Posts Tagged ‘quantum physics’

Arguments for a Belief in God

April 19, 2019

Given a decrease in religious beliefs and a decline in spirituality, please excuse a brief indulgence into arguments for a belief in God. This decline in spirituality has an adverse effect on iGen’ers empathy for their fellow humans. As will be seen in subsequent posts, this lack of empathy and caring has a negative effect on iGen’ers.

For many years, HM thought that the only accurate philosophical position on God was one of agnosticism. The question is what is the benefit in being an atheist, besides intellectual snobbery. Belief is a matter of faith, and one should not deny the faith of another. HM has also observed that the problem many, if not most, have with a belief in God really stems from their contempt of religion. Justified or not, there is a tendency to regard religions as hypocritical entities that trample on the beliefs of others.

Fairly recently HM has come to an argument that he finds compelling. Understand, there can be no logical proofs regarding the existence of God. Only closed mathematical or logical systems can produce proofs.

HM’s argument is based on a philosophical argument and a psychological effect.
The philosophical argument comes from the famed mathematician, Blaise Pascal. It is called Pascal’s wager. It is a philosophical argument based on cost/benefit analysis. Bear in mind that his words were different because he live in a different time. However, his fundamental argument is based on cost benefit analysis.

So what are the costs of believing in God? If he exists, then one is correct and might have taken some preparation for an afterlife. And should God not exist, one would never know that her belief was wrong as dead people are absent this capacity. However, even if wrong, one would have had the comfort of life continuing and of the possibility of finding people who had previously deceased.

But if one does not believe in God, she lives with no such comforts, and should she be wrong, perhaps some unpleasant surprises.

The psychological phenomenon is the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Dunning-Kruger Effect appears in fifteen previous healthy memory blog posts. The Dunning part of the effect comes from studies documenting that the more people think they know, the less the actually know. An example of this Dunning part of the effect can be found among physicists as the entered the twentieth century. Many thought that they knew practically all that could be known about physics. Perhaps computations could be done with some more precision, but on the whole, major matters had been figured out. But in 1905 Einstein published his special theory of relativity. And in 1915 he published his general theory of relativity. Both of these theories constituted giant advances in physics. But quantum physics had yet to appear in the twenties and with probabilistic effects and entanglement (remote effects), physics was truly revolutionized.

The Kruger part of the Dunning-Kruger effect refers to the tendency of true experts, to be aware of possible problems and tend to hedge their answers. Hence Truman’s fatal quest for a one-handed economist. When he asked an economist a question, they would typically respond on the one hand this, but on the other hand that.

And personally, HM thought he knew much more than he did when he was young. Getting a Ph.D. and a lifelong pursuit of learning has only convinced him of his own ignorance and of how much he does not know.

So as a species, we must be aware of this effect before making any unqualified statements about the existence of God.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Non-living to Living

September 11, 2018

The title of this post is the first part of a chapter titled Non-living to Living and Neurons to mind in Michael Gazzaniga’s outstanding book, “The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind.” Before going further we need to discuss some physics. Quantum physics was created when it was discovered that electromagnetic radiation and matter can be conceived in two states: particle or waves. Quantum mechanics refers to very small matter. These two levels of description are needed to capture physical matter. Quantum mechanics requires probabilities.

These two levels of physics are difficult for many physicists to accept. Einstein said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” To which another physicist responded, “Stop telling God what to think!” Einstein spent the remainder of his career trying to develop a grand unifying theory and failed. There still are physicists trying to develop a unifying theory. However, at this point it is increasingly becoming obvious that two levels of explanation are required. The idea of complementarity, that the two levels of explanation complement each other, captures this reality nicely.

Howard Pattee is a Stanford-educated physicist who moved into theoretical biology during his career at SUNY Binghamton. Patee feels that philosophers have approached the mind/brain divide from the wrong end of evolution. Over the course of his life, Pattee has come to the startling conclusion: duality is a necessary and inherent property of any entity capable of evolving.

Upon reflection, one realizes that the origins of life are typically glossed over. True this was an important event, but how could inanimate matter become animate matter capable of reproducing and evolving? Patee asked this question that motivated his thinking for decades. He asked “How is it possible for us to distinguish the living from the lifeless if we can describe both conceptually by the motion of inorganic corpuscles?” Gazzaniga writes, “Patee saw the logic of the question, but he also saw that evoking the same laws to describe both animate and inanimate matter was not a good enough explanation. In fact, it was no explanation at all. There had to be more to the story.” So, just as in physics, two levels of explanation are required. Patty proposes that the gap between quantum and classical physical behavior is inherent in the distinction between inanimate and living matter.

Gazziniga writes, “There you have it. Pattee proposes that the gap resulted from a process equivalent to quantum measurement that began with self-replication at the origin of life with the cell as the simplest agent…The gap between subjective feeling and objective neural beings didn’t come about with the appearance of brains. It was already there when the first cell started living. Two complementary modes of behavior, two levels of description are inherent in life itself, were present at the origin of life, have been conserved by evolution, and continue to be necessary for differentiating subjective experience from the event itself. This is a mind-boggling idea.”