Application for a Nobel Prize?

[Divine Insight]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

[mgb]

Entropy is, on the simplest level, concerned with heat flow. For low entropy there must be a concentration of heat and a corresponding area of cold. As the heat flows from hot areas to cold areas that flow can be used to do work. Entropy has to do with the amount of work that potentially exists in a system. Where heat is in equilibrium there is high entropy and no work can be done.

It is obvious that, in the universe, there is not complete entropy because heat flow is available. So why do you say there is no heat flow in eternity? The universe exists in eternity and eternity gave rise to low entropy in time. So why can't there be intelligence? Everything that is happening is happening now, in God. So there is low entropy in God.

Entropy and disorder are not the same thing https://www.science20.com/train_thought ... rder-75081

[Divine Insight]

Time is not a construct of this universe. However, uni-directional time is. In other words, on a macro scale, because of the effects of entropy, things much change according to the law of entropy, thus giving "Macro Time" a uni-directional arrow.

You are speaking about time in the classical universe as opposed to quantum time.

That's almost correct. Yes, I am speaking of macro time as opposed to quantum time. But not necessarily "classical" time. I'm talking about time described by General Relativity. This is why I prefer to call it "macro" time rather than "Classical" time.

Classical time is a construct of the classical universe.

Classical time or "Newtonian time" was wrong. In classical physics classical time was the same everywhere in the universe. That notion turned out to be false. However, temporal behavior of the universe is a construct of the geometry of the universe. And is Einstein's General Relativity description of time which turns out to be true.

It (time) is not defined by heat flow or entropy; it is a geometric construct.

But the geometric constructs of this universe are ultimately defined by heat flow and entropy. This is why the universe will ultimately have a heat death and time will eventually run out.

Broadly speaking, the arrow of time points in the direction of entropy but that does not mean entropy determines the structure of time. They are both moving in the same direction but this does not mean entropy defines classical time.

Entropy ultimately determines that fate of macro time, and the structure of the universe. Or you might say that entropy is the recognition that the structure of the universe will ultimately end in a heat death. In other words, entropy isn't a "thing". Entropy is simply the observation that the structure of the universe will ultimately smooth out and time (being a product of the structure of the universe) will also then come to an end.

Entropy and disorder are not the same thing

I never said they were. In fact, I actually disagree with that idea. Our notion of "order" is totally arbitrary.

Let's say we have a glass containing two different colors of water. In the beginning the two colors are completely separated. As time passes the two colors eventually mix together resulting in the glass ending up containing one single color.

Which condition is more "well-ordered"? As far as I can see it's entirely a matter of personal subjective opinion.

Some people might say that the two separate colors were the more orderly state. While other people might say that when the entire glass contains a single color, that condition is more orderly.

So the whole notion of order and disorder is open to subjective opinion. Actually in the case of a glass of water containing two different colors of water no work can be extracted in either case. So from a thermodynamics perspective this situation cannot produce any useful work anyway.

I actually disagree with the famous Boltzman's definition of entropy. I prefer the original definition of a path integral. I think the path integral conveys the true meaning of entropy.

Because recall, even you said that time caused by the structure of the universe.

It (time) is not defined by heat flow or entropy; it is a geometric construct.

That's correct according to General Relativity (not Classical Physics).

And the reason entropy exists at all, is because the geometry of the universe is ultimately deteriorating (i.e. become less well structured). In fact, you can actually say that this is the cause of entropy. The universe isn't obeying a law of entropy. Entropy is simply the observation that the geometry of the universe must ultimately deteriorate.

This process is best described by path integrals.

~~~~~

On a side note. Boltzman's definition of entropy appears to also be a correct observation of the behavior of the universe in general. In other words, time not only runs down due to the deterioration of large scale structures, but large numbers of individual things, such as pigment molecules will also tend to mix together over time due to statistical consequences. But this is only true when those objects are free to move around randomly. Obviously if the pigments are cast in concrete then will not mix together over time. At least not until the concrete itself has broken down. But in this latter case it's the "structure" that is breaking down. And when the structure breaks down that's a one-way event that leads to a universe that ends up with no structure.

And since structure is required for intelligence, intelligence itself must ultimately deteriorate and come to an end. So intelligence eventually ends because intelligence is dependent upon structure and structure dissipates over time.

~~~~~~~

What about quantum time?

