Non-Local Reality

The issues of science and God are of great interest to me.  I don’t find them incompatible, unless individuals utilize either one to coerce, or, to dodge personal responsibility.  With that in mind, here’s a link to an article written by Dr . Lee E. Warren, B.A., D.D. entitled “The Power Latent in Man - HAS SCIENCE FOUND GOD IN NON-LOCAL REALITY?" The article looks at quantum mechanics, the Bell Theorem and the EPR paradox and states its intent as,

"This article will compare the invisible, non-local order of our reality identified by quantum mechanics (specifically proven by the Bell Theorem) and Spirit that is invisible, omnipresent, and all in all. We are most familiar with a reality consisting of local events within space and time and one that exists and operates in a chronological framework. Quantum mechanics proves that there is a non-local part of our existence just as real as thoughts, feelings, and ideas that cannot be measured on an instrument. The invisible DNA instructions that directs our cells prove the unseen presence of the Creator in which we live, move, and have our being (Acts 17:22-28)."

Interesting read with many references for further reading.

Via J. Orlin Grabbe.

Posted by on 12/22 at 05:57 AM

  1. John Venlet: The issues of science and God are of great interest to me.

    If “God” exists then: “science” is subordinate to “God”. Wouldn’t you agree?

    John Venlet: I don’t find them incompatible, unless individuals utilize either one to coerce, or, to dodge personal responsibility.

    When you teach your children that “2 + 2 = 4” do you consider that a form of “coercion”?

    John Venlet: With that in mind, here’s a link to an article written by Dr . Lee E. Warren, B.A., D.D. entitled “The Power Latent in Man - HAS SCIENCE FOUND GOD IN NON-LOCAL REALITY?” The article looks at quantum mechanics, the Bell Theorem and the EPR paradox and states its intent as …

    So would you like to chat about this subject?

    I am still interested as to why you are reluctant to label yourself as a “Deist” or “Agnostic”?

    Do you still go to church on Sunday’s Mr. Venlet?

    Posted by The Serpent  on  12/22  at  07:28 AM

  2. Serpent (previously): When I am using the term “tool” here, I am simply implying that YOU did not create yourself.

    And if You were created by some other force (or entity) – and it appears you were—then isn’t it true that the force/entity which made you also preordained your Destiny (your purpose, your function, your abilities) to a far larger degree then what you can lay claim?

    John Venlet (responded): Though I do agree that some other entity created me, I do not agree that my destiny, or anyone elses, is preordained.

    But isn’t the Destiny of every computer algorithm preordained by its programmer (its maker)?

    John Venlet: Every individual is allowed free choice as to their purpose and function.

    So you are saying that a “Dog” chose to be a “Dog”, a “Cat” chose to be a “Cat”, and You chose to be a “Human”?

    Without disagreeing with your assertion Mr. Venlet (and assuming I am comprehending you correctly), why doesn’t everyone (including “Dogs” and “Cats”) choose to be “Human”? Isn’t it far better to be a “Human” than a “Bacteria”, or an “Amoeba”, or an “Intestinal Parasite”?

    Why wouldn’t everyone (every “Soul”) choose to be Emperor, or King?

    John Venlet: As to the depth of individual ability, I do not have an answer.

    Here’s part of the problem I have with this: if you don’t get to choose your family, when (what era), and where you are born, then what makes you assume you got to “choose” any of it? Maybe it’s just a situation you find yourself in, and now you have to deal with it as best you can?

    Posted by The Serpent  on  12/22  at  10:03 AM

  3. Serpent: If “God” exists then: “science” is subordinate to “God”. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Yes, but with the understanding, for myself at least, that “science” is a part of “God.”

    Serpent: When you teach your children that “2 + 2 = 4” do you consider that a form of “coercion”?

    How can I consider that a form of coercion?  I am only teaching them mathematics, or, as Socrates would say, I am helping them remember.

    Serpent: I am still interested as to why you are reluctant to label yourself as a “Deist” or “Agnostic”?

    I cannot label myself an Agnostic because I have faith, or am committed, that God/Creator/The One, exists.  I will not label myself a Deist because I hold that faith, as we are speaking of it here, is an individual act.  I am holding my own umbrella.

