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

[wil]

Ah the old Einstein statement. This has been used over and over and over again to try and make as if Einstein believed in some form of God, or at the least some form of higher being. In point of fact Einstein never believed that. He made this plain in a letter he wrote about a year before his death in which he said:

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

While I don't agree fully with this fellow we do have some common ground.

In science...

In spirituality, or reliogisity we have some differences.

I don't believe in miracles (that which can't be explained by science) I do believe someday it will (the unexplained be explained)

I believe it is all a miracle... A stupendous, amazing, awe inspiring miracle... All of it, gravity, star creation, life, evolution, our capacity to learn, communicate, just all if it....

 

[Thomas]

Is this about Einstein? I'd like that cleared up.

Point one: "“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle” which is either/or, not and/and

Point two: The premise is flawed. There is a more accurate way. This is what happens when people who have said something important in one sphere have something equally important to say in every sphere.

Point three: It seems the quote is an apocryphal saying attributed to Einstein.

Point three: it seems this may well be an apocryphal

I don't believe in miracles (that which can't be explained by science) I do believe someday it will (the unexplained be explained)

LOL, that's rather a statement of faith in the miraculous as regards science, as for science to explain miracles would require a de facto explanation of something outside of its remit.

I believe it is all a miracle... A stupendous, amazing, awe inspiring miracle... All of it, gravity, star creation, life, evolution, our capacity to learn, communicate, just all if it....

So you attribute all this to the work of a Divine agency?

 

[wil]

So you attribute all this to the work of a Divine agency?

Yez....nature is absolutely divine!

 

[wil]

II don't believe in the supernatural... Tis all natural.

(Caveat, I don't buy it that all man made stuff is natural since it is made by man... Beaver dam, natural... Hoover dam...not natural, man made....religion...man made)

Both I'll admit have both positive benefits and negative reprecussions... Some inventions and constructions outlive their usefulness.

 

[Stevegp]

I don't believe in miracles (that which can't be explained by science) I do believe someday it will (the unexplained be explained)

Now, the idea that "the unexplained [will] be explained" is appealing to some people, but for the life of me I can't understand why. That would mean that your very post could be explained by some theory of everything. Exit any real meaning of free will or agency. Basically it would say that all humans (and everything else) are essentially automatons, just doing what they do as a result of necessity. Essentially there would be no categorical difference between a thermostat and a human being. What would be the appeal?

 

[Thomas]

Yez....nature is absolutely divine!

LOL, nice hyperbole.

 

[wil]

That would mean that your very post could be explained by some theory of everything. Exit any real meaning of free will or agency.

Lol....while many here would like my posts explained(and my head examined).... Nice leap.

Does anyone else feel this is at all what I am implying?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Is this about Einstein? I'd like that cleared up.

The comment I made which was used in the OP was about Einstein. Specifically to clear up what he thought of a God. Now whether or not Wil is using my comment in that way, I cannot say.

The quote is not apocryphal. He wrote this down in a letter to a friend roughly a year before his death. And the letter does exist. It went up for auction and Dawkins was one of the bidders, although he did not win.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Lol....while many here would like my posts explained(and my head examined).... Nice leap.

Does anyone else feel this is at all what I am implying?

Actually this is a case where I am clueless what Steve was attempting to say. I've read and re-read his post and the words are there, but the meaning is eluding me.

And yes, Wil, it would sometimes be helpful if your posts were explained - preferably by you!

 

[Thomas]

The comment I made which was used in the OP was about Einstein.

Yep, my bad. I mixed it up with the 'miracles' comment.

Personally I think the OP rests on a flawed assumption: that a miracle is simply a natural phenomena that has yet to be explained.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Understandable. I get Wil's belief that if the universe is without the Divine, then all is potentially understandable on the human level. The 'religious' experience is simply a state of mind that we define as Divine, but is in actuality not the case. Miracles only seem so because we do not understand the physics behind how they happen yet.

If one believes in a Divine, then Wil's argument is fundamentally flawed, as there are experiences that are outside the comprehension of humanity on their own. Miracles become what they are, acts on the universe that are not possible under the laws of physics of how the universe works.

There is no right answer here. Depending on what side of the line one finds oneself it is the former, or it is the latter.

I am not sure I can agree with Wil's assumption that in a non-Divine universe, all is capable of being understood if given enough time and study. There are so many aspects of reality, even in the physical universe, that there may be questions that we will never be able to answer. It is possible that there are some kinds of information that humans are simply too limited to ever comprehend.

 

[Thomas]

It occurs whether we've become too infatuated with the sciences – specifically those that allow us to achieve tech – in the sense that it allows us to form the impression that we control our own destiny. Tech rich and time poor, as they say ...

There is an old saw that says that religion is responsible for more wars than anything else. It's wrong, and one could argue, along the same line, that science is far worse, being responsible for the significant increase in the numbers of deaths in conflicts, to the point where one man can decimate a planet at the flick of a switch ...

Not that I'm suggesting we should not inquire, quite the opposite. It's man's sense of wonder that underpins the sciences, his desire to know ... but science doesn't teach us the meaning of things, the value of things, other than their pragmatic use ... or am I being too pessimistic here?