In the quantum world there is entropy. In other words, there is no large scale structure to break down or dissipate. So quantum time can be eternal. In other words, there can be eternal changes of state in the quantum world that can continue dynamically changing forever. There is no macro structure to run down or dissipate.

But at the same time there can be no intelligence in the quantum domain because intelligence requires large scale structure. So while the quantum world can be eternal (endlessly dynamic) it cannot be intelligent.

So my point is that you can either have eternal time (quantum dynamics) or you can have intelligence (large scale organization), but you can't have both of these things existing simultaneously.

Therefore there cannot be any such thing as an eternally intelligent God.

~~~~~~

Having said this, some forms of Pantheism can be true.

In some forms of Pantheism the idea is that the quantum domain is God (although they didn't know about the quantum domain when they invented Pantheism). They see the quantum domain as God "Sleeping". God is not dreaming, he's not thinking, he's not doing anything other than being in a state of pure existence. They call this state a state of "Pure Bliss". And God does not even have any thoughts when in this state.

Then God "wakes up" (this would be what we call the Big Bang). And takes the form of a macro universe. Eventually God becomes conscious and intelligent in this state. In other words, God becomes us. This is Pantheism. We are God experiencing the macro world.

In Pantheism this state last for a very long time (the entire length of the existence of the physical universe). At the end of that time God returns to the state of pure bliss where there are no thoughts, no ideas, no intelligence.

And then the whole process repeats endlessly.

They kind of God can exist.

But that's clearly not the God of Christianity.

In fact, the Pantheistic kind of "God" is actually compatible with secular atheism. The atheists would simply say, "Why call it God?" That's just an unnecessary label for something that naturally keeps reoccurring.

[mgb]

Classical time or "Newtonian time" was wrong. In classical physics classical time was the same everywhere in the universe. That notion turned out to be false. However, temporal behavior of the universe is a construct of the geometry of the universe. And is Einstein's General Relativity description of time which turns out to be true.

General Relativity is part of classical physics.

But the geometric constructs of this universe are ultimately defined by heat flow and entropy.

No, they are defined by the properties of matter. Heat flow may influence classical structures but I don't see that it defines them. I don't see how heat flow can define the geometry of the universe. This geometry is contingent, in the way that matter is contingent; that is, there is no obvious reason why it could not be otherwise. But it is precisely what it is and its precision is sometimes called The Fine Tuning argumet. It, arguably, could have been otherwise, but it is what it is. This is why it is contingent.

And the reason entropy exists at all, is because the geometry of the universe is ultimately deteriorating (i.e. become less well structured).

Reverse that (deterioration is a result of entropy.)

In the quantum world there is entropy. In other words, there is no large scale structure to break down or dissipate. So quantum time can be eternal. In other words, there can be eternal changes of state in the quantum world that can continue dynamically changing forever. There is no macro structure to run down or dissipate.

If there are changes why can't there be intelligence?

But at the same time there can be no intelligence in the quantum domain because intelligence requires large scale structure.

Why? Intelligence can be in terms of pure consciousness. Besides, quantum is not necessarily 'small'. It is only small when measured with a classical ruler.

Then God "wakes up" (this would be what we call the Big Bang). And takes the form of a macro universe. Eventually God becomes conscious and intelligent in this state. In other words, God becomes us. This is Pantheism. We are God experiencing the macro world.

In Pantheism this state last for a very long time (the entire length of the existence of the physical universe). At the end of that time God returns to the state of pure bliss where there are no thoughts, no ideas, no intelligence.

But why could God not have a memory of what happens in time? Or before time for that matter? You are equating intelligence with classical constructs, but I have no reason to believe that intelligence cannot exist outside material constructs. All that is needed is mind and knowledge. If God's mind is filled with abstract mathematical knowledge that can be the basis for intelligence.

[Divine Insight]

Classical time or "Newtonian time" was wrong. In classical physics classical time was the same everywhere in the universe. That notion turned out to be false. However, temporal behavior of the universe is a construct of the geometry of the universe. And is Einstein's General Relativity description of time which turns out to be true.

General Relativity is part of classical physics.

No, it is not.

It's true that General Relativity is part of a "pre-quantum" physics. But it is not true that General Relativity is part of Classical Physics. In Classical physics time and space where see as being totally independent from each other, and time was also assumed to flow at the same rate for everyone in the universe. In General Relativity all that has changed.

So, no Modern Physics based on Relativity is not the same as Classical Physics.

But the geometric constructs of this universe are ultimately defined by heat flow and entropy.

