Mod+ 248. BERNARDO KASTRUP SAYS MATERIALISM IS BALONEY

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by alex.tsakiris, Jul 1, 2014.

  1. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Couple of thoughts:
    1. Multiverse... I dont go for the modern mathematical physics version; but in the esoteric traditions we already have a multiverse; in the sense of multiple dimensions or realms of existence. After death we transit to another dimension of existence; you could call it a parallel universe. Acording to the traditions there are multiple levels beyond the Earth realm.

    2.Time... is an experience...but not thereby an illusion. IMO what we call time is the experience (awareness of) process or change; and of course requires a memory system to create the sense of duration. Without memory there would only be the present moment; and no sense of duration; nor of personal self.
    Because experience may function differently in different realms, our experince of time or process in different realms may also be different.
    I believe this may in part account for the sometimes confusing statements about time made by NDEs and out-of-body travellers.
     
    Ian Gordon and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  2. If you've not read it, I heartily recommend Don Salmon's essay on Integral World:

    SHAVING SCIENCE WITH OCKHAM'S RAZOR: What, if anything, does science tell us about reality?

     
  3. Consciousness is not just nonspatial, it is also atemporal.

    The physical universe was designed and created by consciousness. This means consciousness is not part of space/time. But, I don't think we can really understand what that means until we are freed from our three dimensional brains that are subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

    The expanding universe is not just matter expanding through pre-existing space. Space and time were created by the big bang:
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cosmological-argument-for.html#cosmo_something

    The scientific evidence is best explained by an intelligent (conscious) creator and designer.

    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_god

    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_id
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2014
  4. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Personally I don’t think the argument for design on the basis of the supposed fine-tuning of the so-called laws of nature is at all convincing.

    It is a chicken & egg argument.

    The particular kind of universe we have; and the particular kind of life that has arisen on Earth; may indeed require the particular natural patterns of physical nature that underly this universe; but that does not prove, a conscious design or intent.

    It may be that the particular kind of universe we have; and the particular kind of life that has arisen on Earth; is just the kind of universe and life that results from the particular natural patterns of physical nature that underly this universe.

    Different natural patterns might give rise to differert universes; and perhaps to different forms of life.

    I do think that the order we witness and discover everywhere in the universe and in life is a strong argument for the presence of inherent intelligence in the nature of the universe; (taking order to be the sign of intelligence…but not necessarily of design).
     
  5. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    Thanks Sciborg! Nice to see Utts and Josephson together in a paper on psi.

    I'm definitely still not a fan of the Many-Worlds type of multiverse. But, the existence of multple story lines (similar to what Bernardo talks about under Idealism), seems more reasonable to me these days.

    I suspect psi doesn't really need the multiverse for an explanation, but that's just a gut feeling. However, I found this very intriguing, which was mentioned in the paper and perhaps gives my gut feeling a chance of being correct. Gonna have to look into this some more. You don't happen to know any good links about these "subquantum domains"?


    I like what you said about Morphic resonance explaining precognition, etc. Once again an idea that doesn't seem to really need a multiverse.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2014
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  6. I like the parallel storyline idea myself - the Scottish author Hal Duncan actually wrote a pair of trippy novels, Vellum & Ink, on the idea of parallel timelines which seems close to Fred Alan Wolf's aforementioned account of reality:

    On the subject of subquantum domains, Adrian Kline & Robert Boyd posted some stuff about this subject on Zammit's site.

    I'll see if I can dig up some more - might even email Josephson and ask him about the subject. Maybe see if he wants to come on Skeptiko as I don't think he's been interviewed?

    I know Braude is really critical of any kind of retrocausality, including information transfer but if such a thing were possible I think it makes sense to have an extant set of possible futures. Otherwise getting information from the future has no survival advantage if this reverse morphic resonance offers awareness of a future that must come to pass.

    Additionally, a single predetermined future from which retrocausal information is sent back that ensures said future takes place would mean there are time loops. As Feser notes this leads to problems akin (isomorphic?) to infinite regression:

     
    EthanT likes this.
  7. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    Now THAT would be a GREAT interview! ;-) Here's hoping he accepts!

    Thanks for the info on subquantum domains!


    Was just reading an article by Josephson (that I found in relation to the on you posted earlier) and also an article by Wheeler. They both mentioned how maybe there really is no past. It literally gets formed to some extent by observer participation in the present. Before then it exists as a set of potentialities. Wheeler's galactic version of the delayed-choice experiment really brings this out. Anyhow, perhaps we're slowly finding out that the same can be said for the future, with observer participation making some futures much more likely than others.

    I still can't help but think TSQM is really hinting at all of this too, especially when you throw the future in the mix. Not that TSQM is necessarily the whole picture, or even correct, but it sure seems to be heading in the right direction.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  8. I just started reading the Exegesis of Phillip K. Dick, and these limericks he wrote made me think of your conception of how consciousness enters into matter:

    'Determinist forces are wrong
    And irresistably strong.
    While of God there's a dearth
    for He visits the Earth
    But not for sufficiently long.'


