The Inner Ring

[jesusfreak]

The quantum theory seems to imply that there is an aspect of causality that operates backwards in time.  One possible explanation of such behavior of subatomic particles is to suppose that they have some form of intelligence in deciding what they will do in order to accomplish a given goal.  This possibility seems to complicate the question of what we mean by an inanimate object.

ummmmm, quantum theory - the stuff headaches are made of

In my opinion, modern quantum physics places too much emphasis upon intrinsic properties, with little consideration of those extrinsic.  I feel that this lack will be found to be a fundamental flaw in our approach.  Too often, important relational data is abstracted away - For example, a Volkswagon in Miami is considered to be "the same" as a Volkswagon in Chicago, even though they occupy very different positions relative to the rest of the material world.  Thus we "abstract away" spatial translations to help classify and identify objects.

Similarly we tend to "abstract away" differences in orientation as well as differences in velocity (both translational and angular).  Anyway, I think this passed over data needs to be addressed before moving on to the intellegence of particles, but just my opinion  


--
lucas

[Oscar]

I once had a physicist tell me that virtual particles move backward in time.  But a few weeks later he told me he had been mistaken.

He must not have been much of a physisist to say something like that.  Particles moving backwards in time are anti-particles or vice-versa, depending on how you want to look at it.  Virtual particles aren't really virtual.  Intermediate particles in interactions that are not actually observed are called virtual.  Since observation changes the outcome of an experiment, the particles that are not observed are considered unobservable.  An attempt to observe them would change things so that you would not see what the unobserved particles were doing.  Equations that describe the outcomes of experiments have to take into account all of the possible combinations of intermediate events even though only one of the possibilities actually happens.  The reason for this has to do with the way the particles themselves choose their behavior based on the list of possibilities available to them.  This choice of behavior is also cooperative with what other particles will do.

Which particles are you referring to?

All fundamental particles follow the same basic scheme of things with some variations of the details.  The one interaction that is most relevant to most of everyday physics is the interaction in which an electron changes trajectory absorbing or emitting a photon.  When I say trajectory, that also is a macro scale phenonenon.  Electron and photon trajectories are the result of many virtual interactions that keep them on their course.  If we could observe them without interfering with them, we would see that they actually travel a jagged path that approximates a straight line.  In fact, the farther a particle goes, the more likely that it will be replaced along the way by a different particle as in a relay race.  The way the mathematics works is that an interaction is like a puzzle piece that has to fit together with other interactions in a coherent way.  An interaction that doesn't fit doesn't happen, and if it only fits with difficulty, then its probability is less.  An interaction must fit both past and future.

My physicist friend had earned his Ph.d. in physics in the 1960's, but had been teaching computer science from the early 80's on.  Maybe he wasn't up to date.

Another physicist I know told me that in large numbers quantum objects follow the laws of statistical probability, and therefore behave virtually deterministically.  The example she gave was a podium.

BTW, you were already a science whiz kid when I met you just after you had left high school.  Did you continue with your education post-assembly?  I can remember you doing calculus homework while you lived with us on Andasol.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

I really appreciate the conversation below. It really stirs the intellect. Sure wish I understood it. Well, got to go now, Gilligan's Island just came on.

--Joe

[Scott McCumber]

I really appreciate the conversation below. It really stirs the intellect. Sure wish I understood it. Well, got to go now, Gilligan's Island just came on.

--Joe

Joe, I'm with you. Maybe we can get The Professor to explain it to us. Do you think Stephen is as smart as The Professor?

Nah! The guy made a radio out of coconuts, for heaven's sake!

S

[Mark Kisla]

Joe,
If only you said the selfers prayer, then you would understand. Shame on you

[jesusfreak]

I really appreciate the conversation below. It really stirs the intellect. Sure wish I understood it. Well, got to go now, Gilligan's Island just came on.

--Joe

Joe, I'm with you. Maybe we can get The Professor to explain it to us. Do you think Stephen is as smart as The Professor?

Nah! The guy made a radio out of coconuts, for heaven's sake!

S

Hehe, Steve sent me an email involving a number theory concept to detail a mathematical theorization I mentioned on another board a little while ago.  Man, that was a bear and a half to wrap my head around (he was viewing the problem in such a different way than I had been).  My vote would most definitely be for him

--
lucas

[sfortescue]

I really appreciate the conversation below. It really stirs the intellect. Sure wish I understood it. Well, got to go now, Gilligan's Island just came on.

--Joe

I liked the one where Gilligan heard one person's argument and said, "you're right!", then heard the opponent's argument and said, "you're right!", at which point the skipper said, "they can't be both right!", and Gilligan said, "you're right too, my friend!".

I once had a physicist tell me that virtual particles move backward in time.  But a few weeks later he told me he had been mistaken.