    Serpent: Do you still go to church on Sunday’s Mr. Venlet?

    Occasionally.

    Posted by  on  12/22  at  10:22 AM

  4. Serpent: “But isn’t the Destiny of every computer algorithm preordained by its programmer (its maker)?”

    Based on my limited knowledge of computer algorithm, I would have to, assumably, agree that its destiny is ordained by its programmer.  But I am not a computer algorithm.  Also, bearing in mind my limited knowledge in this field, are not programmers designing computer algorithms whose outcomes are not preordained?  I don’t know.

    Serpent: “So you are saying that a “Dog” chose to be a “Dog”, a “Cat” chose to be a “Cat”, and You chose to be a “Human”?”

    “Without disagreeing with your assertion Mr. Venlet (and assuming I am comprehending you correctly), why doesn’t everyone (including “Dogs” and “Cats”) choose to be “Human”? Isn’t it far better to be a “Human” than a “Bacteria”, or an “Amoeba”, or an “Intestinal Parasite”?”

    “Why wouldn’t everyone (every “Soul”) choose to be Emperor, or King?”

    The only reason I can give you, but you must decide for yourself, why everyone doesn’t choose to be a human is that life would be rather bland without all the other incarnations you mention above.

    Serpent: “Here’s part of the problem I have with this: if you don’t get to choose your family, when (what era), and where you are born, then what makes you assume you got to “choose” any of it? Maybe it’s just a situation you find yourself in, and now you have to deal with it as best you can?”

    I am once again only speaking for myself in this reply.  I have chosen every situation in my life so far.  Some choices have been wise, others, not so wise.

    Posted by  on  12/22  at  11:02 AM

  5. John Venlet: [“Science” subordinate to “God”?] Yes, but with the understanding, for myself at least, that “science” is a part of “God”.

    I’d agree.

    I would say that The Laws of Physics (Tlop) is (are) simply a manifestation of “God”? Would you agree (at least in principle) to that statement? (is it also consistent with your worldview?)

    John Venlet (prev): I don’t find them [Science & God] incompatible, unless individuals utilize either one to coerce, or, to dodge personal responsibility.

    Serpent (prev): When you teach your children that “2 + 2 = 4” do you consider that a form of “coercion”?

    John Venlet (prev): How can I consider that a form of coercion?  I am only teaching them mathematics, or, as Socrates would say, I am helping them remember.

    An interesting “choice” of words (helping them to remember).

    So when exactly is the “teaching of science”—or more precisely – when is the “teaching of Logic” a form of “coercion”, and when is it simply “helping someone to remember”?

    How can I (or someone else) identify the difference between the two?

    Also is it possible that teaching someone “2 + 2 = 4” is not helping them to remember something at all? Is it possible that the individual never really comprehended that 2 + 2 = 4 and that you are showing them this fact (helping them to perceive it) for the very first time in their existence?

    Perhaps an individual is required to attain a certain level of evolution before they are capable of comprehending mathematics? Perhaps it requires a certain amount of background information, like building blocks, one stacked on top of the next?

    [to be continued …]

    Posted by The Serpent  on  12/22  at  12:00 PM

  6. [continued ...]

    John Venlet: I cannot label myself an Agnostic because I have faith, or am committed, that God/Creator/The One, exists.  I will not label myself a Deist because I hold that faith, as we are speaking of it here, is an individual act.  I am holding my own umbrella.

    I didn’t think there was any Faith required in Deism? I thought that a Deist believed in the existence of “God” based solely on reason and logic alone – no “faith” required?

    I thought that a Deist was analogous to an A-Atheist (an anti-atheist); meaning that an Atheist denies the existence of “God” based on what he perceives as Logic and Reason, whereas a Deist asserts the existence of “God” based on what he perceives Logic and Reason.

    Whereas when an Individual believes something on “faith” alone they are acknowledging that they cannot prove it (articulate it) logically (or with reason), but it is simply an idea that they believe because they perceive it as beneficial (if it were true). In other words, when someone believes something solely on Faith they are proclaiming that they “Hope” (wish/desire) the thing be true.

