Posted on 07/19/2004 11:35:57 AM PDT by betty boop
Thanks for the ping…
A little food for thought....
Burrrrppppttt!!! Thanks!
Great defense of Newton’s teleology. Unfortunately, people will always try to Divine no Providence from the writings of others.
“Newton confronted with deep distrust the mechanical worldview of Descartes, which derived all change in the world alone from the mechanical mutual effects of the bodies. The Cartesian model of the world, in which the mutual play of mechanical powers was to explain the development from chaos to the ordered cosmos, seemed to him all too self-contained and self-sufficient so that it would not need any divine assistance or would even admit such.” [ibid., p. 60]
Chaos? Did you say ‘chaos’ agent 86? I think you’ve exposed Maxwell’s demon. “How can chaos make cosmos which made intelligent life to discover its origin?”
To deny order and design in our cosmos would be similar to denying ‘compressed design’ in DNA. We see, have evidence of, and study design with science. The use of teleology while denying teleology is again, divining no providence in an attempt to ‘Get Smart’.
Not only that, Heartlander, but I think this operation reveals a fatal self-contradiction in the very basis or premise of this type of argument. At least, according to the methods of Aristotelian logic.
You ask: “How can chaos make cosmos which made intelligent life to discover its origin?”
With brilliant concision, you state the question that it seems the many in increasingly doctrinaire academic life and the wider intellectual community are implacably, strenuously determined to avoid engaging in the first place.
Thank you so very much for writing, Heartlander!
Because in order for a thing to be detectable, it must first exist. If we detect it, it probably exists.
You are standing the argument -- and the experience on which it is based -- on its head, Doc; or so it seems to me.
Thanks! Interesting article. I have read a bit of Newton's works, but had been unaware of his theocratic leanings.
Personally, I would argue that if God himself is absolute and fixed, then perfection is absolute and fixed.
If that was the case, we might as well blow the planet to hell and gone, and all, each of us, do ourselves in.
SO now I return to one of the things I have said frequently, it's not the BEING, but the DOING that seems to be important.
It is the DOING of things, and our constant attempts to do things better, and be better people, that makes it impossible to compress the universe into a singularity.
And interestingly enough, it makes the outcome still somewhat questionable.
I'm with you.
However, experiments designed to detect such a medium show negative results. People have looked and are still looking for such a medium. Rather than absence of evidence, we really do have evidence of absence.
The objection would be that space/time is created as the universe expands, i.e. it doesn’t expand into anything. But your point was not that space/time pre-exists. You argue persuasively against an “eternal universe”. Correct me if I misread, but I believe your point is that the zero point field could be the medium of the expansion itself and the carrier of information within the universe.
For Lurkers: a zero point field is roughly the least amount of vibration energy in a particular space or the self-radiating signal of an isolated particle. It is being examined closely as an explanation for mass and for use in propulsion:
A NASA-funded research effort has been underway at the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center in Palo Alto and at California State University in Long Beach to develop and test a recently published theory that Newton's equation of motion can be derived from Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics as applied to the zero-point field (ZPF) of the quantum vacuum. In this ZPF-inertia theory, mass is postulated to be not an intrinsic property of matter but rather a kind of electromagnetic drag force that proves to be acceleration dependent by virtue of the spectral characteristics of the ZPF. The theory proposes that interactions between the ZPF and matter take place at the level of quarks and electrons, hence would account for the mass of a composite neutral particle such as the neutron. An effort to generalize the exploratory study of Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1994) into a proper relativistic formulation has been successful. Moreover the principle of equivalence implies that in this view gravitation would also be electromagnetic in origin along the lines proposed by Sakharov (1968). With regard to exotic propulsion we can definitively rule out one speculatively hypothesized mechanism: matter possessing negative inertial mass, a concept originated by Bondi (1957) is shown to be logically impossible. On the other hand, the linked ZPF-inertia and ZPF-gravity concepts open the conceptual possibility of manipulation of inertia and gravitation, since both are postulated to be electromagnetic phenomena. It is hoped that this will someday translate into actual technological potential. A key question is whether the proposed ZPF-matter interactions generating the phenomenon of mass might involve one or more resonances. This is presently under investigation.
