28 Oct 2006 by Bahnsen Burner
And people wonder why science and religion are so much at odds with each other? On Paul's view, there's no such thing as causality, inertia, thermodynamics, gravity, centrifical force, friction, aerodynamics, chemical reactions, ...
Incinerating Presuppositionalism - http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
Well, one reason why some of us are unwilling to commit ourselves whole hog to modern science is when modern science commits us to metaphysical subjectivism. Just consider some standard interpretations of quantum mechanics:
***QUOTE***
"I" am an object, such as Earth, cat, etc. "I" is defined at a particular time by a complete (classical) description of the state of my body and of my brain. "I" and "Lev" do not name the same things (even though my name is Lev). At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I". I have a particular, well defined past: I correspond to a particular "Lev" in 2002, but I do not have a well defined future: I correspond to a multitude of "Lev"s in 2010. In the framework of the MWI it is meaningless to ask: Which Lev in 2010 will I be? I will correspond to them all. Every time I perform a quantum experiment (with several possible results) it only seems to me that I obtain a single definite result. Indeed, Lev who obtains this particular result thinks this way. However, this Lev cannot be identified as the only Lev after the experiment. Lev before the experiment corresponds to all "Lev"s obtaining all possible results.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
Many Worlds
By virtue of the temporal development of the dynamical variables the state vector decomposes naturally into orthogonal vectors, reflecting a continual splitting of the universe into a multitude of mutually unobservable but equally real worlds, in each of which every good measurement has yielded a definite result and in most of which the familiar statistical quantum laws hold.
Many Minds
Everett said that on his formulation of quantum mechanics "the formal theory is objectively continuous and causal, while subjectively discontinuous and probabilistic" (1973, p. 9). Albert and Loewer (1988) have captured this feature in their many-minds theory by distinguishing between the time evolution of an observer's physical state, which is continuous and causal, and the evolution of an observer's mental state, which is discontinuous and probabilistic.
Many Histories
Gell-Mann and Hartle (1990) understand Everett's theory as one that describes many, mutually decohering histories.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/
***END-QUOTE***
This is often a symptom of emotional insecurity and mental instability.
Belief in invisible worlds which are somehow dependent on human consciousness is a pathological form of arrested development, technically known as paedomorphosis.
The patient transfers his childish belief in imaginary friends to the universe (or multiverse) as a whole.
Bethrick is like one of those street people you see cursing imaginary enemies and swatting invisible flies.
This condition is difficult to treat, but with the right medication and adult supervision, it might be possible for Bethrick of live in a group home and hold down a job that doesn’t involve the use of any sharp implements.
Didn't Dawkins suggest that belief in religion might have its roots in that pathological form of arrested development technically known as paedomorphosis? Thought so.
ReplyDeletePosterboy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the help. I always knew other's believed that Dawson's Objectivism was a "religion." Before Dawkin's, though, when we said it is was ignored because we were stupid superstitious people.
devastating critique, Steve. You've shut the mouth of this unbeliever, that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteand oh yeah,
:::YAWN!!!:::
Dearly beloved,
ReplyDeletePride goes before the fall, and I have fallen indeed.
I beg forgiveness for my sin of dishonesty.
I have decided to devote my life to bringing more glory to brother blark, via my own expansive expression of his will.
In him,
Paul