    John Venlet: Occasionally.

    I think you have an old Soul Mr. Venlet; and a Good one at that.

    Posted by The Serpent  on  12/22  at  12:01 PM

  7. Serpent: But isn’t the Destiny of every computer algorithm preordained by its programmer (its maker)?

    John Venlet: Based on my limited knowledge of computer algorithms, I would have to, assumably, agree that its destiny is ordained by its programmer.  But I am not a computer algorithm.

    When I say that You and I are Algorithms I am refering to the fact that our decisions – our “choices” – like those of a computer program, are determined by our prior state(s).

    When you perceive a red traffic light as you approach it (input), your mind works like a computer. From its past experience (database/memory) you extrapolate (processing, cognition) the conseqeunces of running the light as opposed to stopping and determine the most beneficial course of action (output).

    But in a way you have a one track mind – don’t you? Once your consciousness creates the array of perceived options (possible courses of action) You always end up selecting the option of maximum perceived benefit – correct? Is there ever an instance where you don’t pick the best possible option available to you?

    Not that you always make perfect choices, keep in mind. But based on the limited information you do have, you always pick what you believe is best … right? Its just that sometimes you don’t have all of the facts (information required) at your disposal, and so in many cases you choose an option that seemed the best, only to dicover later that their was a more beneficial option you overlooked.

    But isn’t the reason that hindsight is 20-20 because in hindsight you have the benefit of extra infoirmation available to you that you did not possess at the time you made the orginal decision?

    Do you see what I am getting at? Suppose you had All of the relevant information every time, prior to making the choice? You’d always make perfect decisions under those circumstances – wouldn’t you?

    Posted by The Serpent  on  12/22  at  12:35 PM

  8. John Venlet: Also, bearing in mind my limited knowledge in this field, are not programmers designing computer algorithms whose outcomes are not preordained?  I don’t know.

    Okay, a simple program would be easy to trace (the logic), so the programmer could easily tell you what the program would do (what output it will generate) for any specified input prior to running the program. In other words, relative to the program the programmer is Omniscient. He can always accurately anticipate what the program will do.

    But lets suppose that the program is “very complex”, which I believe is the case you are refering to.

    The thing is that in computer programming “complex” is a relative term. Regardless of the overall perceived complexity of a particluar program ultimately that algorithm can be reduced to the very simple and non-complex statements that comprise it. Those statements are the fundamental building blocks of the program (algorithm), and individually none of them are really any more complex than 2 + 2 = 4.

    You see, this is where I start to have trouble with the concept of “free will”, because it would seem that “free will” is the denial that reality (conscious decision making) is a step by step logical process like this. But if “free will” is the denial of a step by step logical process, then what exactly is “free will” suppose to mean? I can only assume it must be supernatural (magical or mystical). And no one who asserts the existence of “free will” seems to be able to articulate what they mean by it, or explain how it could not have a supernatural (unexplainable) basis.

    Posted by The Serpent  on  12/22  at  12:35 PM

  9. Sorry for making so many seperate posts, but your forum seems to have a relatively low word-count-limit. I had to break one post up into several. 

    Posted by The Serpent  on  12/22  at  12:37 PM

  10. Serpent: “So when exactly is the “teaching of science”—or more precisely – when is the “teaching of Logic” a form of “coercion”, and when is it simply “helping someone to remember”?”

    “How can I (or someone else) identify the difference between the two?”

    The answer to this is simple.  If you force any individual to accept what you teach, or propound, it is coercion.  You can only present, you cannot decide for them.

    Serpent: “Also is it possible that teaching someone “2 + 2 = 4” is not helping them to remember something at all? Is it possible that the individual never really comprehended that 2 + 2 = 4 and that you are showing them this fact (helping them to perceive it) for the very first time in their existence?”

    “Perhaps an individual is required to attain a certain level of evolution before they are capable of comprehending mathematics? Perhaps it requires a certain amount of background information, like building blocks, one stacked on top of the next?”

    Perhaps you are correct.

    Serpent: “Is there ever an instance where you don’t pick the best possible option available to you?”