My physicist friend had earned his Ph.d. in physics in the 1960's, but had been teaching computer science from the early 80's on.  Maybe he wasn't up to date.

Another physicist I know told me that in large numbers quantum objects follow the laws of statistical probability, and therefore behave virtually deterministically.  The example she gave was a podium.

Did you continue with your education post-assembly?

After thinking about it, perhaps your friend's first comment was about the small scale jagged path behavior of a particle.  Besides wandering a little from the straight line path along the way, it also varies on the small scale from its large scale constant velocity, and can even travel backwards in time or exceed the speed of light for fleeting moments along the way, as well as swap roles with another particle that continues in its place.  The small scale behavior of a particle is pretty much anything goes.

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

There is a mathematical principle of information theory that says that optimally compressed information is indistinguishable from random numbers, so something that appears random may actually be meaningful.  It takes quite a lot of amplification for the behavior of a particle to produce macro scale changes.  The butterfly effect is the idea that the weather after a long enough period of time will be changed in a major way because of a butterfly flapping it's wings.  This is because weather is an unstable chaotic system and amplifies small changes.

My post-assembly education has mostly consisted of reading.

 . . . . Intermediate particles in interactions that are not actually observed are called virtual.  Since observation changes the outcome of an experiment, the particles that are not observed are considered unobservable.  An attempt to observe them would change things so that you would not see what the unobserved particles were doing. . . .

Why? Because the process/mechanics of observing exerts some sort of pressure that causes change? Or because they don't like being watched?

What do you mean by "observe"? How is that achieved?

Isaiah 45:15
Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.

The particles are very small, and the more you try to learn about them the more they are changed by it.  In order to be detected, a particle needs to interact with another particle which will change its trajectory and other properties as well.  One simple example of electrons being observed is when they hit the phosphors of a computer display screen and produce light.  Of course that changes their trajectory a lot.

[sfortescue]

The quantum theory seems to imply that there is an aspect of causality that operates backwards in time.  One possible explanation of such behavior of subatomic particles is to suppose that they have some form of intelligence in deciding what they will do in order to accomplish a given goal.  This possibility seems to complicate the question of what we mean by an inanimate object.

In my opinion, modern quantum physics places too much emphasis upon intrinsic properties, with little consideration of those extrinsic.

Similarly we tend to "abstract away" differences in orientation as well as differences in velocity (both translational and angular).  Anyway, I think this passed over data needs to be addressed before moving on to the intellegence of particles, but just my opinion  

Quantum physics has caused so much consternation among physicists over the years that there has been an enormous amount of effort expended on trying to make it seem sensible.  No way around quantum weirdness has been found, and it has even been mathematically proven that there is no deterministic hidden variable explanation for behavior that obeys the quantum equations.  The closest that has been constructed is an unrealistic explanation that involves instantaneous action at a distance.  Experiments have demonstrated that there is no limit to how far away such instantaneous causation can operate.

The classic example is electron diffraction as it passes through a pair of slits on the way to a display screen.  Of course, each electron only passes through one of the two slits, but the diffraction and interference effects produce a pattern of light and dark stripes on the display screen from the stream of electrons.  The dark stripes are places the electrons tend not to go.  If you block one of the two slits and prevent electrons from going that way, the dark stripes go away, and the electrons produce uniform illumination of the screen.  So each electron goes through one of the two slits and decides where it will avoid landing on the screen based on the fact that there are two ways it could have choosen to get there.  With one slit blocked, it isn't so prejudiced and lands anywhere.

... (Inaccurate statement about interferometer retracted) ...

It is foundational to science that experiments are repeatable.  Without repeatability, what can possibly be meant by the idea of trying to explain things.  Quantum theory very carefully and explicitly accounts for the various forms of repeatablity by using the mathematical theory of symmetry groups.  The forms of repeatability include space and time translation, rotation, relativistic motion, space and time reversal, certain changes of particle types and properties, and swapping between various identical particals in the system.  Many experiments are done to identify which symmetries exist.

[al Hartman]

...You'll have to be patient with me, according to the Illinois Community Unit School District 301, I'm just your garden variety gifted - not Doogie Howser genius like the rest of you!

Scott,

     I, too, was labeled garden variety gifted, but within the context of the garden I'm probably considered just a weed.

     Actually, I've understood every word that's been posted on this thread.  It's when they string them all together the way they do that I feel like an utter cretin.

     Hey, how 'bout them Patriots?!!

al

[Oscar]

Brent,

You wrote,

"Do you understand the difference?  You aren't saved because you believed in Christ.  You believe because you are saved. "

Actually this is an idea that comes from a Catholic theologian.  The "Reformed" churches frequently teach this, which is why I frequently refer to them as semi-reformed.

