- Φυσιοκρατία, Ιδεαλισμός και Χριστιανισμός - .-= ΜΥΘΟΣ & ΘΡΗΣΚΕΙΑ =-.

Τώρα που το σκέφτομαι είναι αστεία η λέξη software, αφού αν μιλάμε για κάτι άυλο δεν ειναι καν "απαλό" σε αντιδιαστολή με το σκληρό - hardware.

Αλλά η σκέψη σου είναι καλή, πες περισσότερα αν είναι δυνατόν.

Εγώ πάντως εννοώντας ότι δεν είναι δυνατή η σύνδεση του άυλου με το υλικό, εννοώ πως το άυλο δεν αποτελείται από ύλη έτσι ώστε να είναι δυνατή με φυσικό τρόπο η σύνδεσή του με κάτι άλλο. Δεν είναι δηλαδή το άυλο ένα ακόμα κομμάτι - επέκταση.

Πιστεύω και η θρησκευτική σκέψη έχει δυστυχώς υλοποιήσει το πραγματικό εγώ, φανταζόμαστε δηλαδή το πνεύμα ως "αέρας", ως κάτι με εκτυφλωτικό φως, ως κάτι που καταλαμβάνει συγκεκριμένο χώρο με συγκεκριμένη μορφή και όχι ως κάτι άπειρο. Στην αρχή το έκανε για να καλύψει τις ανάγκες αναπαράστασης του αοράτου, όμως σιγά σιγά αυτό περνάει στο υποσυνείδητο και έτσι φανταζόμαστε τον Θεό ή τους Θεούς πως έχουν μια συγκεκριμένη μορφή από την οποία δεν μπορούν να ξεφύγουν.

Φίλε σε ενδιαφέρει η διερεύνηση του θέματος ή απλώς παίρνεις το μέρος της σύγχρονης υλιστικής επιστήμης κατά του Χριστιανισμού και του ιδεαλισμού?

Γράφεις κάποια ενδιαφέροντα πράγματα σε υποστήριξη της μυστικιστικής ύλης, αλλά με ύφος τσατισμένο.

Το "κβαντικό κενό" για μένα είναι μια αντιφατική και παράλογη καταστροφή της κλασικής έννοιας του κενού που δίνει η "επιστήμη" , στην προσπάθειά της να πείσει πως η ύλη έρχεται από το πουθενά χωρίς να υπάρχει δημιουργός.

Φυσικά ως υπέρμαχος της ελληνικής και εχθρός της αγγλικής γλώσσας των Μαρτύρων του Ιεχωβά και των Μορμόνων δημιουργιστών δεν θα το διαβάσεις.

Does a quantum fluctuation solve the problem?

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:
… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.16

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’ Also, theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. So this is another equivocation.

However, Krauss is still resorting to these fallacies, as Luke Barnes points out, explaining in more detail how the term ‘nothing’ is misused:
Now let’s look at Krauss’ claims again. Does it make sense to say that there are different types of not anything? That not anything is not stable? This is bollocks. What Krauss is really talking about is the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum is a type of something. It has properties. It has energy, it fluctuates, it can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, it obeys the (highly non-trivial) equations of quantum field theory. We can describe it. We can calculate, predict and falsify its properties. The quantum vacuum is not nothing.
This suggests a very simple test for those who wish to talk about nothing: if what you are talking about has properties, then it is not nothing. It is pure equivocation to refer to the quantum vacuum as nothing when a philosopher starts asking the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”. She is not asking “why are there particles rather than just a quantum vacuum?”. She is asking “why does anything exist at all?”. As Stephen Hawking once asked, why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
We can now see that this question cannot be answered by any of the methods we normally call scientific. Scientific theories are necessarily theories of something, some physical reality. Equations describe properties, and thus describe something. There cannot be equations that describe not-anything. Write down any equation you like—you will not be able to deduce from that equation that the thing that it describes must exist in the real world. Existence is not a predicate, as Kant memorably explained.17

The fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.—Physicist and philosopher David Albert

Barnes’ objections to Krauss’s equivocations are shared by philosopher David Albert, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, NY, who also has a doctorate in theoretical physics. He reviewed Krauss’s book critically in the New York Times, not known for friendliness to orthodox Christianity:
Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. …
Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument—or thinks he does—that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.
But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields—what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.18

Krauss’s is just the latest in a series of philosophically inept books by the soi-disant ‘new atheists’. It’s hard to disagree with the Thomist19 philosopher Edward Feser, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College:
The spate of bad books on philosophy and religion by prominent scientists … is notable not only for the sophomoric philosophical and theological errors they contain but also for their sheer repetitiveness. Krauss’ fallacious account of how something can come from nothing, … is largely a rehash of ideas already put forward by Hawking, Mlodinow, and some less eminent physics popularizers.—Philosopher Edward Feser

The spate of bad books on philosophy and religion by prominent scientists—Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Hawking and Mlodinow’s The Grand Design, and Atkins’ On Being, among others—is notable not only for the sophomoric philosophical and theological errors they contain but also for their sheer repetitiveness. Krauss’ fallacious account of how something can come from nothing, though presented as a great breakthrough, and praised as such by Dawkins in his afterword, is largely a rehash of ideas already put forward by Hawking, Mlodinow, and some less eminent physics popularizers. Dawkins has been peddling the “Who created the creator?” meme since the eighties.
Critics have exposed their errors and fallacies again and again. Yet these writers keep repeating them anyway, for the most part simply ignoring the critics. What accounts for this? To paraphrase a famous remark of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s, I would suggest that a picture holds these thinkers captive, a picture of the quantitative methods of modern science that have made possible breathtaking predictive and technological successes.20