Ut tunang arab dating sites us

Locke famously wrote that he "suspect[ed] that natural philosophy is not capable of being made a science" – words that many people today would find incomprehensible.

ut tunang-32

Therefore how can there be any meaningful interplay between physics and religion? All religions seek to provide insights into the deepest levels of reality, so it is almost inevitable that there will be some interplay between the truths of physics and the truths of religion.

But equally, they are addressing very different domains of discourse – religion necessarily involves persons and the relations between them, whereas physics seeks to be impersonal. In John’s book he explores some of the remarkable parallels: deep reality often turns out to be very different from what common sense would suggest.

If it were true that (for example) “your mind is completely determined by your brain” this would be an empirical fact.

But it seems logically impossible to devise an experiment that could demonstrate this. Lucas’s Theorem (due to John Lucas) proves that, if some human minds are capable, in principle, with the aid of a sufficiently powerful computer, of understanding a Gödel Proposition in any deterministic logical system, then at least those minds cannot be completely modeled by any deterministic logical system.

The proposition: (P1) that “anything that interacts with something physical must be physical” is clearly a physical position for which there can be no scientific evidence – unless it is used as a definition of the term “physical” which is admittedly tricky to define, but would then make the assertion vacuous. Minds have ideas, and it’s pretty clear that Minds are not, in themselves, physical.

Of course our mind is closely bound up with our brain, but the very fact that we can use such language shows that the mind and the brain are not logically identical.

(1) is indeed a difficult problem, and the basic answer is “nobody knows”. The whole of logical thought depends on the fact that there can be many different representations of the same proposition or idea, so it’s pretty clear that ideas are not physical.

However the fact that nobody knows how something happens doesn’t imply that it doesn’t happen: if it did Science, as we know it, would be impossible*. It is clear that mathematical constructs (like Fermat’s Last Theorem) are not physical, but many theorems have consequences in the physical world b. Yet it is also clear that ideas influence behaviour, and that the physical world can influence ideas. Insofar as we know anything, we know that we have a mind and that our mind can influence our behaviour, although the existence of other minds, like the existence of God, can not be “scientifically proven”.

But Dark Matter is subject to gravity – that’s how we deduce that it is there.

Therefore any abnormal increase in the density of Dark Matter (such as would be associated with a putative Dark Homo Sapiens) would presumably have measurable gravitational effects.

It must be true that certain brain functions are involved in belief in God (as indeed they are in belief in other minds or ability to do mathematics) and it may well be true that some people are genetically more likely to believe in God/other minds /do maths than others.

Tags: , ,