No, they are defined by the properties of matter. Heat flow may influence classical structures but I don't see that it defines them. I don't see how heat flow can define the geometry of the universe. This geometry is contingent, in the way that matter is contingent; that is, there is no obvious reason why it could not be otherwise. But it is precisely what it is and its precision is sometimes called The Fine Tuning argumet. It, arguably, could have been otherwise, but it is what it is. This is why it is contingent.

Heat flow, is actually the flow of kinetic energy. And the flow of kinetic energy requires that geometry ultimately must change. So heat flow is a change in the geometry of the fabric of spacetime.

It also may very well turn out that what appears to have been "fine tuned" to us could really be no other way.

Think of it like a balloon filled with air. If you look at this balloon you'll notice that the tension in the fabric of the balloon must necessarily be precisely "finely tuned" in order to hold the balloon up against the pressure of the atmosphere. The balloon is neither expanding or contracting. The tension in the fabric of the balloon is PRECISELY FINELY TUNED to keep the balloon in a steady state.

Now let some air out of the balloon, and then plug it up again. Now what do you have? Now you have a balloon that has "magically" been perfectly finely tuned to have precisely the correct tension in the fabric of the balloon to now hold in it's current state. A different tension, but still "finely tuned" to produce the very same result.

This occurs no matter how much air you leave out of the balloon or put into it (assuming you don't blow it up so hard that it bursts) .

So what does this tell you? It should tell you that "finely tuned" conditions necessarily exist everywhere in the universe. It's simply unavoidable. Things are going to do whatever they have to do. And when they arrive at a final state of equilibrium that's the state where they are "fine-tuned". They simply cannot do anything other than this.

Our universe is most likely doing precisely the same thing. It's not that it was finally tuned to be the way it is. It's simply that, like a balloon, it falls into the only state of equilibrium that it can. There simply is no other state of equilibrium to fall into. Just like the tension in the walls of a balloon.

You don't look at a balloon and say, "Oh my! There must be a God holding the walls of the balloon in a perfectly finely-tuned state of tension to keep the balloon inflated at a given size under a given pressure." You wouldn't even think to say that. It's obvious that the "fine-tuning" is simply a result of the only thing the balloon can do.

And the reason entropy exists at all, is because the geometry of the universe is ultimately deteriorating (i.e. become less well structured).

Reverse that (deterioration is a result of entropy.)

You can look at it either way you want. You can pretend that there is a magical law of entropy that the universe must "obey". Or you can recognize that entropy is nothing more than a term invented by humans to describe the observation that the geometry of the universe is ultimately not static and must necessarily decay. Producing "time" as it does so.

In the quantum world there is entropy. In other words, there is no large scale structure to break down or dissipate. So quantum time can be eternal. In other words, there can be eternal changes of state in the quantum world that can continue dynamically changing forever. There is no macro structure to run down or dissipate.

If there are changes why can't there be intelligence?

Well for one thing, intelligence cannot exist without memory. And memory requires entropy. So that pretty much seals the deal right there.

But at the same time there can be no intelligence in the quantum domain because intelligence requires large scale structure.

Why? Intelligence can be in terms of pure consciousness. Besides, quantum is not necessarily 'small'. It is only small when measured with a classical ruler.

You are right about size. Size is all relative and for this reason size is pretty meaningless.

When I said "large scale structure" of the universe, I wasn't really referring to size in terms of "geometric dimensions", I'm referring to the large number of individual non-quantum entities. This gives the macro world it's "non-quantum" behavior and allows intelligence to evolve. Memory, and thus intelligence, is then possible.

A condition that was not possible in the quantum state.

Then God "wakes up" (this would be what we call the Big Bang). And takes the form of a macro universe. Eventually God becomes conscious and intelligent in this state. In other words, God becomes us. This is Pantheism. We are God experiencing the macro world.

In Pantheism this state last for a very long time (the entire length of the existence of the physical universe). At the end of that time God returns to the state of pure bliss where there are no thoughts, no ideas, no intelligence.

But why could God not have a memory of what happens in time? Or before time for that matter? You are equating intelligence with classical constructs, but I have no reason to believe that intelligence cannot exist outside material constructs. All that is needed is mind and knowledge. If God's mind is filled with abstract mathematical knowledge that can be the basis for intelligence.

And I have no reason to believe that a mind can exist outside of material constructs. Where is there any evidence for that other than a mere desire for it to be true?

Wishing that it could be true and having good reasons to believe it's true are two entirely different things.

[mgb]

And I have no reason to believe that a mind can exist outside of material constructs. Where is there any evidence for that other than a mere desire for it to be true?