This to me is one of the essential aspects of being human. We can see into the furtherest reaches of space, trace time back almost to its origin, listen to the ripple of the big bang, watch atoms collide, twiddle with the genome, muse over quantum phenomena and multiverse theory ... but it's staggering to think that we can stand and look up, or down (into our microscopes) and take it all in. Across immeasurable time, immeasurable space ... the mind can hold everything the cosmos contains ... of course, all that could just be the evolutionary oops, perhaps nothing more than feed-back activity in a poorly-wired brain, and there is no meaning or purpose or point to life, it just ... is ... hmmm ...

 

[Stevegp]

Actually this is a case where I am clueless what Steve was attempting to say. I've read and re-read his post and the words are there, but the meaning is eluding me.

Ok, let me expand on what I said. As I understand it, under the most prevalent model in physical science, all events (be they "physical" or "mental") occur either by necessity (natural law) or by chance (quantum indeterminism). Now the current standard model in quantum theory causes a problem for a "theory of everything" because it's events can only be described probabilisticly. If a theory of everything was finally discovered then all events would be predictable. So if every physical or mental event, past or future is/was in principal predictable, to me that means that human beings are essentially automatons just doing what they do just like a machine. They can't and couldn't have done otherwise. So a human being from a causal standpoint is not any different from a thermostat. They both make "decisions", it's just that humans are more complex.

Now even without a theory of everything not much has changed for human "agency". Under the prevailing scientific causal view, throwing in some chance from quantum indeterminacy doesn't really help because chance is not a choice. If all events occur either by necessity or chance, I don't see how one could find any real idea of free will or agency. I don't find that an appealing prospect, and I suspect anyone who really thinks about wouldn't either.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

of course, all that could just be the evolutionary oops, perhaps nothing more than feed-back activity in a poorly-wired brain, and there is no meaning or purpose or point to life, it just ... is ... hmmm ...

People are terrified that this might be possible. They will go to almost any length to be led away from this idea. Just because an idea is feared does not make it incorrect. There is as much a possibility that there is no meaning or point to life as there is the possibility that there is a Divine Being who can work outside of space and time.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I don't find that an appealing prospect, and I suspect anyone who really thinks about wouldn't either.

Again, just because it is not an appealing prospect is not relevant to how reality works. Reality works however it works; we do not have the information to make a call yet. We can only guess. Or pick the reality that appeals to us the most. That is the best we can do.

 

[Stevegp]

Again, just because it is not an appealing prospect is not relevant to how reality works. Reality works however it works; we do not have the information to make a call yet. We can only guess. Or pick the reality that appeals to us the most. That is the best we can do.

Right, but if a certain worldview has serious downsides that we don't find appealing, it can prompt looking further. The challenge is finding a model about how reality is constituted that doesn't go against what science says so far but also opens up the possibility for human freedom, among other things. A model that fits that bill, for me, is some form of idealism. And specifically for me, it is an ultimate idealism. Idealism also has some real explanatory strengths where there are hard spots in current scientific theories. In brief, here's what I mean. 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. Now this is obviously a complex issue, but with an idealism framework where, everything is mind, I think it could be more amenable to explaining this. Then there is the "hard" problem of consciousness (i.e. phenomenal consciousness). Idealism eliminates the stubborn problem of the dichotomy of body/mind.

Now the next step to a more agency amenable model with idealism is to posit that what we call natural law are really not laws per se but habits of Mind. Mind creates the order necessary where life can exist and thrive but those habits are not mindless intransigent laws but the willful ordering of things. So within those habits, there can also exist novelty (as per quantum indeterminacy?). Hence, some constrained level of agency. Anyway, so far I don't think any of this goes against current science. Now, I can just hear someone asking "what's the evidence for this?" Like I said, the observer problem and the hard problem of consciousness. Plus the prevailing physical model for centuries (probably back to about 600 BCE) that there are little things (particles) with intrinsic properties (self natures) has broken down in quantum physics where intrinsic properties have given way to potentialities. Also turns out that this idea that mind-makes-nature goes back around that same time (500 BCE) when Anaxagoras claimed that nous(intellect or mind) was the motive cause of the cosmos.

 

[Thomas]

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.

 

[wil]

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.

Uh oh...he is thinking like me!

And again stve gp... I don't on any way buy the idea that just because we learn the way the universe origin and how nature works and the bodies healing powers....that we would then know what everyone is thinking or what their next action is.... We may be able to make predictions.... But the above thinking we have no free will is beyond my ken.

 

[Stevegp]

Uh oh...he is thinking like me!

And again stve gp... I don't on any way buy the idea that just because we learn the way the universe origin and how nature works and the bodies healing powers....that we would then know what everyone is thinking or what their next action is.... We may be able to make predictions.... But the above thinking we have no free will is beyond my ken.

Well if there is a theory of everything, then it would mean everything. So, in principal, every thought and action would be predictable. The only way around that, in my view, would be to accept that events are not limited to necessity and chance. And that would mean rejecting the prevailing causal worldview of science.

 

[Stevegp]

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.

Libet was the first to conduct experiments on this. Others later have duplicate his results. However, where the error is, in my view, is in the interpretation that somehow this means we don't make choices freely. Just because the decision making process is unconscious that doesn't mean we aren't making them and to some extent freely. In my view, what happens is that the decision making process occurs unconsciously and we experience (phenomenal consciousness) parts of that consciously. The experience of those decisions occurs with a slight delay from the unconscious neural decision. I think it would be a mistake to think that just because decisions are processing unconsciously, they aren't our decisions.