Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

241 Excellent


About siegi91

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Music, Philosophy, Soccer and Reading (a lot).

Recent Profile Visitors

1,915 profile views
  1. siegi91

    Creation using Evolution

    Since honesty, heroism, equality, liberty, etc. are emerging properties of brains, I do not see why they could not be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. What makes you so sure that they will not ultimately be shown on a brain scan? For instance, we know long term romantic love is a natural adaptation for our social species whose offsprings need a long time to become independent and therefore need stable parents. So, "til death set us apart" is mainly a biological imperative. So why not the others? siegi
  2. siegi91

    Creation using Evolution

    I am sorry shiloh. I cannot possible take this hypothetical existence which is immune form physics seriously. I wish I could, but I cannot. And believe me. It is not because I have an agenda, or I like it somehow. No, I would vastly prefer that me and my loved ones have a spirit that transcend the brutal laws of nature. I would love it if we had an immortal soul. I would love it to see my mother again when I die. But I cannot believe that. The evidence leads me towards a totally naturalistic explanation for mental processes. Ergo, for a total naturalistic explanation for what we really are. And to the conclusion that when that kilogram of matter in our skull ceases functioning, then we are no more. siegi
  3. siegi91

    Creation using Evolution

    Everything is subject to physics. Unless you beg the question, by assuming extra physical agencies. See how easy it is to affect human behavior by ingesting a few shots of very physical Vodka. Or see how easy it is to become a completely different person when the brain is eaten up by physically induced things like dementia. I think that is plenty of evidence for the physical nature of all our perceptions, feelings, fears, love, memories, etc. We are what our brain computes. Nothing more, nothing less. siegi
  4. siegi91

    Creation using Evolution

    Well, what you say conflicts with the most basic physical theories. For the deterministic and reversible nature of physical laws is one of the most fundamental ones we know. However, since you believe the Universe is a few thousands years old, then I am not sure how to start debating issues at this level with you. It would be like discussing about differential topology with someone who ignores basic trigonometry. siegi
  5. Typical? Are all your proofs of anything your own work? But since all those people were born before me, then they had an advantage. And their work has been proven and passed several tests. Hawking challenged it and he lost, by his own admission. Just check the results of the so-called black hole war, to get more information about Hawking challenge to the conservation of information in the Universe. Unless you are better than him and see a flaw in the unitary form of physical law. Which is? I am ready to discuss it with you if you are unconvinced by that. Is that a problem with the characteristics of the operators? Or with the topological structure of phase space? Or with a physical phenomena that breaks symmetry? What is it? I cannot debate until you tell me where the possible flaw is... siegi
  6. That is an interesting subject. However, it is a difficult one. It is not really difficult per se, but the problem is that we cannot fully rely on our natural cognitive tools (e.g. intuition). They are tuned for survival and therefore only for a limited spectrum of reality, namely the part which is useful to survive the day (middle sized objects, middle sized speeds, etc). Beyond that spectrum they do not work, and we are forced to delegate to math. First off, information is physical. Yes, I was also surprised. Information looks like something very abstract that cannot be really grasped. But it is physical. It can be measured in bits, or energy/temperature units if we want. And like all physical measurables, it can stay constant. And that is the case in our Universe. We cannot possibly introduce novelty or remove information. Which means, our Universe is deterministic and reversible. At least, according to what Susskind would call the -1 principle of physics (-1 because it is more fundamental than all others). Which is cool. That entails that me writing this post was in principle deducible from the status of the Universe millions of years before my existence. My first recommendation to get an update in modern physics is to attend the online courses of Pr. Susskind @ Stanford (the theoretical minimum). You need linear algebra and calculus (one variable, multiple variables and some complex analysis) in order to follow. Things like tensor analysis and differential geometry are worked out during the course. siegi
  7. siegi91