There is as much evidence for non material mind as there is for material mind. Much evidence needs to be interpreted and it is not a question of evidence, it is a question of how evidence is interpreted.

People who imagine the mind emerges from the brain are committing a scientific fallacy; Correlation is not causation. Just because the brain is correlated with mind does not mean the brain causes, or is the source, of mind. Here is a simple analogy;-

Suppose someone is typing an intelligent piece of text. It is possible to correlate the emergence of the text on screen with the movements of the typist's fingers; rational statements are correlated with intricate finger positions. This correlation could be worked out in great detaill. But it would be a mistake to confuse this correlation with causation and conclude that the fingers are the source of the intelligence in the text: that fingers create intelligence.

Likewise with the brain; there is correlation between the brain and mind but we cannot deduce from this that the brain causes mind, no more than we can conclude that fingers cause mind.

Sheldrake gives the example of a television set; sound and images are intimately correlated with the components of the television but that does not mean that the sound, vision and meaning in the film are produced by the components of the television; they are, in reality, broadcast from a remote broadcasting station. The television only process information, it does not create it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causation

It also may very well turn out that what appears to have been "fine tuned" to us could really be no other way.

These parameters are contingent; that is, there is no logical reason why they must be what they are. They could have been otherwise but other paramaters are statistically likely to create a relatively simple univers or none at all. But if they must be the way they are why must they? The universe 'must' be fine tuned so that the creative potential of matter is optimised? If that is so, why?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 83 by mgb]

There is as much evidence for non material mind as there is for material mind.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? What evidence is there for a non material mind? I understand that a lot of people think in those terms, but there is virtually no evidence to support it. On the other hand, the evidence that the brain is the source of "mind" is not a simple correlation/causation argument but far more substantiated. If the brain is destroyed then so is consciousness / mind. A great deal is known now about how different physical parts of the brain relate to specific cognitive functions. The conclusion that the brain is the source of "mind" is based on a tremendous amount of observation and research into how the brain actually works.

If there were any evidence whatsoever that "mind" is not an emergent property of the brain then this type of argument could be debated along with the obvious conclusion (from observations) that it is. But lacking any such evidence, why venture into such arbitrary and unsupported explanations? They are not necessary to explain observations, and don't seem to have any basis in reality.

[Divine Insight]

Likewise with the brain; there is correlation between the brain and mind but we cannot deduce from this that the brain causes mind, no more than we can conclude that fingers cause mind.

What an absurd argument.

Cut the fingers off and incinerate them. Is a mind left behind? Yep.

Cut the brain out and incinerate it. Is a mind left behind? Nope.

So your argument doesn't even make any sense.

Sheldrake gives the example of a television set; sound and images are intimately correlated with the components of the television but that does not mean that the sound, vision and meaning in the film are produced by the components of the television; they are, in reality, broadcast from a remote broadcasting station. The television only process information, it does not create it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causation

That's fine. But where is your evidence that the brain is functioning like a television set?

You need to jump to the totally unwarranted conclusion that human bodies are nothing more than remote controlled biological robots being controlled by totally imaginary entities that exist somewhere else for which there is absolutely no evidence for.

Also, if the biological human robotic bodies were being remotely controlled by the minds of conscious beings in some other location, then why wouldn't those minds be fully aware of their situation? Now you need to head down an endless road of apologetics for why the minds that control mindless human bodies have no clue that this is what they are even doing.

It becomes an infinite regression of apologetics for this type of argument.

It also may very well turn out that what appears to have been "fine tuned" to us could really be no other way.

These parameters are contingent; that is, there is no logical reason why they must be what they are. They could have been otherwise but other paramaters are statistically likely to create a relatively simple univers or none at all. But if they must be the way they are why must they? The universe 'must' be fine tuned so that the creative potential of matter is optimised? If that is so, why?

You don't know that. You can't say that there is no logical reason why things are the way they are when you have no clue what causes them to be the way they are.

You are making unwarranted arguments apparently in an attempt to jump to a conclusion that you would prefer to jump to.

[mgb]

If the brain is destroyed then so is consciousness / mind.

How do you know that? It is no longer connected to the physical world, that is all.

If the brain is destroyed then so is consciousness / mind.

The tv set was used to illustrate the mistake of taking correlation to be causation. All science has shown is that thoughts are correlated with brain activity, no scientist has been able to show that the brain is the source of thought. Only by insisting that correlation is causation can the argument be bolstered. But that's not playing by the rules...

Also, if the biological human robotic bodies were being remotely controlled by the minds of conscious beings in some other location, then why wouldn't those minds be fully aware of their situation? Now you need to head down an endless road of apologetics for why the minds that control mindless human bodies have no clue that this is what they are even doing.

The human being can eventually become aware that it is a mind and that the source of this physical world is beyond this world. In science they have discovered that the source of the (macroscopic) material world is outside the material world, in quantum spacetime. Likewise with the human world, it does not contain the explanation for itself. If it did why has science not discovered this? You may say it has or will but I disagree...

You don't know that. You can't say that there is no logical reason why things are the way they are when you have no clue what causes them to be the way they are.

You are making unwarranted arguments apparently in an attempt to jump to a conclusion that you would prefer to jump to.

What I mean is that there is no logical reason we can articulate, why things are as they are and there is no logical argument that says they could not have been otherwise. This is what it means to say a thing is contingent; if it could have been otherwise, what is making it what it is?

[mgb]

What evidence is there for a non material mind? I understand that a lot of people think in those terms, but there is virtually no evidence to support it.

There are problems with the concept of 'evidence for'. The simplest definition of evidence is a body of data, facts and articles that is to be examined. In this respect evidence does not explain itself, it must be interpreted. With these questions everything in reality is evidence; every cubic centimeter of space, every dust mote, every galaxy...all of it is evidence of something.

Evidence for what? That depends on who is assessing the evidence because "evidence for" is subjective. It is in the understanding of the individual's mind. Out there, in reality, there is a whole universe of evidence, but 'evidence for' is in the understanding.

So it does not mean anything to say 'there is no evidence for'. That is just continually begging the question: what is the evidence for?

Two different individuals can look at the same body of evidence (facts) and arrive at different conclusions. So when you say 'there is no evidence for' I disagree; I am looking at the evidence and I conclude that non material mind exists. Someone else might not.

Bertrand Russell said 'there is not enough evidence for God's existence'. But that is not the way to say it. There is No 'evidence for' ANYTHING, out there in reality. There is only evidence. Evidence is mute, it takes a human mind to understand what is means.

The real issue here is not evidence - because there is a whole universe of it - the real issue here is now best to explain this evidence and I believe a non material mind best explains it.

[Divine Insight]

The human being can eventually become aware that it is a mind and that the source of this physical world is beyond this world. In science they have discovered that the source of the (macroscopic) material world is outside the material world, in quantum spacetime. Likewise with the human world, it does not contain the explanation for itself. If it did why has science not discovered this? You may say it has or will but I disagree...

You say that "It does not contain the explanation for itself."

The problem is that your proposals don't contain an explanation for themselves either.

What would be the explanation for non-material mind that can magically create a physical world and then explore it using evolved biological robotic humans? Not only this, but then how many of these proposed non-physical minds would their need to be?

Just one? If there's only one non-physical mind. Then every human is just a empty shell of a biological robot being controlled by a single non-physical mental entity.

Are their infinitely many non-physical minds? And if so how does that work? You complain that scientists don't have an explanation for how a physical brain can produce a mind yet you have absolutely no explanation for your fantasies either.

I think that scientists have the better argument here.

You complain that scientists don't yet have an explanation for their conclusions. But you are in a far worse position. Not only do you not have an explanation for your conclusions, but you don't even have an idea of how that could possibly work.

What I mean is that there is no logical reason we can articulate, why things are as they are and there is no logical argument that says they could not have been otherwise. This is what it means to say a thing is contingent; if it could have been otherwise, what is making it what it is?

That's the question that scientists are exploring.

What you are proposing is that scientists just give up and toss their hands in the air like you are doing and proclaim that it must be an non-physical pink dust bunny doing it!

And yes, I know that you prefer to call the non-physical pink dust bunny "God" thinking that giving it this label demands some sort of reverence or respect. But that really doesn't shore up your arbitrary guesses at all.

You are far beneath the scientists on this one. There methods have proven to be successful. And the method your are using (pure guessing) had been proven to be quite unproductive and leads to false conclusions far more often than not.

So you are arguing for a proven losing strategy for trying to discover truth.