    “Not that you always make perfect choices, keep in mind. But based on the limited information you do have, you always pick what you believe is best … right? Its just that sometimes you don’t have all of the facts (information required) at your disposal, and so in many cases you choose an option that seemed the best, only to dicover later that their was a more beneficial option you overlooked.”

    “But isn’t the reason that hindsight is 20-20 because in hindsight you have the benefit of extra infoirmation available to you that you did not possess at the time you made the orginal decision?”

    “Do you see what I am getting at? Suppose you had All of the relevant information every time, prior to making the choice? You’d always make perfect decisions under those circumstances – wouldn’t you?”

    Though choices I make may lead to less than beneficial results, from time to time, each choice I make provides me with the experience I need at that time.  So in essence, each choice I make IS a perfect decision.

    I’ll consider your free will issue later.

    Posted by  on  12/22  at  01:57 PM

  11. John Venlet: If you force any individual to accept what you teach, or propound, it is coercion.

    What percentage of parents force their children to accept that 2 + 2 =4 and what percentage of parents allow their children to choose that 2 + 2 = 4 for themselves?

    Do you force your children to accept English as their primary language, or do you give them a choice to accept it?

    How about toilet training? Do you force your children to use the toilet, or do you give them the option of relieving themselves in their pants (indefinitely)?

    John Venlet: Though choices I make may lead to less than beneficial results, from time to time, each choice I make provides me with the experience I need at that time.  So in essence, each choice I make IS a perfect decision.

    I agree, in fact I would say your statement here makes you sound a lot like a fatalist.

    Imagine if you were sent back in time to relive some portion of your life. I contend it would make a big difference if you carried your current memories (information) with you or not.

    If you didn’t have your current memories I see no reson why you would not relive that portion of your life making the EXACT SAME decisions you made the first go around.

    Ever seen the movie “Groundhog Day” with Bill Murray? Bill Murray retains his memories of the previous cycles. The other consciousnesses do not. 

    Posted by The Serpent  on  12/22  at  02:26 PM

  12. Serpent: “Do you force your children to accept English as their primary language, or do you give them a choice to accept it?”

    “How about toilet training? Do you force your children to use the toilet, or do you give them the option of relieving themselves in their pants (indefinitely)?”

    I don’t think your two examples above are indicative of coercion or free choice.  I speak English in my household, my children, in their desire to communicate with me, also speak English.  A language they learned by imitating my speech.  As for the potty training, I encouraged my children to use the toilet, I did not punish them if they did not, and, lo and behold, there came a point in their lives when they tired of walking around with either a wet bottom or a full load.

    Serpent: “I agree, in fact I would say your statement here makes you sound a lot like a fatalist.”

    Why do you have such a great need to label me, or any individual for that matter?

    Serpent: “Imagine if you were sent back in time to relive some portion of your life. I contend it would make a big difference if you carried your current memories (information) with you or not.”

    Imagine that you possess all the memories now.

    Posted by  on  12/22  at  04:51 PM

  13. John Venlet: I don’t think your two examples above are indicative of coercion or free choice.  I speak English in my household, my children, in their desire to communicate with me, also speak English.  A language they learned by imitating my speech.

    So I still don’t understand your orginal point about the difference between “coercion” and “choice”.

    Are you saying that You “choose” to speak English? What were your other options?

    Do you “choose” to stop at red lights, or is that “coercion”?

    John Venlet: As for the potty training, I encouraged my children to use the toilet, I did not punish them if they did not, and, lo and behold, there came a point in their lives when they tired of walking around with either a wet bottom or a full load.

    What percentage of children do you suppose aren’t “choosing” to be tired of walking around with a “full load”? Isn’t this kind of like claiming that your children “choose” not to touch hot stove burners over and over?

    John Venlet: Why do you have such a great need to label me, or any individual for that matter?

    Every word we have exchanged in this conversation is a “Label”. I don’t think we would be able to communicate without them.

    John Venlet: Imagine that you possess all the memories now.

    Kind of like imagining I can perform Heart Surgery? Or play the piano?

    Posted by The Serpent  on  12/23  at  08:49 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Taxation - Legalized Theft

Previous entry: "Deliberation Day?"

<< Back to main