    Creation using Evolution

    Well, it does matter to me because that ca 1000 grams of grey/white blob in its skull that computes things make it very real. And there is nothing I (it) can do about it. I am also very upset when I hear reports of rape, violence, injustice, etc. However, that is the brain doing that. I see no reason to promote my biological responses to anything metaphysical and universal for which there is no evidence. Like pain. I believe there is not such a thing like an objective and universal pain that goes beyond our biology. Nevertheless, it hurts. And about the pizza. How did I feel in the mood for pizza? Suppose it is not pre-determined. Where does it come from? Is it a random fluctuation in my brain states that is not reducible to any prior event? So what? Am I still accountable for breaking my diet because the event was random instead of being predetermined? And if it is neither determined nor random, what is it? Something that begins to exist without any explanation at all? siegi
  8. siegi91

    Creation using Evolution

    Yes, and? Moral accountability is a tool that we probably evolved to stabilize populations. It does not need to have any metaphysical value. The same with remorse, anger, revenge, feelings of retaliation, need for justice, etc, are, in my opinion, evolutionary traits that have been probably selected for survival. I would expect that without them, our species will become very unstable. So, the sense of "sin", or of what is right or wrong, we developed, is probably mainly a wiring of neurons in a certain way in order to favor the long term survival of our genes, and has therefore no other extra biological meaning, independently from how strong we feel it when we experience it psychologically. However, if you think about it, even if the decisions were not determined, they must come from somewhere. There must be a chain of causality that leads to that first decision of mine to, say, eat pizza today. Or do you think that it popped out without a cause? Siegi
  9. I told you, the fundamental equations are are based on unitary operators (for instance, the Hamiltonian). That is, their complex conjugation (adjoint) is equal to the group inverse. Which means, all transformation operations acting on any state of the Universe to give another state of the Universe, preserve information. I am surprised you did not know that. Good news is: if you can find a counter example to this, you will become very famous. I hope you indulge me if I will not hold my breath, though And if this was a Christian only section of Worthy, I would not have been able to post. Which entails, it is not a Christian only section of Worthy. siegi
  10. You do not dispute gravity because it has no theological importance. And again, science is not subject to taste or vote. So, evolution is accepted because of the evidence and not because of other reasons. Intelligent design? Even if there were a design, I would not venture in calling it intelligent. I cannot imagine a designer designing a lion so that he can beat his design of an antelope, or viceversa. Seems totally pointless. Like playing chess against yourself. siegi
  11. Well, the problem is, as usual, that facts are not subject to personal choice. Nor democratic vote. I cannot choose that gravity does not exist. Or submit that to the Landtag. They are facts. Like evolution. I can close my ears and scream LAHALALA, but the fact will not go away. I am afraid. siegi
  12. Well, the scientific explanation does not say anything like that. It says that we and chimps split from a common ancestor about 6 millions years ago. It also says that we and pigs, rats, carrots, fungi and tree derive from a common ancestor. By the way, 99% of all species that walked the earth are now extinct. Would you qualify that as natural order? Gruss siegi
  13. I don't know if we look like hairless gorillas. But I think it is self evident that we have a striking similarity with other primates. I feel that for chimps and gorillas while I feel nothing for spiders or beetles. But why? If I were so special, I would expect to feel the same for spiders as I feel for apes or other mammals. The scientific explanation is simple: we and chimps have a recent common ancestor and that is why we are so similar. Do you have a similar theological explanation for the fact that we are so similar? siegi
  14. it depends on your level of sophistication in theoretical physics. Which is? Depending on the answer, I will adapt my explanation to your level. Promised. For instance, do unitarian operators in Hilbert spaces mean anything to you? If they do, then you should see it immediately from the form of the Hamiltonian as it intervenes in the Schroedinger equation. If not, please tell me what parts of the theory seem to present not unitarian characteristics, and I will be happy to discuss them with you. I mean, the latest challenge to the constancy of the total information in the Universe has been lost by S. Hawking after a few decades of fight (the so called black holes war), so I would be thrilled if you had an argument that would reopen the battle. siegi
  15. Are you telling us that He made us look like apes so that we could still have some doubts that enable free will decision? Cool idea. I agree that if we would look so much different and superior from anything else, then our divine origin might be too obvious. However, looking like a hairless gorilla will still raise some doubts that enable free will decision. Don't you think there is a much simpler explanation to this puzzle? siegi