The origin of this teaching, as far as I have read, comes from  Augustine of Hippo's "Enchiridion".  It is his interpretation of a phrase from I Corinthians 7:25.

The problem is that the Bible contains passages like, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" Romans 4:3.  "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..."  Acts 16:31.  The order here is clear.

You have also said that faith is a work.   In the sense that faith is, at least, a mental action I suppose you could say that.  But the teaching that Paul enveighs against in Galatians is that a man must perform the works of the law to be saved or to please God.

"This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing with faith."  Gal 3:2  Faith is contrasted with works here.

If we believe because we are saved, we would have to claim that Jesus did not understand the gospel!

"...Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, repent and believe in the gospel."  Mark 1:14-15.  Notice, his hearers are commanded to do two things: 1. repent  2. believe.

We are saved by grace, through faith.  The grace comes from God.  The faith is our response.  We walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham.  Romans 4: 12-16.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Scott McCumber]

Brent,

You wrote,

"Do you understand the difference?  You aren't saved because you believed in Christ.  You believe because you are saved. "

Actually this is an idea that comes from a Catholic theologian.  The "Reformed" churches frequently teach this, which is why I frequently refer to them as semi-reformed.

The origin of this teaching, as far as I have read, comes from  Augustine of Hippo's "Enchiridion".  It is his interpretation of a phrase from I Corinthians 7:25.

The problem is that the Bible contains passages like, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" Romans 4:3.  "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..."  Acts 16:31.  The order here is clear.

You have also said that faith is a work.   In the sense that faith is, at least, a mental action I suppose you could say that.  But the teaching that Paul enveighs against in Galatians is that a man must perform the works of the law to be saved or to please God.

"This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing with faith."  Gal 3:2  Faith is contrasted with works here.

If we believe because we are saved, we would have to claim that Jesus did not understand the gospel!

"...Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, repent and believe in the gospel."  Mark 1:14-15.  Notice, his hearers are commanded to do two things: 1. repent  2. believe.

We are saved by grace, through faith.  The grace comes from God.  The faith is our response.  We walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham.  Romans 4: 12-16.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom

So you're saying that we here in this discussion are making the act of faith out to be "works" when it is not, muddying the issue?

S

[editor]

Brent,

You wrote,

"Do you understand the difference?  You aren't saved because you believed in Christ.  You believe because you are saved. "

Actually this is an idea that comes from a Catholic theologian.  The "Reformed" churches frequently teach this, which is why I frequently refer to them as semi-reformed.

The origin of this teaching, as far as I have read, comes from  Augustine of Hippo's "Enchiridion".  It is his interpretation of a phrase from I Corinthians 7:25.

The problem is that the Bible contains passages like, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" Romans 4:3.  "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..."  Acts 16:31.  The order here is clear.

You have also said that faith is a work.   In the sense that faith is, at least, a mental action I suppose you could say that.  But the teaching that Paul enveighs against in Galatians is that a man must perform the works of the law to be saved or to please God.

"This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing with faith."  Gal 3:2  Faith is contrasted with works here.

If we believe because we are saved, we would have to claim that Jesus did not understand the gospel!

"...Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, repent and believe in the gospel."  Mark 1:14-15.  Notice, his hearers are commanded to do two things: 1. repent  2. believe.

We are saved by grace, through faith.  The grace comes from God.  The faith is our response.  We walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham.  Romans 4: 12-16.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Hi Tom,

I don't think I said faith was a work, but if I did, it was a mistake, or at least an unclear statement.  I am in total agreement that Paul CONTRASTS faith with works.

As for Acts 16:31, this is one of a few passages that show "order."  Believe, then get saved.   Of course the next step to this order is that the whole family is now saved.

Is this also part of the order?  If I believe, then I get saved, then my family is automatically saved?  

My point is that this verse comes from this:

25  But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.  26  Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were loosed.  27  And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself.  28  But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here."  29  Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas.  30  And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"  31  So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."  32  Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.  33  And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.  34  Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

The jailer had been listening to the singing and prayers of Paul and Silas.  When the earthquake occured, he linked the prayers and hymns to God's power and deliverance, and was saved before vs. 31.  Verse 31 was more of an instruction to a new believer, than a crossroad experience for the Jailer.  Remember, he came and fell down before Paul and Silas, and expressed belief before they told him what he had to do.  

The Holy Spirit had already done something in the man's heart, and his belief and subsequent actions made it abundantly clear that he was indeed a new creation in Christ.

As for Abraham, wasn't he already righeous before he "believed God," in the passage you quote above?  I don't see how that verse can be looked at as Abraham's salvation experience.

