There are no miracles, and every thing is a miracle.

[A Cup Of Tea]

I've heard a few cases recently where neuroscience had demonstrated that what we perceive to be free choices and active decision making actually begin earlier in the cortex and thus may not be as free and active as we think they are ... have either of you guys come across that? I'm just throwing it in this interesting mix, I'm not sure where it leads, nor am I making any particular point... don't let it get in the way, though.

I've heard my favorit guy Noam Chomsky bring this up, but he never referenced it and I don't know how new it is. I'm certain he mentioned it in an interview by Lawrence Krauss but they don't really get into it.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Just because the decision making process is unconscious that doesn't mean we aren't making them and to some extent freely.

Precisely. Completely agree with you. It has always baffled me why a fair number of philosophers believe we are not the decision maker just because the process starts in our subconscious. This makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

First in quantum theory there is the "observer problem". In experiments like the double slit and delayed choice, the questions the observer is asking seem to determine what answers are given.

This is not quite right. The mere act of observing changes the result. For some reason, as I understand this stuff, a particle can be both a wave and a point. When we look at it though we force it to become one or the other. Once it has become one or the other it is then fixed in that form forever more.

Bottom line, quantum indeterminacy argues against any fixed notion of anything, and is in complete alignment with freedom of choice.

 

[wil]

I believe I said we could eventually with science understand and explain miracles...

And with scientific instruments...eventually you may be able to know what I am thinking (again with electronic assistance) you may even be able to predict what I am going to say before I say it....

 

[Thomas]

However, where the error is, in my view, is in the interpretation that somehow this means we don't make choices freely.

I tend to agree.

 

[Thomas]

I believe I said we could eventually with science understand and explain miracles...

Only if you believe the empirical is all there is.

How, I wonder, will science categorise, quantify and measure ... and on what scale ... Enlightenment?

And with scientific instruments...eventually you may be able to know what I am thinking (again with electronic assistance) you may even be able to predict what I am going to say before I say it....

Possibly ... but then with scientific instruments we are able to cure blindness, but that doesn't mean that Christ's restoring sight to the man born blind wasn't a miracle. My sister does the above, and more, without scientific instruments.

 

[Stevegp]

This is not quite right. The mere act of observing changes the result. For some reason, as I understand this stuff, a particle can be both a wave and a point. When we look at it though we force it to become one or the other. Once it has become one or the other it is then fixed in that form forever more.

Right, it's a complicated issue and scientists have looked at this and tried to find ways to do determine if the observation methodology and equipment skews the result. However, the consensus seems to be that the observers choice is somehow a determining factor.

Bottom line, quantum indeterminacy argues against any fixed notion of anything, and is in complete alignment with freedom of choice.

It depends. Quantum theory is essentially just a mathematical characterization of what will happen. That characterization has been confirmed by empirical data. The question that remains open is why the wave packet collapses when it does. No answer to that yet. But, I think the consensus is that it occurs nonintentionally. If it's not intentional in some way then that doesn't support any notion of free will.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Just because the decision making process is unconscious that doesn't mean we aren't making them and to some extent freely.

I don't have a position on free will myself, but my reaction to this sentence is that we aren't aware of the real mechanisms of our actions. The ideas we have of why we do as we do are afterthoughts which to certain extent is formed by social convention. If presented like this, the question of what the >I< is becomes relevant. If you are the sum of your opinions and ideas than you are not making making your choices, you are rationalising them. But if the >I< is partly aspects you aren't even aware of than the question becomes infinitely more interesting, and impossible to answer.

 

[Thomas]

The ideas we have of why we do as we do are afterthoughts which to certain extent is formed by social convention.

And those 'social conventions' are the collective 'afterthought' of what we do and why ...

If you are the sum of your opinions and ideas than you are not making making your choices, you are rationalising them.

This is why I can never quite agree to the Buddhist notion that there is not an >I< at the core of my being. There has to be something for the ephemeral phenomena of 'identity' gather around, as it were, or else we're saying something comes from nothing ...

The personality is the product of process, but also the process is a product of the person ... quite how much of who and what we are is written in our dna I don't know, but if you study babies as 'blank sheets' then it's apparent that no two babies will experience the same experience the same way, character is evident even then.

But if the >I< is partly aspects you aren't even aware of than the question becomes infinitely more interesting, and impossible to answer.

It does, doesn't it. The only answers I know depend upon the idea of transcendence and the Transcendent.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

However, the consensus seems to be that the observers choice is somehow a determining factor.

I am not aware of this being so. But the science marches on so I may just be behind the times on the latest version of the theory.

The question that remains open is why the wave packet collapses when it does. No answer to that yet. But, I think the consensus is that it occurs nonintentionally. If it's not intentional in some way then that doesn't support any notion of free will.

Part 1.
I'm not following you on this one. Agreed, the current consensus is that the wave/particle occurs nonintentionally. Which means it happens randomly does it not? The capability for randomness seems to me to indicate that multiple outcomes are possible. Which promotes the concept of free will. If the occurrence is intentional, that seems to me to be a rigid, straightjacket pattern to things, with the end result the choice is not an option.

So I'm viewing this in the reverse way you are.

Part 2.
The other aspect of this discussion that I am wary of is the concept that what happens at the smallest level of reality somehow determines everything else all the way up to consciousness and beyond. I am not at all convinced that how things work in the micro universe and how they work in the macro universe are not entirely separate processes. Whether or not wave/particle decisions are intentional or not may have no relationship to how reality works beyond the micro scale. The fact that no 'theory of everything' that is air tight has yet been discovered 'may' indicate that this is true.

Certainly the lack of a ToE thus far does not mean it does not exist. We just haven't figured it out yet. And even if such a theory is discovered I am still not convinced that it defines what happens on every level of reality equally. Whether and how a wave/particle makes its choice may have no relevance to how our brains make our choices. I'm not convinced they have to be.

 

[Thomas]

I believe I said we could eventually with science understand and explain miracles...

We have already – theology is a science.

If you mean the physical sciences, then a second question comes into play:

If all one will allow is the phenomenal world, then miracles are simply events for which we have no satisfactory explanation, but hope to achieve one in time.

If one allows the Transcendent, and a Transcendent that is Immanent, then one allows for non-phenomenal causes, causes from outside the realm of phenomena and forms, and these causes will be 'invisible' to the physical sciences because the physical sciences apply only to the sphere of the formal and phenomenal.

To say 'nothing is a miracle, and everything is a miracle' is a hyperbole, it empties the term 'miracle' of any meaning and reduces it to a figure of speech expressing a sentimental value, at least that's the way I see it, unless you can explain otherwise?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

It seems to me we are talking of two different concepts. The 'Miracle', which is an event that is not possible by the physics of reality as we know it. And the 'miracle', which is any natural phenomena that seems miraculous to our sense of wonder. The latter being concepts such as a miraculous escape from what should have been certain death. But the person walks away unscratched by pure random chance of the draw.

 

[Stevegp]

Part 1.
I'm not following you on this one. Agreed, the current consensus is that the wave/particle occurs nonintentionally. Which means it happens randomly does it not? The capability for randomness seems to me to indicate that multiple outcomes are possible. Which promotes the concept of free will. If the occurrence is intentional, that seems to me to be a rigid, straightjacket pattern to things, with the end result the choice is not an option.

So I'm viewing this in the reverse way you are.

My understanding of "intentional" is that there is some purpose involved. I don't think most physical scientists would say that the collapse of the wave packet has any purpose. It just happens for some reason that is unknown but not intentional. Now, the term "random" is an interesting one. As I understand the term, it just means that there is a distribution of events represented by a bell curve. To me that, in and of itself, doesn't say anything about whether or not there is intention involved. Now most people think of random as non-intentional but I don't think that should necessarily be so. Just because an event lies somewhere toward the ends of the bell curve doesn't mean it is non-intentional. It just means it is more rare than the others.

Part 2.
The other aspect of this discussion that I am wary of is the concept that what happens at the smallest level of reality somehow determines everything else all the way up to consciousness and beyond. I am not at all convinced that how things work in the micro universe and how they work in the macro universe are not entirely separate processes. Whether or not wave/particle decisions are intentional or not may have no relationship to how reality works beyond the micro scale. The fact that no 'theory of everything' that is air tight has yet been discovered 'may' indicate that this is true.

As I understand it, the predominant idea is that quantum events don't have much to do with what happens at the macroscopic level because those quantum events decohere as things get larger and don't create indeterminism at the macro level. Thus, the macroscopic levels act classically. However, there are some scientists that think that quantum events may cohere in the ion channels of the brain which are very small and thusly can introduce indeterminant effects at the neurological macro level. Then of course chaos theory may come into play where a very small change can have dramatic effects at the macroscopic level. There are some examples where quantum events (quantum tunneling) do effect the macroscopic world at room temperature like photosynthesis in plants.

Certainly the lack of a ToE thus far does not mean it does not exist. We just haven't figured it out yet. And even if such a theory is discovered I am still not convinced that it defines what happens on every level of reality equally. Whether and how a wave/particle makes its choice may have no relevance to how our brains make our choices. I'm not convinced they have to be.

Well, a ToE by definition would mean everything is predicable, at least in principal, including why and how the wave packet collapses.

Now my current view is that quantum events may be intentional, driven by some purposeful process. If so, then that purpose is embedded in the very fabric of reality, idealistically driven by a living God.

 

[Thomas]

It seems to me we are talking of two different concepts.

Yes, I think so.

The 'Miracle', which is an event that is not possible by the physics of reality as we know it.

Yep. Although I hold the proviso that a Deity would not need to contradict nor temporarily revoke the laws of physics.

And the 'miracle', which is any natural phenomena that seems miraculous to our sense of wonder.

Yes, the hyperbolic use of the term.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Although I hold the proviso that a Deity would not need to contradict nor temporarily revoke the laws of physics.

Okay. How does this compute? The natural laws by which our reality work do not allow miracles to happen. In order for miracles to happen said natural laws have to be suspended, superseded, or in some way turned off. I can get the argument that if god created the laws of reality, he could turn them off whenever he chose; having trouble with the concept of simply ignoring them.

Yes, the hyperbolic use of the term.

Why hyperbole?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Now my current view is that quantum events may be intentional, driven by some purposeful process. If so, then that purpose is embedded in the very fabric of reality, idealistically driven by a living God.

Hmmm. You agree that science at this time shows that quantum events are non-intentional. And you believe that it in actuality it is intentional driven by some purposeful process. It seems to me that one can believe either one of these; don't see how one can believe both.

 

[Stevegp]

Hmmm. You agree that science at this time shows that quantum events are non-intentional. And you believe that it in actuality it is intentional driven by some purposeful process. It seems to me that one can believe either one of these; don't see how one can believe both.

No I don't agree that science has shown quantum events are non-intentional. That may be consensus among physicists but that's not my view. How would scientists determine non-intentionality? They'd need some detection scheme for non-intentionality.

Now, having said that, I am not a fan of supernaturalism (i.e. fiat intervention) because that would mean that there are, in fact, non-intentional natural laws that have to be suspended or overridden to bring about some divine purpose. Of course, that is possible but to me (and many others) it doesn't seem reasonable given how much that was at one time considered miraculous is now understood within the normal natural processes. Also from a theological perspective it sets God somehow at odds with God's creation. As I have said, to me a more plausible approach is to view the regularities and novelties we see as a continuously active divine teleology. Now what this would mean is that divine purpose is not about fiat interventions but about an embedded teleology that continuously provides the live-giving regularities while at the same time introducing novelty (and freedom) within constraints.

I think this is very intuitively sound. In our everyday lives we need some level of order to allow creativity to emerge. Order provides stability and novelty provides for growth and change.

 

[Thomas]

Okay. How does this compute? The natural laws by which our reality work do not allow miracles to happen. In order for miracles to happen said natural laws have to be suspended, superseded, or in some way turned off.

I don't think He ignores the means by which His creation works (I often think we do, in our expectations of God, but that's another issue). I simply believe that God can work with the laws of nature without violence ... so he works in a 'soft' sense.