    =-=-=

    'Determinist forces are wrong
    And irresistably strong.
    While of God there's no dearth
    for He visits the Earth
    Though just for sufficiently long.'
     
    ghost and MysticG like this.
  9. Here are some data points on fine-tuning:

    (the main reference is : http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html, other references listed below)

    Expansion rate of the universe 1 part in 10^60 (1:10^60)
    if larger: the heat and energy of the universe would dissipate too quickly stable galaxies would not form
    if smaller: the matter in the universe would have collapsed back on itself

    Gravitational force constant 1:10^40
    if larger: stars would be too hot, they would burn up too quickly, and too unevenly
    if smaller: stars would remain too cool so that nuclear fusion would never ignite and hence we would have no element production

    Initial Entropy of the Universe 1:10^10^123 (one in ten to the tenth to the 123rd)
    if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
    if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

    Mass Density of Universe 1:10^59
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

    Strong nuclear force 1:50
    if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable
    if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form

    Cosmological constant 1:10^120
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

    Ratio of number of electrons to number of protons 1:10^37
    if larger or smaller, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

    Ratio of Electromagnetic force constant :Gravitational force constant 1:10^40
    if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support life
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html lists 34 fine-tuning parameters
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
    Nobel Prize winning scientists who believed that the scientific evidence is best explained by an intelligent designer and creator of the universe include Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Guglielmo Marconi, Brian D. Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes, George Wald, Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, and Arthur Schawlow. Other scientists who believed the same thing include Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, and Wernher von Braun.
    http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers


    References

    http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.ph...odern_Science_That_Prove_God_Exists/Program_3

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/roger_penrose_on_cosmic_finetu033691.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2014
    ghost and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  10. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    The fine tuning argument seems to be saying that if the physics constants varied, even by a minute amount, that chemistry, biochemistry and biology would not be possible either because atoms are too unstable or because the materials necessary wouldn't be available. The fine tuning argument seems to suggest that the universe is intentional, that biology was intentional, not an accident. Any thoughts?
     
    Jim_Smith and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  11. It's suggestive but not definitive. But yes, it is interesting and worthy of scientific pursuit. As I've noted before, Nagel & Josephson have both supported & spoken highly of Myers' work.

    However, as the theist philospher Feser has noted, it doesn't quite get you to a transcendent God. If fine tuning & design are correct, this simply suggests something more than existing materialist explanations are necessary to account for life. This could be Psi - as Don Salmon and I've suggested Carpenter's First Sight model might prove adequate, or teleological principles that Nagel has suggested might be possible without a deity.

    On the other hand, the famous atheist philosopher Anthony Flew was partially convinced by the arguments Jim noted above. He also got something out of the Aristotlean arguments. But while he came to believe in a Prime Mover, and libetarian free will before that, he discounted the idea of post-mortem survival.
     
  12. Formal Dining Room Set

    Formal Dining Room Set New

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    Isn't this why the Many Worlds or Multiverse ideas are favored by some physicists- as a way to get around the fine tuning argument?
     
  13. I don't see how the fine-tuning can be implemented from within the universe and that implies a transcendent creator. Feser is saying intelligent design arguments don't get you a God of classical theism, which is a very specific definition of the creator.


    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2014
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  14. Multiverse theories also require fine-tuning, they don't solve anything.

    Stephen Meyer:
    http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.ph...odern_Science_That_Prove_God_Exists/Program_3
     
  15. http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-fine-tuning-of-universe-to-one-part.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
    Ian Gordon and Trancestate like this.
  16. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    If fine tuning is true, it tells us that the creation of life is a priority. It tells us that the universe had a purpose: to allow biological life to exist. If the universe had a purpose, then it had a Creator. It had an intelligent and powerful Creator. That's practically the definition of GOD. However, such a fact would tell us nothing about which religion, if any, is correct.
     
  17. I was thinking of Josephson's talk:


    I don't know if the mental entities he supposes would be equivalent to a Prime Mover?
     
  18. I was thinking about Bernando's idea that what we see in our reality are images of a process, similar to how fire is the image of combustion. Rubbing two sticks together, or lighting a match, are both ways to initiate the combustion process. You can learn how to strike a match when you're what? 4-5 years old if not earlier? Probably not a good time to learn chemistry though.

    Now imagine if I made a sigil on the ground, and a ball of light appeared over that marking. If you asked me how I made the light appear, and I said I drew a Sigil, you might amend your question to ask how drawing a sigil could make a light appear. If I told you it was "magic", you likely wouldn't be satisfied*. In fact the question you want answered is why drawing a sigil makes a light appear. You'd assume there was some aspect of reality that accounted for this phenomenon.

    But consider the possible materialist solutions to the Hard Problem. They are all akin to the sigil that makes the light appear, or knowing that rubbing two sticks together makes a fire. They don't explain the why. And it seems just like in the case of the sigil, you'd be rational to assume there's some aspect of reality accounting for the phenomenon. Just as working with the sigil is merely working with what Hoffman would call an "icon", matter seems to be mere icons formed by more fundamental reality.

    This isn't proof that Idealism is true, but it does suggest there's more to the picture than materialism can account for**. And since that picture is in consciousness, given everything we known about the world is framed by our subjective experience, it seems reasonable to suggest that Idealism - or perhaps some kind of Neutral Monism - is not a bad way to go when seeking a personal, livable truth.

    *David Bailey makes a similar critique of materialism's hope of an emergent explanation for consciousness here.

    **See the last lecture of Nobel winning biologist George Wald for more on this theme.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2014
  19. On Bernando's latest post:

    The Greatest Contradiction of Common Sense

    For the conclusion (Idealism) to hold, wouldn't we need refutations of the other immaterialist options? Even then, exactly "who" survives isn't clear.
     
  20. tempel

    tempel New

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    22
    My thoughts exactly. It surprises me that Bernardo so emphatically embraces such an arbitrary conclusion.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.

Share This Page