What about Paul?  He was knocked off the donkey, saw a really bright light, and came face to face with Christ's majesty.  This didn't happen after he prayed to receive Christ, but before.

Now, I do need you to answer a question for me.  The verb tense of "believe" in Acts 16:31 is Aorist.  I really don't know what, if any impact that has on the passage, as I don't fully understand the subtleties of the Aorist tense.  My understanding is that it could be translated in the past tense, which means that the jailer already believed.  (I don't know if I understand the verb tense, so please educate me)

If what I say immediately above is true, then this passage cannot be used as an "order" to salvation.  Of course, if I don't know what I am talking about, I would appreciate being set straight!  

Brent

On Edit, what do we do with the many passages that suggest a different order?  There are plenty that say we don't believe unless God has revealed to us, or that only those that are drawn by the Spirit believe, etc.  Not to mention, this point of Acts 16 is not to instruct about the order of events leading to salvation, but to testify of the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of the Phillipian Jailer.

Here are some verses that are more in context about the order of "events" leading to salvation:

Jhn 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Phl 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; ….

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

[Oscar]

Brent,

Look for my reply over on "Salvation is a Gift...now what?"

Tom

[al Hartman]

     Cruden says of obedience:  
     "In the Bible the word is used most often in the sense of subjection to the will of God, and to His commands.  It is used in speaking of Jesus, who always did the will of God.
     "It is also used of hearts and inanimate things, which are subject to God's controlling power."

     If God had raised up children to Abraham from the rocks, the rocks themselves would have had no conscious nor active part in it.  They are rocks, and will be or do whatever God commands them because they have neither mind nor will.

To strain out a gnat, it seems like limiting God to say that the rocks would have no conscious nor active part if God chose to make of them children to Abraham.  In the beginning God likewise made Adam of the dust of the ground, and he wasn't lacking consciousness nor free will.

The quantum theory seems to imply that there is an aspect of causality that operates backwards in time.  One possible explanation of such behavior of subatomic particles is to suppose that they have some form of intelligence in deciding what they will do in order to accomplish a given goal.  This possibility seems to complicate the question of what we mean by an inanimate object.

If you wonder how something so small could behave in such a complex way, atoms are quite huge compared with the Planck scale.  The Planck scale is a small enough size that the magnitude of all of the kinds of forces in physics come together, and may be the size of the "threads" that the universe is woven out of.  The solar system is comparably huge compared with the size of an atom, and there are a lot of complex things contained within that range of sizes, so imagining that a subatomic particle could be intelligent is not out of the realm of possibility.

The following, from A Word A Day, by Anu Garg, seems applicable to the discussion quoted above:

resistentialism (ri-zis-TEN-shul-iz-um) noun

   The theory that inanimate objects demonstrate hostile behavior against us.

[Coined by humorist Paul Jennings as a blend of the Latin res (thing) + French resister (to resist) + existentialism (a kind of philosophy).]

If you ever get a feeling that the photocopy machine can sense when you're tense, short of time, need a document copied before an important meeting, and right then it decides to take a break, you're not alone. Now you know the word for it. Here's a report of scientific experiments confirming the validity of this theory:

     http://www.uefap.co.uk/writing/exercise/report/clatri.htm

As if to prove the point, my normally robust DSL Internet connection went bust for two hours just as I was writing this. I'm not making this up.
--Anu Garg

  "Resistentialism has long been used in our family to explain the
   inexplicable: Why light switches, fixed in place in daylight hours,
   elude groping hands in darkness. Why shoestrings break when
   we are in a hurry...  The explanation for these and many more
   daily occurrences is that there is no such thing as an inanimate
   object.  Seemingly inanimate objects actually resist those they
   are intended to serve."
   --Myron A. Marty; Hostile Inanimate Objects Have Their Murphy's
   Law; St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri); Sep 15, 1996.

  "Reports of resistentialism abound in ephemeral literature as well.
   The Peter Tamony Collection at the University of Missouri,
   Columbia, contains dozens of newspaper clippings documenting
   the phenomenon ...
   Among Tamony's clippings is a story about a lady in London
   whose telephone rang every time she tried to take a bath. No
   matter what time she drew the bath, day or night, the phone
   always rang -- and when she'd answer it, nobody was there.
   Things eventually got so bad that she stopped bathing
   altogether, which prompted her husband to investigate the
   problem pronto... In the great scheme of things (think
   about that one!), Jennings tells us, we are no-Thing, and Things
   always win."
   --Charles Harrington Elster; Resistentialism: Things Are Against
   Us (Including Our Own Words); New York Times Magazine; Sep
   21, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Happy April first, everyone!          

al

[Joe Sperling]

Thanks Al. Nobody would believe me when I told them I bought an angry bag of potatoes just the other night. This is proof.  thanks once again.

--Joe