Dear Oliver,

Thanks again for your challenging inputs into the question of compatibility (or not) of science and theism, notably Christianity. As to QM, I think we can agree that neither you nor I are experts on it, and that even those who could be called experts do not know how to interpret the "reality dependent on observer" enigma.

>>I would see prima facie the feasibility of two realms … observation to be a loose concept, … If true, it is just how things are. <<

I think I can understand you, it reminds me of the pragmatic FAPP (for all practical purposes) attitude of working, non-philosophising, physicists. For others, the inbuilt dualism is problematic, even with a “seam that is semi-permeable”. It reminds me of the soul-body dualism, where the semi-permeable seam goes along what is called the mind. As you know, the concept of soul in a scientific context is irritating; in the Copenhagen interpretation it is that fuzzy splitting of reality that some find irritating.

John Bell, who introduced the FAPP acronym, introduced also FAPPTRAP, warning against the “trap” of accepting an observation created splitting of reality. I think this Bohr’s splitting of reality is just a shortcut through what we do not (yet?) have a philosophically satisfactory explanation of.

I do not know what you mean by “the mathematics of the multiverse” but I am afraid multiverse theory, to explain (away) the fine-tuning of our universe, as fascinating as it is, could end up like phlogiston theory, invented to explain the nature of combustion. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>the notion of a self-sustaining, self-organising universe is a more testable proposition than god in heaven <<
I don’t know about testability but I agree that these concepts are more suited as new ingredients in our understanding of the physical cosmos than those which belong to a realm outside the reach of natural science.

You call “god in heaven” what theists see as the “cause and purpose” behind our self-creating (self-sustaining, self-organising if you like) universe(s); the God whose act of creation is permanent and discernible as cosmic evolution.

Of course, the last sentence is not falsifiable, has nothing to do with scientific findings and theories, and I brought it up only because you felt the need to involve “god in heaven”. The philosophically unsophisticated “good old lady”, who indeed takes verbatim the “god in heavens” symbol, has simply a FAPP approach to her faith, perhaps not unlike the non-philosophising physicist’s FAPP approach to QM. If you like, you can extend the analogy to FAPPTRAP.

>>Once matter is known to be created spontaneously and casualty diminished and properties are time are better understood, we can contain existence, without extrapolation to external agencies.<<

As to the first half of the sentence, I do not know how matter can be “created spontaneously”, unless you are referring to vacuum fluctuations, which is not the same thing as the theological/metaphysical concept of creatio ex nihilo (c.f. http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2237&C=2069, where the author is both a physicist and a theologian).

As to the second half, you are right, either the physical universe exists on its own, i.e. is its own cause and purpose (hence there is no need to assume an external Creator; this is the Sagan maxim), or it does not, in which case there is a Something that is its cause and purpose (and is also its own cause and purpose) whom theists call God. There is no compelling rational argument one way or another (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883).

Dear Squeers,
>>it seems you and I have more in common than some of your other antagonists<<
Thank you for the compliment which I understand means that we both accept that existence is not reducible to what natural science can investigate and explain, i.e. we both reject Sagan’s maxim, c.f. end of my last post to Oliver. As for belief systems modeling reality, everybody has one, but spelling them out is a different story.

>>first causes, ultimately rationalised as a singularity.<<
I am not sure whether singularity has some special philosophical meaning, however if you are referring to the Big Bang, the description of singularity apparently comes from mathematics:

The value x=0 is a singularity for the function y=1/x: you cannot substitute this value, only values very close to 0, since the function is not defined there. Space-time of our universe is modeled in GR as a mathematical construct (pseudo-Riemannian manifold) where the points represent events. Big Bang stands for such an event which you cannot investigate, cannot substitute into that manifold, only events very close to it.

Well, this is a very rough explanation of why - in my opinion - physicists came to the use of the term singularity for Big Bang.

.

Dear George & Oliver,

.

Sustained intellectual developement certainly seems the right way forward for mankind.

Scientific method can help us achieve this, as can art and philosophy.

Belief in the supernatural is irrelevant to the project.

Politics and religion, however, both need to be properly managed in order to provide the social peace and stability necessary for attaining whatever goals we set ourselves.

It is with this broad objective in mind that I was wondering what science could bring to the table so far as art (creation) and aesthetics (perception) are concerned.

Your discussion on this thread alerted me to the fact that science may find application in examining not just the material but also the immaterial, and not only within the realm of nature, but perhaps, also, beyond.

.

AJ Philips,

So I will not apologise any more, if that is the problem, and just accept that you are reading my posts to Oliver et al as using arguments “that are deliberately devised to appear plausible, but are actually fallacious and misleading”, as well as an “inherently flawed form of Christian apologetics known as ‘Presuppositionalism’ that - as every other form of apologetics does - falls down at its premise and ultimately fails”.

I never heard the term presuppositionalism, so I checked in http://home.comcast.net/~webpages54/ap/presup.html, to find that it “may be defined as insistence on an ultimate category of thought or a conceptual framework which one must assume in order to make a sensible interpretation of reality”.

Well, I am certainly not aware of insisting Oliver or others accept “an ultimate category of thought or a conceptual framework”, unless you mean our meeting ground on QM and philosophical enigmata associated with it.

Also, not everybody who uses the term social is a socialist; the same with presuppositions and this “presuppositionalism”.

Dear George,

By the "mathematics of the multiverse" I was meaning that every possible outcome has implications for probability. If there is one unique universe or several distinct uni-verses; given existing knowledge; the chances that a 32 amino acid chain will form to create life is beyond astronomical. Some other process seems to be involved. Some shifting from QM and reality states, perhaps. Thus, permitting superpositions to increase likihoods. A multiverse seems a "convenient" way to side-stwp the issue by saying everything "is" and therefore probability becomes redundant. It ok as idea, but I am not really confortable with it. If the multiverse is fact, then, wow! Elsewise, the notion seems a little lazy. Albeit, Gell-Man would have it that if everything is connected to everything, this simplier than having rules about connections or non-connections, bringing all-and-everything closer to Occam's Razor.

More later.

Regards.