Stochastic processes in quantum theory
Basic formulation (QFT, QED, SED)
Casimir effects
The nature of fundamental particles
The origin of inertia
The empty vacuum of older physics is today replaced by an active one in which virtual particles come into and go out of existence on timescales shorter than what would be inferred from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. A concrete proof of this is the measurement of the distance (or energy) dependence of the fine-structure "constant". This is explained by vacuum polarization, wherein the electric charge of a (real) particle is partially screened by those of other (virtual) particles. In general, the physics of the quantum vacuum is a rich if complex subject. Apart from explaining the origin of apparently stable particles, such as the electron, it is also necessary to explain how they acquire mass and inertia (the resistance to acceleration). A formal approach to the origin of particle mass can be made via the Higgs mechanism, which involves the breakdown of quantum symmetries. (Though there are restrictions: for example, vector particles cannot acquire mass from nothing because of gauge invariance.) A better understanding of the origin of inertia would lead to new insights into the laws of motion, perhaps with practical applications such as to spacecraft propulsion. The laws of the quantum vacuum are not completely understood, but certainly their manifestations are frequently stochastic. Fluctuations of vacuum fields are irregular, but their averaged effects can be calculated using quantum field theory (QFT). Within the rather broad scope of the latter term, calculations agree with observations to great accuracy in processes where electrons interact with photons, i.e. quantum electrodynamics (QED). The basic formulation of QFT as a theory of quantum electrodynamics can be extended also to the theory of the strong or nuclear interaction, where under the term quantum chromodynamics (QCD) it may be a subject for study in the future. Right now, probably the best-studied consequence of QFT as applied to electrodynamics comes from measurements of the Casimir effect. This effect, wherein parallel plates in apparently empty space experience a force of attraction, clearly shows that the quantum vacuum is not passive. Useful calculations can also be done in this subject using a semiclassical approach to the interactions of charged particles with an electromagnetic field known as stochastic electrodynamics (SED). One version of the latter envisages a zero-point electromagnetic field whose quanta buffet charged particles, producing a microscopic "buzzing" motion ("zitterbewegung"). Using the techniques of SED an intriguing new theoretical approach is suggesting a deep connection between electrodynamics, the origin of inertia and the quantum wave nature of matter.
The cosmological constant problem
Membrane, string and Kaluza-Klein theory
Large extra dimensions
Higher dimensions are not only the stuff of science fiction but the basis of intricate calculations which are moving steadily towards experimental test. Einstein and others showed that the world has (at least) 4 dimensions. In the general theory of relativity, a manifold consisting of space and time is curved by matter and other sources, including the cosmological constant. The latter is a parameter which can either be viewed as measuring an extra non-material force, or as measuring the energy density of the vacuum. Currently, data from astrophysics show that it is finite but very small. However, calculations based on particle physics (otherwise verified) imply that it should be very large. The mismatch is a trifling 10120 or so. This is the cosmological constant problem. There are in principle several different ways to resolve this conundrum, some of which are drastic. However, the one currently favoured is reasonable and elegant, even if somewhat surprising. If we imagine that the world has more than 4 dimensions, we find that the manifold breaks naturally into (4 + other) D, and that the 4D part acquires a small cosmological constant. This approach actually has a venerable history. Kaluza and Klein in 1921 and 1926 extended general relativity to 5D, as a means of unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Modern developments include 10D superstrings and 11D supergravity, theories which are based on general relativity but attempt to incorporate the interactions of particle physics. Divergences in the formulation of point particles can be avoided if they are viewed instead as strings, and the most recent and more generic approach to ND field theory is via membranes. Properties of the last are not yet fully worked out; but it is already known that 5D Kaluza-Klein theory (which can be viewed as the low-energy limit of even higher D theories) produces not only a small cosmological constant associated with the vacuum, but also acceptable real matter in 4D from empty space in 5D. It should also be mentioned that the prototype 5D theory is the simplest to incorporate a scalar field of the sort mentioned above as an energy source for inflation. Work on N=5, 10, 11... D theory is exciting. But there is a sobering question to be answered: Why do we not see the extra dimensions? Klein argued that they are rolled up or compactified to invisibly small sizes, an assumption which has been traditional in higher-dimensional field theory. However, that assumption leads to problems, and recently attention has focussed on another possibility: there could be large extra dimensions, but we would be unaware of them if for physical reasons we were constrained to a 4D hypersurface. An analogy is an ant walking about on the surface of a soccer ball, constrained to move in 2D and unaware of the 3rd dimension of depth. Calculations on large dimensions in ND field theory are underway with a view to experimental test, so what used to be science fiction may turn into science fact.
Science, by it's nature, looks for a one to one relationship between cause and effect, something that is entirely repeatable.
But it could never rule out the possibility of some kind of cause-effect relationship that is outside of that limited scope.