At present we seem to have one set of rules for the microcosmic, another set for the macrocosmic, and a universal set that binds the two together – possibly the differences will be resolved as we understand better – but I suppose I mean there are principles that apply in God that nature will conform to – it will not resist the miracle in the same way it would resist water flowing uphill.

The cause of a miracle, the action of a Divine agency, happens before the physical world, so it's not bound by the laws of the physical world, but the physical world is bound by its Divine causes.

What I'm trying to say is I don't see miracles in opposition to nature.

We're all atoms, and atoms are just energies, and I suppose I see miracles working at a pre-atomic stage, so the energies by which the world is held together are subtly altered, and the physical 'materialises' around that alteration in an inexplicable way ...

Why hyperbole?

Because he doesn't believe in miracles as properly defined, but he wonders at nature ... a perfectly acceptable hyperbole.

The ontological question, 'why is there anything at all' must allow for one answer being 'the Divine wills it' in which case everything is the creation of the Divine agency, so in that sense create ex nihilo is a miracle ... but within that, a baby birth, the birth of a star, are not really miracles in the proper sense as they conform to natural law, but they are wondrous events.

I recall reading the description of a hydrogen atom, in which the author was talking about the 'spaces' between the elements of an atom, and said if one imagines St Paul's Cathedral (in London ... just imagine a pretty big cathedral if you can't picture St Pauls) then the proton (and neutron?) of the atom are sitting on the altar, and the electron is a butterfly somewhere in the building ... or if not a particle then a wave, in which case the electron is like a skein of incense smoke somewhere inside the building ... what he was trying to get at was the distances between particles relative to the size of the particle ... and so there's more space than there is stuff ... wondrous stuff to contemplate ... someone else said "Imagine two butterflies flying over Europe—say, one over a French meadow, the other somewhere over the steppes. That’s about the space you’ve got between two typical atoms in a typical chunk of matter. Never mind that the atoms themselves are almost entirely empty space..." ... not sure if we're drifting off into la-la land here. I remember how much nonsense spewed out about Quantum Mechanics and the Soul as the ageing New Agers started waxing lyrical about science ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

I remember how much nonsense spewed out about Quantum Mechanics and the Soul as the ageing New Agers started waxing lyrical about science ..

The real old and wise say 'the Divine wills it'. Yeah, sure.

Also from a theological perspective it sets God somehow at odds with God's creation.

It is all Angra Meinyu's doing.

 

[shunyadragon]

We have already – theology is a science.

Definitely disagree. Science is Methodological Naturalism, independent of any theological assumptions. Your assertion needs more explanations.

If you mean the physical sciences, then a second question comes into play:

If all one will allow is the phenomenal world, then miracles are simply events for which we have no satisfactory explanation, but hope to achieve one in time.

Physical sciences is science. I do not think claims of the 'miraculous' nor the 'supernatural' is in the radar of science to achieve theories and hypothesis subject to falsification by objective evidence.

If one allows the Transcendent, and a Transcendent that is Immanent, then one allows for non-phenomenal causes, causes from outside the realm of phenomena and forms, and these causes will be 'invisible' to the physical sciences because the physical sciences apply only to the sphere of the formal and phenomenal.

A Transcendent that is Immanent that allows non-phenomenal causes may be allowed, but outside the realms of Methodological Naturalism

To say 'nothing is a miracle, and everything is a miracle' is a hyperbole, it empties the term 'miracle' of any meaning and reduces it to a figure of speech expressing a sentimental value, at least that's the way I see it, unless you can explain otherwise?

I believe that 'Miracles' and the 'Supernatural' claims are a contradiction to the fundamental nature of our existence, which is objectively natural. I believe if God exists God is not contradictory and Created our existence as it naturally is. The belief in 'Miracles' and the 'Supernatural' are explanations of ancient religions like Judaism and Christianity to explain events that cannot be explained by the limits of their knowledge at the time. I believe in a Source some call God(s), but Revelation and the spiritual nature of humanity and Creation evolves naturally. It is time to give up the ghosts of past ancient paradigms, and acknowledge that the belief in the 'Miraculous,' supernatural, and the doctrines and dogmas of ancient religions are impotent in today's world that is constantly spiritually and physically evolving past ancient world views naturally.