thank god personally. He is so relieved to be alive that he embraces a stone pillar of the alter which abruptly falls onto him, killing him.

By the way this is a true story.

To me, that's a warning of what not to do after being trapped in an elevator shaft. And really, if God intended it to happen, God must've known it was going to make more than the local news, thus kinda both implicating and not implicating Himself. Ever the joker that one.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 09:54 pm
@mikeymojo,
mikeymojo wrote:
To me, that's a warning of what not to do after being trapped in an elevator shaft. And really, if God intended it to happen, God must've known it was going to make more than the local news, thus kinda both implicating and not implicating Himself. Ever the joker that one.


I'm surprised to see this thread revitalized after so much time..

Yeah I like this concept because it directly addresses the issue of "god's plan". One of the most commonly recited mantras from christians thinking it in some way justifies all results. To me it just sounds like a cop-out for not having a better understanding or explanation to a strange incident. The ironic thing is, if he had not be a christian would he have still died? Surely not from the falling pillar. Or would it have been some random pillar on the street. God just felt like squishing a human that day..
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 10:06 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
A man is trapped in an elevator. Eventually he is rescued and in his relief he decides to rush off to his church to thank god personally. He is so relieved to be alive that he embraces a stone pillar of the alter which abruptly falls onto him, killing him.


What kind of church is this you're attending? Jeremiah Wright's temple of Voodoo and Santeria??

I mean, I attend a large Baptist church squarely in the middle of the Bible belt and I've never seen a stone pillar in any sort of a church. Is this some sort of an alter to Baal or Moloch or something? I mean, if it is and you're telling us about something that happened to a friend of yours last week, the guy DESERVED to have the stone pillar fall on his sorry ass.

Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 10:09 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
I mean, I attend a large Baptist church squarely in the middle of the Bible belt and I've never seen a stone pillar in any sort of a church. Is this some sort of an alter to Baal or Moloch or something? I mean, if it is and you're telling us about something that happened to a friend of yours last week, the guy DESERVED to have the stone pillar fall on his sorry ass.


It has been a while. I think it was some large city in Brazil, a heavily catholic city. Obviously not a very well kept city since you can fall down elevator shafts and have pillars fall on you. But that was not the point of the story. It was the premise as to the guys fate and where he chose to place his importance.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 10:31 pm
@Krumple,
Part of the problem with the question of evil in the world is the question of what is meant by the term 'omnipotence'. The evidence indicates that God does not interfere directly with physical reality. If he were to bend one of the laws of physics just once for the benefit of one particular person, the whole thing would collapse, i.e. EVERYBODY would be demanding exemptions the next day...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/17/2020 at 09:38:30