Broken symmetry sculpture at Fermi Lab
Vacuum Genesis
"Broken symmetry, a Robert Wilson sculpture that stands at the entrance to Fermi lab, expresses one of the beliefs of modern physics—that the universe may have begun in a state of perfect symmetry. The theories say that matter froze out of energy while the early universe was expanding and cooling. That form arose from formlessness, like ice crystals congealing in a freezing pond. The mathematical symmetries that the unified theories have exposed at the foundations of natural law are more subtle and complex than those of snowflakes, but their principle is the same; they imply that we live in a crystallized universe of broken symmetries."Perfect symmetry may be beautiful, but it is also sterile. Perfectly symmetrical space means nothingness. As soon as you introduce an object into that space you break the symmetry, creating a sense of location; there is a place where the object is, other places where it isn't, and out of that comes tumbling all the geometry of space as we know it. Perfectly symmetrical time means that nothing can happen. As soon as you have an event, then you break the symmetry, and time begins to flow in a given direction.
"We live in a universe that is full of objects and events and that means the universe is imperfect and the symmetries in the universe we live in are broken. It may even be that we owe the very origin of our universe to the imperfection of the breaking of the absolute symmetry of absolute emptiness. There is even a theory to this effect. It is called vacuum genesis and it suggests that the universe began as a single particle arising from an absolute vacuum. Curious as it may seem, this idea violates none of the known laws of physics.
"We've seen how virtual particles come into existence all the time from a vacuum and then fall back into non-existence. There appears to be no upper limit on the size and the longevity of the particles that can be created in this way. It's just possible that there might have been absolutely nothing out of which came a particle so potent that it could blossom into the entire universe. It's not very likely, but then it only had to happen once.
"Out of nothingness could have come the spark of genesis. As the universe expanded and cooled, darkness descended, then light dawned anew with the formation of the first stars. Each star is a nuclear furnace where matter is coaxed into releasing a little of the energy it inherited from the primordial fireball. Thanks to imperfection, to the fractured symmetry that produced differences among the particles and forces, atoms in their varieties could build themselves into molecules, and molecules arise up in alliance as life, and life give birth to thought, and thought produce theories about the creation of the universe."
[Narration by Timothy Ferris in the PBS production, Creation of the Universe]
YEC - read later
Thanks for the sculpture and narrative!
Ok, pal. I just read it -- and a finely flowing read it was! (once I got rid of work, the Presidential campaign, IL Senate candidates, North Korean misilles, bills, debating my liberal brother, Saddam's WMD distribution among the ME's, taking the dog out, etc. in my little head).
Well, it all fits so well that I'm prone to say, "Elementary, my dear Newton!" It's very nice to know that the finest known scientist in human history is holding up so well. But you and I know that he cheated -- he allowed himself to be informed in his heart.
As for the quantum/cosmological how to's, well, they seem to fit too, to the degree we can be (un)certain about such things.
Maybe I can jump in on some unsuspecting other's post, a bit later. As for now, I'd just underscore that it is critical to understand that fragile,* complex order must needs be maintained as well as designed. Even more important to understand is the dependency of relationship that Newton and you (did I get that order right? ;-) portray. If something is not connected by "communication" (what a word that is!) to the "other" upon which it depends, it is not alive. And ultimately, the whole stuff of life as we know it -- the whole complexity of voracious dancing Russian dolls of "self" things depending upon "other" things for life -- the cosmos itself is not exempt from this rule.
IOW: "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
I also found your bringing up the subject of specificity to be very significant. If you and IN are in the right (and you are) that would mean that God's communication with man is consistently one of specificity and not just some nebulous, conveniently puralistic, make-of-it-what-you-will kind of otherness to usness. And I just inferred another attribute you describe: that God is the initiator; not us. And that has to do with all of His communication with us, all of His shared "knowledge," from the acutely relational, "Biblical knowledge" on outward.
__________________________________________
* "fragile" - Why is it that we humans are so prone to speak of some kind of (disorderly?) development of ordered complexity, yet we are so prone to ignore the obvious 'quality' of fragility?
Pride, ya think?
And, since I have thought about it a bit more, I will add this:
There seem to be a few who comment on these threads who insist that even though something is not known, it is understandable.
I have thought about this for a great many years, and it was with great reluctance I finally admitted that there are things I could never understand.
There are things which are not known and are not understandable.
Certainly you both agree that there is at least one thing that is known but is not understandable:
Faith
regards,
djf
...and of course about that Other, we then communicate to each other:
"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
...and we are fed, so that we can live.
Philosophies about God are interesting. Maybe he is 51% good and 49% bad.
Still better than me, no doubt!
BUMP
No. Scientific investigation is much broader than that. Random causes need not be one-to-one and earthquakes are not entirely repeatable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.