Posted by Bob on 10/1/2007, 8:18 am, in reply to "Re: Scientifically discovered God" Consciousness as a derivative principle does seem unlikely to me, since there seems to be no known physical basis for what it is that we experience as consciousness. One theologian physicist likened the human condition to that of amphibians, saying that we live half in a physical world, and half in a spiritual realm, one which is not quantifiable with materialist physics. Add to consciousness, the perception of free will, and you have a truly revolutionary concept, a causative force in nature that has no dictating prior cause itself, and one which demonstrates intent and purpose. Either way, whether there is free will or not, physics is stymied. If the physicist has no free will, there is no true science, only atoms in the form of physicists drawing conclusions which they are forced to draw, and paradoxically, forced to draw by the very thing that they purport to study. Establishing that there is free will will open the boundaries of science. Establishing that we are helpless to do but as we do, will close off science. The ultimate irony might be an automaton (us), that knows that it is an automaton, and knows that it is helpless but to conclude that it is an automaton. The best proof of an axiom is to deny it, and to observe that the necessary result (of that denial) is an absurdity. We may not be able to prove that free will exists, but I think that we can prove that assuming its absence (in ourselves) produces nothing useful to us.
72.243.26.154
That's a moderate statement, and I have no significant argument against it. Much remains to be discovered.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread